Judging the Game
- Thread starter Archon
- Start date
I'm sorry, but what? Storytelling isn't important? You shouldn't worry if the players aren't having fun? What a load of bollocks. If you're not having fun playing a game ... why are you playing? What do you accomplish? It's not a job. You're not getting paid for it. It's a game.
A game is defined in two general ways:
o a contest with rules to determine a winner;
o an amusement or pastime;
I think treating a roleplaying game as a contest is entirely the wrong mindset to perpetuate, as the players shouldn't have to feel like they have to compete with one another to succeed, that just creates fights, bickering, and general bad feeling. If they have to feel they're competing with super GM NPCs with super bullshit-o armour on everything but their ass or similar folly, it just ends up with them finding a new GM.
Perhaps its just something in the old school gamer in me, the gamer that digested the 2.0 rules in all their hideous glory with THAC0 and White Wolf's pretentious little offerings which did something so brash as painting a setting, no an environment with atmosphere and such things. I think if you're saying that storytelling isn't important then you either have three circumstances happening:
A: You don't want to take responsibility for the fact that your players aren't having fun - which, granted, can be as much their fault as yours but they're not the ones narrating this story;
B: You're playing with people who probably would do better off playing World of Warcraft and eating a nice grind sandwich; and/or
C: You've honestly misunderstood the kind of player to which roleplaying games appeal. Here's a hint: we like stories, and character development, and feeling we're a part of that story.
I will agree with one thing though - getting your knickers in a twist over it is a bad idea. If it's not working out and it gets stressful, then take a break from the session and come back later. Your characters and NPCs aren't going to disappear in the meantime.
A game is defined in two general ways:
o a contest with rules to determine a winner;
o an amusement or pastime;
I think treating a roleplaying game as a contest is entirely the wrong mindset to perpetuate, as the players shouldn't have to feel like they have to compete with one another to succeed, that just creates fights, bickering, and general bad feeling. If they have to feel they're competing with super GM NPCs with super bullshit-o armour on everything but their ass or similar folly, it just ends up with them finding a new GM.
Perhaps its just something in the old school gamer in me, the gamer that digested the 2.0 rules in all their hideous glory with THAC0 and White Wolf's pretentious little offerings which did something so brash as painting a setting, no an environment with atmosphere and such things. I think if you're saying that storytelling isn't important then you either have three circumstances happening:
A: You don't want to take responsibility for the fact that your players aren't having fun - which, granted, can be as much their fault as yours but they're not the ones narrating this story;
B: You're playing with people who probably would do better off playing World of Warcraft and eating a nice grind sandwich; and/or
C: You've honestly misunderstood the kind of player to which roleplaying games appeal. Here's a hint: we like stories, and character development, and feeling we're a part of that story.
I will agree with one thing though - getting your knickers in a twist over it is a bad idea. If it's not working out and it gets stressful, then take a break from the session and come back later. Your characters and NPCs aren't going to disappear in the meantime.
By and large you're right. The mantra of my games tends to be "No plan survives contacts with PCs." so what I like to do is present them with a situation (We need paperwork from the Church Library, but it's crawling with guards), and let them explore the options for resolving the situation. I sometimes have little back up plans in case the PCs have a collective brain fart.
As a result I tend to operate a game knowing where it'll start, and where I'll want it to end along with some of the stuff I want to happen along the way. However it's all subject to the PCs actions. One PC willingly gives his blood to a scheming demon for info? I suddenly have a sub-plot that is going to run throughout the rest of the game. Another PC is a hothead who keeps on nearly getting himself killed? I get to add a sub-plot where he finds a master who teaches him some prudence and new combat abilities. It is these things, which happen organically, that really grab Players' imaginations.
In that regard you're wrong, storytelling is very important, but it has to be storytelling that changes organically. That is very difficult to achieve.
As a result I tend to operate a game knowing where it'll start, and where I'll want it to end along with some of the stuff I want to happen along the way. However it's all subject to the PCs actions. One PC willingly gives his blood to a scheming demon for info? I suddenly have a sub-plot that is going to run throughout the rest of the game. Another PC is a hothead who keeps on nearly getting himself killed? I get to add a sub-plot where he finds a master who teaches him some prudence and new combat abilities. It is these things, which happen organically, that really grab Players' imaginations.
In that regard you're wrong, storytelling is very important, but it has to be storytelling that changes organically. That is very difficult to achieve.
Your discussion of agency was more revealing than any article I've read about agency in video games. Much appreciated. I believe agency is the number one factor in video gaming that makes it fun, although in many games that agency doesn't result in persistent consequences but rather immediate reactions. For instance, in Oblivion the video-games agency aspect would relate to the sluggish mouse-feel and how it affects combat, while the role-playing agency aspect has more to do with how you build your character's stats and how that also affects combat.
A lot of tasks a good GM does leads towards the party/players having fun. While it may not be expressly written as a rule or a duty, lack of story, lack of character choice/development, lack of enthusiasm/preparation, lack of action/intrigue/adventure on the GMs part can pretty much insure that people won't have fun and the game won't last more than a few sessions at best.
The GM has to be aware of what I call the meta-level of a player, is the group old vets of multiple RPGs, are there new people joining the group and if they're new, what systems have they played? You can dynamically adjust your GMing style to the make-up of the group and even down to the player level as long as no one becomes the "pet".
The GM has to be aware of what I call the meta-level of a player, is the group old vets of multiple RPGs, are there new people joining the group and if they're new, what systems have they played? You can dynamically adjust your GMing style to the make-up of the group and even down to the player level as long as no one becomes the "pet".
As a "player to which roleplaying games appeal", I disagree wholeheartely with your generalization. I am currently having amazing amounts of fun creating the story with fellow players in a campaign. Yes, there is fun to be had in revealing the story that a GM has laid down, but it's not the only one, and in this player's humble opinion, it's by far not the most fun.Caiti Voltaire said:
Well, a good DM always prepares a good story in advance - a basic outline of what will happen, but he also must be prepared to improvise at every turn. The most fun we had with addies was botched rolls - you have a critical miss on your spot and suddenly the bandit you're after looks a lot like the mayor of the village ,half an hour later when the heroes break down mayor's front door they realise the mayor looks nothing like him, in fact he's not even the same race. Creating a good atmosphere is really important ,don't send the players on a series of meaningless fights like "you see a bunch of goblins, roll inits" invest some time in backstory ,have some NPC tell about about a secret cave filled with horrible demons whose howls instill fear in everybody who hears it - only the horrible demons are actually the weakest kobolds (not that they didn't beat the hell out of those heroes, amazingly), then when the heroes return to the village they pass even greater tell tales to the next batch of heroes in the tavern. In the end its also important to keep a certain amount of realism, DM shouldn't just make super-happy funland for the heroes and he shouldn't send them against a pack of tarrasques on their first level either, its about keeping the danger real but not impossible to handle and if they do screw up they have to face the consequences. Most players hate to see their character die but most players also prefer to have them die a glorious death than have them live a boring life.
((I Read this article out to my boyfriend (whom I'm still trying to convince into creating an account here, and who happens to be the most competent GM i know, for the time being, that's what he says on the matter))
While the article displays quite impressive insight into the p&p business, I really don't like the rollercoaster analogy; While the artifact may or may not be on top of the lone mountain, there is no reason why a good gm shouldn't have two options available, depending on the players choice. The more you avoid a linear story (many streets lead to rome), the more you can allow players to actually decide important things, without killing off the story. (In fact in quite some adventures I've lead so far, I didn't know the stories end myself, and just started building up my ideas, based on the players arguing at certain decisisve points)
Also, since you mentioned it in the article - probably the most valuable advice I can give on the subject - DONT. EVER. BALANCE. If every fight is challenging but beatable, exactly balanced to the strength of the party,than fighting will get tediously boring, seing how the outcome will mainly be decided by dice. Within the borders of what the characters can anticipate (If a player fails to ask "does my character know x", its their fault), just don't balance stuff. A peasant with a fork should never be a threat even to a low level character, while a well known swordmaster can, should the players attack him, easily be too strong. Rather than well balanced fights, some npc-slaughtering and some fights that have to be avoided due to enemies too powerful add up to a way more intense athmosphere, even if some characters need to get beaten up on the way (Still reward "cool" stuff though - kill players if they insist on jumping down the pit of doom - let them succeed when they lead 299 badly dressed bodybuilders to stop a persian invasion)
While the article displays quite impressive insight into the p&p business, I really don't like the rollercoaster analogy; While the artifact may or may not be on top of the lone mountain, there is no reason why a good gm shouldn't have two options available, depending on the players choice. The more you avoid a linear story (many streets lead to rome), the more you can allow players to actually decide important things, without killing off the story. (In fact in quite some adventures I've lead so far, I didn't know the stories end myself, and just started building up my ideas, based on the players arguing at certain decisisve points)
Also, since you mentioned it in the article - probably the most valuable advice I can give on the subject - DONT. EVER. BALANCE. If every fight is challenging but beatable, exactly balanced to the strength of the party,than fighting will get tediously boring, seing how the outcome will mainly be decided by dice. Within the borders of what the characters can anticipate (If a player fails to ask "does my character know x", its their fault), just don't balance stuff. A peasant with a fork should never be a threat even to a low level character, while a well known swordmaster can, should the players attack him, easily be too strong. Rather than well balanced fights, some npc-slaughtering and some fights that have to be avoided due to enemies too powerful add up to a way more intense athmosphere, even if some characters need to get beaten up on the way (Still reward "cool" stuff though - kill players if they insist on jumping down the pit of doom - let them succeed when they lead 299 badly dressed bodybuilders to stop a persian invasion)
I did not say it's the only fun to be had, but the article comments that storytelling is the least important thing to a GM and I'm sorry but that just rings false to me. That's not to say it's the most important thing either, but I have noticed an increasing trend these days for players and GM alike to fall into this thing where they seem to be embracing the fandom of the game more than the game itself and that seems a little pretentious to me. It's not about who has a level 92 shadowhumper (apologies to Yahtzee) or some silly thing like that, nor is it about which GM can make their players cry out in agony having perished in an inescapible trap in the deepest reaches of the Shadowdark, as Penny Arcade frequently satarises. It's about having fun telling a story - or being part of that story. There are several facets to that story - character development, character improvement, getting those shiny things and achieving goals - and there are differing schools of thought as to which is most and least important, but the bottom line for me - and not coincidentially the thought I disagree in with the article's rebuttal thereof - is that it should be fun.paulgruberman said:
If it's not fun then really all you're doing is faffing about, as far as I'm concerned. I mean, if you're not having fun, what's the point? I guess I just fail to grasp that.
As an aside, to properly address your post, what is it which you would consider the fun factors then, aside from the story? You say that it is not the only important things and I am not in disagreement there, but it begs the question without properly answering it.
Hey Alex, I thought I'd just throw my hat into the discussion. Now I didn't read your first guide on GMing, but I plan on reading that directly after writing this. I've been playing tabletop games for almost 10 years now, comprising a good portion (a little less than half) of my life. I've been GMing for friends for about half of that time and it took me a really long time to really get the hang of it. It was only last year that I really got in my stride (appropriately enough, it was when I first started playing with people who could play regularly and for more than two hours without getting distracted). I always had that struggle of how to make it so that I have things written for them no matter what direction they choose. Inevitably they'd choose the direction I'd least want them to take and I'd have to improvise a little more than I'd like. I ended up with scattered notes and a lot of half-assed parts because of the sheer amount of choice I wanted to give the player.
Well... players don't always make the best choices. I actually railroad quite a bit. I usually have forks in the road that will give them that choice but they are usually two different means to the same end. I always have the illusion of choice present, but my party seems eager to go down the railroad I've set out because they seem to trust that I'm taking them on the right path.
Now this may seem a little bit controlling, but it is important to note that I have storytelling a higher on that list than adversary. I have a very large story arc plotted out. I have several outcomes to the story arc and I have many many ways of it being completed. But it is a story, and for me to tell that story to these characters through their characters, I have to railroad them a little bit to get them there. I'm not foolish, I have the overall arc, but what happens each session, or what could potentially happen in a session is usually written throughout each week.
I'll give you an example: Currently my party has been marked with the symbol of magical entity they accidentally released at the end of the last campaign. They have been in some kind of stasis for a year and in the meantime their entire country has been overrun with daemons. They really have no idea what the brand means or what happened in that year they'd been in stasis. A few days after waking, they meet a man [of previous political importance] who is traveling to a sage in order to seek guidance about what to do about the daemons. He has promised them that the sage will likely have answers for them about what their marks are and why they have them. the party is currently traveling with that man to that sage. He is leading them on the route he thinks best.
I haven't restricted their freedom at all, not really. I have given them a scenario and the circumstances point to a logical solution to a problem. The party could choose to stop traveling with that man at any point, they can do whatever they want. They've chosen to do the things I wanted them to, I guess because I made them seem like the best decisions.
I'm planning on opening everything up to them in a few sessions. By that I mean there will be a certain point in the story arc where I have certain pivotal decisions that need to be made that will determine their next destination and even what they'll be doing for the rest of the campaign. For now I'm driving them towards that moment, offering a fork here and there. It is as much practice for me in the GM seat as it is exposition for them. But it's fun for everyone playing. They think I'm a great GM, they've told me so on several occasions.
I agree with your last point entirely. Your methods and mine may be totally different. That's why I've spend the last couple of years writing my own system. Implemented that system and have been tweaking it here and there. I also agree that the role of judge is very important. I guess I'm just a sucker for storytelling. Choice is a hard thing to write, and so I guess I try and avoid too much of that aspect. Does that make me a bad GM? Not according to my players. Maybe according to others.
EDIT: My prioritization of the GM's 4 main duties would likely go as follows:
World Builder
Judge
Storyteller
Adversary
Bear in mind that, like you just said, I do not think any of them are unimportant. They are all crucial to me, but I place them in this order of importance.
EDIT2: I now have a desire to read Gygax's book.
Well... players don't always make the best choices. I actually railroad quite a bit. I usually have forks in the road that will give them that choice but they are usually two different means to the same end. I always have the illusion of choice present, but my party seems eager to go down the railroad I've set out because they seem to trust that I'm taking them on the right path.
Now this may seem a little bit controlling, but it is important to note that I have storytelling a higher on that list than adversary. I have a very large story arc plotted out. I have several outcomes to the story arc and I have many many ways of it being completed. But it is a story, and for me to tell that story to these characters through their characters, I have to railroad them a little bit to get them there. I'm not foolish, I have the overall arc, but what happens each session, or what could potentially happen in a session is usually written throughout each week.
I'll give you an example: Currently my party has been marked with the symbol of magical entity they accidentally released at the end of the last campaign. They have been in some kind of stasis for a year and in the meantime their entire country has been overrun with daemons. They really have no idea what the brand means or what happened in that year they'd been in stasis. A few days after waking, they meet a man [of previous political importance] who is traveling to a sage in order to seek guidance about what to do about the daemons. He has promised them that the sage will likely have answers for them about what their marks are and why they have them. the party is currently traveling with that man to that sage. He is leading them on the route he thinks best.
I haven't restricted their freedom at all, not really. I have given them a scenario and the circumstances point to a logical solution to a problem. The party could choose to stop traveling with that man at any point, they can do whatever they want. They've chosen to do the things I wanted them to, I guess because I made them seem like the best decisions.
I'm planning on opening everything up to them in a few sessions. By that I mean there will be a certain point in the story arc where I have certain pivotal decisions that need to be made that will determine their next destination and even what they'll be doing for the rest of the campaign. For now I'm driving them towards that moment, offering a fork here and there. It is as much practice for me in the GM seat as it is exposition for them. But it's fun for everyone playing. They think I'm a great GM, they've told me so on several occasions.
I agree with your last point entirely. Your methods and mine may be totally different. That's why I've spend the last couple of years writing my own system. Implemented that system and have been tweaking it here and there. I also agree that the role of judge is very important. I guess I'm just a sucker for storytelling. Choice is a hard thing to write, and so I guess I try and avoid too much of that aspect. Does that make me a bad GM? Not according to my players. Maybe according to others.
EDIT: My prioritization of the GM's 4 main duties would likely go as follows:
World Builder
Judge
Storyteller
Adversary
Bear in mind that, like you just said, I do not think any of them are unimportant. They are all crucial to me, but I place them in this order of importance.
EDIT2: I now have a desire to read Gygax's book.
Thank you for your comments. Please note that I have listed Storytelling as one of the four basic functions of the GM. So it's not that I think Storytelling is unimportant. It's that I think it's been overemphasized to the detriment of the other functions. That has left a lot of GMs confused into thinking that their job is to be an amateur novelist when their job is to run a game. It's a testament to how ingrained this "GM as Storyteller" notion has become that even saying that other functions of the GM are more important is considered apostasy.MDSnowman said:
I wonder if when current generations read Gary Gygax's 1st Edition DM's Guide, where he spends very little time on story and a considerable amount of time on judging, world-building, and controlling adversaries, whether they also think he doesn't know what he's talking about.
If your players are not having fun, then you really have failed as a DM. I remember games where I got level drained, died, broke my favorite axe and was unable to damage the enemy, but I still had a great time in all of those because my DM made it fun.
As a DM myself, I understand that I shouldn't make a campeign where every roll needs to succeed. It's just plain silly to have to destroy your game world because your players have an unlucky day. This is where storytelling and being able to improvise comes into play. Never underestimate your players ability to roll with the punches as well. While some of them might do exactly what you expect them to do, sometimes they will just do something so incredibly insane that you have to let them do it to see exactly how well it goes.
I remember a game a few years back where our party broke into the enemy city, and then split up into five groups and went for different buildings. It took about eight hours to cover 10 rounds (second edition rounds = one minute each). Most of us made it out of there alive, but it could have gotten pretty ugly. You simply can never tell when your party will do something crazy like that. You gotta be ready for anything. Chances are, the inn they are staying at tonight WILL catch on fire, and you have to be ready to issue consequences for their actions.
Finding that right balance between challenging and unfair is something you will have to work on too. I remember a few games where I went too far and put the players against stuff they couldn't even hurt. It's not really that fun if you gotta run away from random encounters.
Also, remember that even though you are the DM and the players adversary, you still have to roleplay the NPCs like they weren't all powerful. Many players misuse player knowledge as character knowledge. As a DM, this is especially important to keep in mind of. If your players keep running into ambushes set in their path by the big baddy, there better be some pretty good reasons why (spies, scrying, careless PC's) or you are just being a dick and not actually roleplaying your villians.
Oh, I guess I should say it: As a DM, you should be having fun too. It's your story you are weaving, and they are the active participants in it. Always remember that dice rolls are nice, but you should just ignore them entirely if your players have a good idea with solid roleplaying to get past a challenge.
As a DM myself, I understand that I shouldn't make a campeign where every roll needs to succeed. It's just plain silly to have to destroy your game world because your players have an unlucky day. This is where storytelling and being able to improvise comes into play. Never underestimate your players ability to roll with the punches as well. While some of them might do exactly what you expect them to do, sometimes they will just do something so incredibly insane that you have to let them do it to see exactly how well it goes.
I remember a game a few years back where our party broke into the enemy city, and then split up into five groups and went for different buildings. It took about eight hours to cover 10 rounds (second edition rounds = one minute each). Most of us made it out of there alive, but it could have gotten pretty ugly. You simply can never tell when your party will do something crazy like that. You gotta be ready for anything. Chances are, the inn they are staying at tonight WILL catch on fire, and you have to be ready to issue consequences for their actions.
Finding that right balance between challenging and unfair is something you will have to work on too. I remember a few games where I went too far and put the players against stuff they couldn't even hurt. It's not really that fun if you gotta run away from random encounters.
Also, remember that even though you are the DM and the players adversary, you still have to roleplay the NPCs like they weren't all powerful. Many players misuse player knowledge as character knowledge. As a DM, this is especially important to keep in mind of. If your players keep running into ambushes set in their path by the big baddy, there better be some pretty good reasons why (spies, scrying, careless PC's) or you are just being a dick and not actually roleplaying your villians.
Oh, I guess I should say it: As a DM, you should be having fun too. It's your story you are weaving, and they are the active participants in it. Always remember that dice rolls are nice, but you should just ignore them entirely if your players have a good idea with solid roleplaying to get past a challenge.
I think you've misunderstood, story is still important, it's just not as important to having fun as many may think. As an alternative to a preordained plot, the world can be created, the background (culture, events, etc) set, and the players can be set loose as adventurers, not actors. The story is the story of those players as they interact with the world. The GM still adds his own telling to the story through events that happen along the way, but when the party decides to stand and face a dragon, it's because they want to, not because the story won't advance until they defeat it.Caiti Voltaire said:
I feel obliged to thank you for the advice you've been giving in the articles. To me, a relatively young GM, they are invaluable and allow me to see where exactly I am going wrong and what I should change for the better. And it really is as you say. If I try to railroad the characters the fun factor tends to drop down significantly and when they are simply let loose to do what they want, with appropriate consequences of course, the game gets better. Not to say I don't have a story, plot or something planned. Maps, charts, potential NPCs, loot, locations, items, puzzles, riddles, encounters, everything needs to be planned out in advance and whether it gets used is all up to the players. If something I worked hard on gets skipped just because the players decided to go the completely opposite way then I salvage what I can and recycle it for use somewhere else or in another campaign or even because the enemies that were at that certain location weren't killed they did something else and so on.
Anyway, I'm rambling too much. This is just a big thank you from a guy that signed up simply to reply here. (Also spent half an hour finding a name which wasn't taken.)
Anyway, I'm rambling too much. This is just a big thank you from a guy that signed up simply to reply here. (Also spent half an hour finding a name which wasn't taken.)
You have used the logical fallacy that negative in game outcomes result in a lack of fun. It is my job to make sure my players have fun because if they are not having fun there is no point to running my game, if they are not having fun then we could do something else that is fun. That said I do not have to make things easy for them or not give them choice in order to do that.
If something will get in the way of players having fun it should be dropped from the game whether it is story elements, rules or any other aspect of RPing. But people can have fun making mistakes if they are feel like they are part of the experiance.
In a fight I am about to have in my game we have one player that far outstips the others in combat ability and can destroy the main villian very quickly. The main villian can also take him out of the fight instantaneously if she so desires. Neither result ends in fun for any party. Either he one shots the boss in turn one and everyone stands around doing nothing or he is taken out turn one, he sits around doing nothing.
Acording to your philosophy I should kill the player because that is the outcome that will result in the group feeling their actions count. Instead I will pick another course of action that will not end the fight straight away but will result on everyone having fun and being able to play their parts. I may have to fudge a dice roll for this to work but im going to do it anyway becuase I will not have the players enjoyment ruined by me rolling badly.
I'm not sure if im contradicting you in any way because after reading the article twice I still don't really know where you stand. You seem to be saying that GM's are not responsable for their players fun yet they should put systems in place that allow the players to have fun.
If that is the case then I do disagree with that, while you should put systems in place to allow people to have fun you should not stop there. You should be assessing things as they progress and determining how players are reacting to them. If the players are not happy with how the systems are working it is the GM's job to change them to make sure the players are having fun.
Kaihlik
If something will get in the way of players having fun it should be dropped from the game whether it is story elements, rules or any other aspect of RPing. But people can have fun making mistakes if they are feel like they are part of the experiance.
In a fight I am about to have in my game we have one player that far outstips the others in combat ability and can destroy the main villian very quickly. The main villian can also take him out of the fight instantaneously if she so desires. Neither result ends in fun for any party. Either he one shots the boss in turn one and everyone stands around doing nothing or he is taken out turn one, he sits around doing nothing.
Acording to your philosophy I should kill the player because that is the outcome that will result in the group feeling their actions count. Instead I will pick another course of action that will not end the fight straight away but will result on everyone having fun and being able to play their parts. I may have to fudge a dice roll for this to work but im going to do it anyway becuase I will not have the players enjoyment ruined by me rolling badly.
I'm not sure if im contradicting you in any way because after reading the article twice I still don't really know where you stand. You seem to be saying that GM's are not responsable for their players fun yet they should put systems in place that allow the players to have fun.
If that is the case then I do disagree with that, while you should put systems in place to allow people to have fun you should not stop there. You should be assessing things as they progress and determining how players are reacting to them. If the players are not happy with how the systems are working it is the GM's job to change them to make sure the players are having fun.
Kaihlik
I have seen a lot of starting GMs fall into this trap. I did, myself, when I was starting out. Then, I actually grew a brain and saw that getting around a table with friends is about collaboration, not one particular person hogging the spotlight. RPGs played with more than one person, be they around a table, in a big hall with everyone dressed in funny costumes, or channeled through the Intertubes, are more akin to stories told around a campfire, where everybody can participate and there's plenty of light for everyone.Archon said:
You tackled this subject in an extremely thorough and intelligent manner, and I hope that if I should ever be fortunate enough to write an article such as this, I can cover half of this material half as brilliantly as you did. This is fantastic work, Alex. Thank you for sharing it with us.
To put it another way, the GM is the entire behind-the-curtain crew of the production, setting up scenes, presenting potential obstacles for the players to overcome and ensuring there are rewards to be had afterwards. The players bring the personality of their characters, a particular style of play and an ever-growing list of tactics and tricks to the table. What happens between these individuals is the story. That means that no one person at that table is any more or less important than another, and that includes the GM.paulgruberman said:
Let me first say I enjoyed reading this article. It was very insightful and well argued. I do however disagree on many points.
I do believe that it is the job of the GM to make sure people are enjoying themselves. To do this you should use all your ingenuity and guile. Whatever gets the job done should be used. While I agree that you cannot take full responsibility of the enjoyment of your players you have to make sure that they have a good chance of it. Agency is not necessarily this thing and that is where our philosophies diverge greatly. Good GM'ing starts with the player. It does not start with the story, the rules, the characters or the world they inhabit. It starts with the players. Each player plays role-playing games for different reasons (some might be similar but they are never perfectly the same). They enjoy different things and different styles. Some like intense role-playing perhaps with some semi-live (or semi-LARP or whatever you want to call it) and others only show up to roll dice. Some like to be in the spotlight and others like to observe. Some like combat and some don't. The list goes on and on. Because of this the most important part of mastering (GM'ing) is to know your players. This is of course hard with a group of complete strangers, but with some experience you should be able to at least read some of the players.
After you know your players you can then tailor your game after that. You can make sure there is political intrigue or other role-playing intensive situations for the "role-player", combat for the combat-monster and some situations to get to look cool for people who like that. For the observer you can present a compelling narrative. And here we come to it. Not every player has a problem with "railroading". While choice can be fun it is not the end all answer to enjoyment. A compelling story, a cool scene, an insurmountable obstacle and even the very lack of choice can all create the enjoyment and escape that we crave. There does not need to be a choice for the players to feel they have an impact. It is just the easiest way to do it.
Now I would like to go into your four points in the start of the article. I think the idea of prioritising what roles that are most important is wrong. The most important role of the gamemaster changes a lot depending on what group your are with, what story you want to tell, what genre you want to play and not to mention what system. In some situations being the judge might be very important but in others the role of storyteller might take precedent. Personally I think this is especially important to understand for new aspiring masters (ok from now on whenever I say master I mean gamemaster. It is the jargon of my gaming community) especially if they have no one to teach them the craft. Knowing the rules is good but don't despair if you can't remember them all. As long as you know that core of your system you can arbitrate the rest. Getting more comfortable with the rules comes as you play. Don't worry if your "world" is not perfectly fleshed out. With practice you will get better. Storytelling is not as hard as it sounds. Just remember that your players are as much a part of the telling as you are. An important thing to remember is that you are not the enemy of the players, nor of the characters. You may control their enemies but they have motives and reasons of their own. It is not your objective to defeat the players (though it is perfectly ok to gloat from time to time). It is your job (in conjunction with your players) to make sure the group is enjoying itself (including you).
I don't like the adversary part. I am sure you just mean that it is the job of the master to control the antagonists (aka the bad-guys) but adversary smacks of conflict between the players and the master which there should not be. The monsters and npc's the characters defeat should not be the masters minions but rather plot devices to move the story along. The controller would be more fitting in my head if not as poetic.
What I am trying to get at in a somewhat roundabout and incoherent way is that mastering can be impossibly complex. The shear variety options and possibilities are staggering. This is why cutting it down to "this is the right way to master and this is the wrong way." is oversimplifying in the extreme. I am in the lucky situation of being a part of a community where every single one of us have been masters and players at one time or another. I am a part of group where we rotate as masters. The number of different styles and preferences are overwhelming and this doesn't even count the things I have seen at conventions. The point of course is that the most important thing for a new group of players to remember is to do what you enjoy. If there is something you don't enjoy - change it. The Golden Rule reigns supreme.
The Golden Rule: If you don't like it - change it.
I do believe that it is the job of the GM to make sure people are enjoying themselves. To do this you should use all your ingenuity and guile. Whatever gets the job done should be used. While I agree that you cannot take full responsibility of the enjoyment of your players you have to make sure that they have a good chance of it. Agency is not necessarily this thing and that is where our philosophies diverge greatly. Good GM'ing starts with the player. It does not start with the story, the rules, the characters or the world they inhabit. It starts with the players. Each player plays role-playing games for different reasons (some might be similar but they are never perfectly the same). They enjoy different things and different styles. Some like intense role-playing perhaps with some semi-live (or semi-LARP or whatever you want to call it) and others only show up to roll dice. Some like to be in the spotlight and others like to observe. Some like combat and some don't. The list goes on and on. Because of this the most important part of mastering (GM'ing) is to know your players. This is of course hard with a group of complete strangers, but with some experience you should be able to at least read some of the players.
After you know your players you can then tailor your game after that. You can make sure there is political intrigue or other role-playing intensive situations for the "role-player", combat for the combat-monster and some situations to get to look cool for people who like that. For the observer you can present a compelling narrative. And here we come to it. Not every player has a problem with "railroading". While choice can be fun it is not the end all answer to enjoyment. A compelling story, a cool scene, an insurmountable obstacle and even the very lack of choice can all create the enjoyment and escape that we crave. There does not need to be a choice for the players to feel they have an impact. It is just the easiest way to do it.
Now I would like to go into your four points in the start of the article. I think the idea of prioritising what roles that are most important is wrong. The most important role of the gamemaster changes a lot depending on what group your are with, what story you want to tell, what genre you want to play and not to mention what system. In some situations being the judge might be very important but in others the role of storyteller might take precedent. Personally I think this is especially important to understand for new aspiring masters (ok from now on whenever I say master I mean gamemaster. It is the jargon of my gaming community) especially if they have no one to teach them the craft. Knowing the rules is good but don't despair if you can't remember them all. As long as you know that core of your system you can arbitrate the rest. Getting more comfortable with the rules comes as you play. Don't worry if your "world" is not perfectly fleshed out. With practice you will get better. Storytelling is not as hard as it sounds. Just remember that your players are as much a part of the telling as you are. An important thing to remember is that you are not the enemy of the players, nor of the characters. You may control their enemies but they have motives and reasons of their own. It is not your objective to defeat the players (though it is perfectly ok to gloat from time to time). It is your job (in conjunction with your players) to make sure the group is enjoying itself (including you).
I don't like the adversary part. I am sure you just mean that it is the job of the master to control the antagonists (aka the bad-guys) but adversary smacks of conflict between the players and the master which there should not be. The monsters and npc's the characters defeat should not be the masters minions but rather plot devices to move the story along. The controller would be more fitting in my head if not as poetic.
What I am trying to get at in a somewhat roundabout and incoherent way is that mastering can be impossibly complex. The shear variety options and possibilities are staggering. This is why cutting it down to "this is the right way to master and this is the wrong way." is oversimplifying in the extreme. I am in the lucky situation of being a part of a community where every single one of us have been masters and players at one time or another. I am a part of group where we rotate as masters. The number of different styles and preferences are overwhelming and this doesn't even count the things I have seen at conventions. The point of course is that the most important thing for a new group of players to remember is to do what you enjoy. If there is something you don't enjoy - change it. The Golden Rule reigns supreme.
The Golden Rule: If you don't like it - change it.
Kaihlik, how would you handle a player who got killed, by poor choices, and then complained it was not fun? Or a player who lost his magic item to a Rust Monster?Kaihlik said:
Because the problem with "fun" is that it's subjective. One man's "fun challenge" is another man's "obnoxious obstacle that destroys his fun". One man's "glorious death" is another man's "permanent loss of my favorite character". If you are willing to dump rules, story elements, and die rolls to ensure fun, what do you do when different players in the same group feel differntly? If Steve thinks dying gloriously is awesome, while John thinks its awful and ruins the game, and both die to dragon's breath, which way do you rule? Or do you fudge for John so he lives, but let Steve die? Would you run the game on "hard mode" for Steve and "easy mode" for John?
Jako, thanks for the thoughtful posts. I agree that GMing can be exceptionally complex, so any How To guide can be at best one way How To. This is my way! My argument for empowering player agency is precisely becuase I think it IS all about the players. I'm arguing for maximizing the agency of the players and de-emphasizing the GM's "story". I would argue that players enjoy agency more than anything else -- it's simply how they choose to exercise their agency that varies, i.e. do they want to talk, fight, etc. As far as Adversary, I mean that you are responsible for controlling the adversaries. But I strongly disagree that adversaries should be "plot devices to move the story forward". I would argue that "the story" is what emerges from the deeds of the players and their adversaries within their environment. Again, I'm not a huge fan of the notion of "the story" as something that exists outside of the context of the interaction of the players in the game. The notion of emergent story versus directed story is very important, and I'll address it in a later article.
BlueInk, thanks for your very kind words! I am flattered very much.
BlueInk, thanks for your very kind words! I am flattered very much.