Playing vs GMing

[Katana_Geldar]

My two games i am involved in, SW Saga and D&D 4E, I have on the same day, the first in the morning that I GM and the second in the afternoon where I am a player.

As fun as running the game is, playing is actually a lot more fun and relaxing compared to it. When GMing I need to keep my head screwed on, keep my notes where I can find them and have to constantly talk to myself.

I'll have to ask the 4E DM after my session, as he's a player in my game like I am one in his.

Anyone else find this the case?

[Kylarra]

Playing is definitely more relaxing and less time consuming to prepare for than DMing.

[jokey665]

I prefer playing overall, I think, but I don't mind DMing as long as my players mesh well with me (as they are for the most part in our current campaign). DMing is definitely a lot harder and more time-consuming than playing. It also tends to feel more rewarding, though.

[Temet Nosce]

I'll agree about relaxing and fun, but the reason isn't because DMing requires preparation (preparation in my experience just means you're expecting something to happen, and the PCs probably won't oblige you). It's more because DMing requires you to be extremely on the ball and keep track of a large number of diverse events at a given time and consider how the PCs interact with them (in addition the roles you need to portray are neither constant nor necessarily designed with your own interest in mind).

Whereas PCing lets you stick to considering how one thing (which you much more closely identify with) will act. Another large part of it is that when you PC you create an identity and usually end up satisfying some OOC urge through the creation and RPing of it.

[Knaight]

I wing things with little to no preparation, but I play rules light systems. I love GMing, much more than playing, since I like to make other people have fun. If the people around me are having fun, then so am I, particularly if I am responsible for it in the first place. All this comes together for a real love for GMing. I don't hate playing, and do like to play an occasional game, but GMing 95% of the time is fine with me.

[Kylarra]

I'll agree about relaxing and fun, but the reason isn't because DMing requires preparation (preparation in my experience just means you're expecting something to happen, and the PCs probably won't oblige you). It's more because DMing requires you to be extremely on the ball and keep track of a large number of diverse events at a given time and consider how the PCs interact with them (in addition the roles you need to portray are neither constant nor necessarily designed with your own interest in mind).Between the extremes of sandboxing and "railroading" and everything in between, you still need a basic framework for the world, rough ideas of what populates areas the PCs are likely to venture into, may possibly venture into, you don't think they'll venture into, but they will probably do it to spite you. Same with NPCs but replace venture into with converse with or encounter.

Even if you're familiar enough with the system to be making things up on the fly or flash referencing, you're gonna have a fair amount of background work done in order to have a semi-fluid session.

That's the sort of thing I meant with preparation. As a player, all you need to know is whatever your current quest is, overarching goals, and possibly levelup plans, depending on system. DM has slightly more than that on their plate between each session as the players (or the plot) dictates what needs fleshing out for the next one. Admittedly the above is mostly for rules-heavy games, the farther you move towards rules light, the less overall preparation is generally needed, but you'll still want concepts written down if nothing else.

[Zaydos]

I really enjoy playing, but I prefer GMing. Depending upon how much free time I have to spend GMing it can be quite relaxing for me but I've only ever met three optimizer and one of them played a beguiler so it wasn't that bad (as the BBEGs in my game wore masks that included mind shielding and I'm always vermin prone), the others were a wizard who failed at being a wizard and chose oddball spells while talking about how they would be powerful at high levels (no glitterdust, grease etc, but he tried), and one who tried to claim 5 synergy bonuses to Diplomacy in Core 3e (where there were 2 instead of 3 like in 3.5) at Lv 1. So I can't say what an optimizer would do to me. Actually except for the first of those the most optimized characters are the ones I help my players design...
When I'm playing I go a bit into optimizer mode myself and try to make a powerful character although normally I start with a concept or an idea of "I want to try this (prestige) class" which makes things easier. Maybe it's just that I've usually either been 1) the one who knew the rules and had to help the GM at every turn (they'd ask me too since I was the normal GM), 2) playing a new system/setting which I didn't like as much, 3) a 6-8 year old, or 4) a combination of 1 and 2. I remember I enjoyed playing more in BD&D when my older brother GMed but that was because I was a 6-8 year old.
But yeah I think some people like GMing (I'm bad at writing but I think up worlds and it helps me express them) and others like playing. Honestly I like GMing probably about 90+% of the time but enjoy getting to really make and play a character at times.

[Katana_Geldar]

Agreed, even without notes you still need to know where you are going. I came to the end of my notes one session, but was able to continue on as I knew where the session was going to end up.

Does experience GMing mean you are less attached to characters? I've found GMing I need to put on various hats to think like certain characters and change the hats very quickly. So, my PC characters are not really an extension of me, just something I'd like to try.

I'll have to do an Eladrin Barbarian one of these days, just for the lols...

[Kylarra]

You become better at creating distinct personalities which helps you [forcibly] to break out of the easy trap of creating people who are either you or fantasy-you.

[Katana_Geldar]

Admitedly, my first character was a sort of fantasy me, but by the time I got around to playing her I had gone well past that.

I also find I am more filling to work with the DM, particularly leaving holes in my bio that they can fill in.

[Temet Nosce]

Between the extremes of sandboxing and "railroading" and everything in between, you still need a basic framework for the world, rough ideas of what populates areas the PCs are likely to venture into, may possibly venture into, you don't think they'll venture into, but they will probably do it to spite you. Same with NPCs but replace venture into with converse with or encounter.

Even if you're familiar enough with the system to be making things up on the fly or flash referencing, you're gonna have a fair amount of background work done in order to have a semi-fluid session.

I do all that by working with players as they make their characters. Anything I need to determine about the setting is done so with a basis on tie ins for the players and possible future plot hooks, I will also leave most areas completely blank for future use (villains, and surrounding relevant areas are also determined based on the players). If the players try to go into a blank area, I'll just make something up based on why they went there.


That's the sort of thing I meant with preparation. As a player, all you need to know is whatever your current quest is, overarching goals, and possibly levelup plans, depending on system. DM has slightly more than that on their plate between each session as the players (or the plot) dictates what needs fleshing out for the next one. Admittedly the above is mostly for rules-heavy games, the farther you move towards rules light, the less overall preparation is generally needed, but you'll still want concepts written down if nothing else.

I don't really write anything down as a DM, I actually do much more recording as a player since I feel the need for details on my characters. The most I do as a DM is occasionally scribble down some backstory I want the players to read.

[TheCountAlucard]

Playing does seem a lot easier to me, but my enjoyment of GMing is nonetheless on par with that of playing... GMing just takes more out of me, it seems.

[Kylarra]

I do all that by working with players as they make their characters. Anything I need to determine about the setting is done so with a basis on tie ins for the players and possible future plot hooks, I will also leave most areas completely blank for future use (villains, and surrounding relevant areas are also determined based on the players). If the players try to go into a blank area, I'll just make something up based on why they went there.



I don't really write anything down as a DM, I actually do much more recording as a player since I feel the need for details on my characters. The most I do as a DM is occasionally scribble down some backstory I want the players to read.Basically that all tells me that you're good at making things up on the fly, which can work. I'm not trying to say "you're doing it wrong" or anything along those lines.

In my experience though, DMs that do the sort of minimal "preparation" you're deciding and make things up on the fly, tend to not be experienced DMs (read: laziness as opposed to actual skill at improv) and have left me unsatisfied with the way the campaign ran. So I will always be a proponent of the belief that DMs should prepare a fair amount of things ahead of time, even if only to apply schrodinger's gun to the majority of the areas. So while I won't deny that it probably can work, ime it hasn't worked very well.

[Katana_Geldar]

IMHO, GMing is one step down from writing a story. The GM provides the skeleton, the players everything else. Having too much is a railroad, having too little and it can be a bit featureless.

When GMing, I have to think of various ways that the players can use to get out of what I put them into, and know they will think of another way that would never have occured to me. That tends to put a thing on your brain that makes it kinda melt.

[Temet Nosce]

Basically that all tells me that you're good at making things up on the fly, which can work. I'm not trying to say "you're doing it wrong" or anything along those lines.

In my experience though, DMs that do the sort of minimal "preparation" you're deciding and make things up on the fly, tend to not be experienced DMs (read: laziness as opposed to actual skill at improv) and have left me unsatisfied with the way the campaign ran. So I will always be a proponent of the belief that DMs should prepare a fair amount of things ahead of time, even if only to apply schrodinger's gun to the majority of the areas. So while I won't deny that it probably can work, ime it hasn't worked very well.

My experience leads me to the opposite, in a decade of playing I've encountered a total of one experienced DM who ran things that way, the rest had all been DMing for relatively short periods of time. The one I did encounter was insanely detailed however, he had an absurd quantity of notes on a setting he'd been running in for 32 years. That said though, he wasn't noting the kind of thing most preparation based DMs do, but rather gradually recording everything that was determined in game.

I've found that while a DM can put in all the work ahead of time, they invariably either railroad you or end up fumbling when the PCs leave their carefully recorded track. However, most DMs tend to abandon this style after a few years. It's a good crutch for the first couple years though.

I have however, encountered quite a few DMs who attempted to wing it and weren't capable. This is less a comment on winging it, and more that the DMs in question were new and needed practice.

[Katana_Geldar]

Well, it's whatever suits you. Going on the fly is fun though, but I never like to do it for long.

When playing, you're always on the fly as there's no knowing what the DMis going to throw at you.

[Zaydos]

I'd say that it depends upon the group. Before college I could plan out everything in advance, end up railroading, and everybody enjoyed it. Now the PCs end up going into some random tangent, shooting everybody they meet and asking to be smote, so I started a new campaign. Even so I had a few planned out adventures that were fun and a few where all I did was pick things out of the MM a few minutes before the PCs had to fight them with a basic idea of what I wanted to have happen and both were fun. I'd say for really epic boss battles and BBEG you need planning but in common adventures a single basic concept is just as good and divorces from the need/urge to railroad. Honestly I wouldn't say it varies from whether a GM is experienced or not but whether he is better at improv or planning (still trying to figure out my nature).

[Oracle_Hunter]

Interesting points so far.

Character Attachment
Personally, DMing has made me less attached to characters - in a fashion that I find healthy. For example, my 4E Barbarian with epic backstory nearly died last session and in the round before I was set to die (at negative HP with 10 ongoing damage - at level 1!) I had already started thinking about my next character. Of course, I have a thick file of PCs-that-might-have-been so my case might be different.

On Fun
Now, as to DMing or Playing being more fun - this is a matter of mood for me. Sometimes I can be profoundly frustrated playing in a game where the DM is acting "unreasonably" (sidenote: DMing has made me a far more critical Player :smalltongue:) but other times it's great to kick back and build a single character without worrying about the greater ramifications in regards to The Plot.

On the other hand, it can be deeply satisfying to set up a campaign world, write up a story, and watch your players have a grand old time running around in it. And there is a unique thrill at managing the true DM's Art - to keep the Players "on the rails" without them being any the wiser. Improvising details, reshuffling background information in real-time to keep up with Player actions; these can provide a real sense of accomplishment that you just can't get as a Player.

For me, the maximum enjoyment comes from finding a good balance between DMing and Playing. Too much Playing and your creative instinct will be stymied; too much DMing and you'll burn out.

On Systems
Here, the complexity of the system affects me equally as a player and as a DM. In general, systems that are complicated to DM are no easier to Play; the same is true for rules-light systems. It is true that some systems are just more annoying to design campaigns for ("monster" building is awkward, too many special rules to worry about) but there are always shortcuts that can be made.

That said, DMing is always going to be more stressful than playing. If you screw up bad as a Player, at worst you've created a TPK - but usually no worse than your own death. Screw up as a DM though, and you're likely to have killed the campaign. Sure you can walk back and Retconn the hell out of the error, but it's never quite the same afterwards. That burden is always with you as a DM, and it can wear on you after awhile.

EDIT:

My experience leads me to the opposite, in a decade of playing I've encountered a total of one experienced DM who ran things that way, the rest had all been DMing for relatively short periods of time. The one I did encounter was insanely detailed however, he had an absurd quantity of notes on a setting he'd been running in for 32 years. That said though, he wasn't noting the kind of thing most preparation based DMs do, but rather gradually recording everything that was determined in game.

I've found that while a DM can put in all the work ahead of time, they invariably either railroad you or end up fumbling when the PCs leave their carefully recorded track. However, most DMs tend to abandon this style after a few years. It's a good crutch for the first couple years though.

I have however, encountered quite a few DMs who attempted to wing it and weren't capable. This is less a comment on winging it, and more that the DMs in question were new and needed practice.
God, I've got to stop posting when I'm loopy. This here, QFT.

Now, I like to think of myself as an experienced DM (over a decade of experience with a wide variety of systems) and I went through the same progression noted above. I used to draw detailed maps and write complete-contingent-plots; now I make some general notes on terrain, develop a couple of hooks and flesh out the ones that the PCs seem to be grabbing, and (this is important) take copious notes of the things I make up during a session (to fill gaps) and then sit down after everyone has gone home to make sure I can fit it in with what I've got planned for the future.

Sometimes I worry that I "wing it" too much; any DM needs to be prepared for the session at hand and if you leave too much stuff undefined it can make the game run sloppily. I've yet to get complaints from players, and they generally don't seem to notice/care when things are made up on the fly.

[GAThraawn]

I generaly enjoy GMing more than playing, but I like to base my adventures in pre-established universes, such as Star Wars, and I do do quite a lot of Improv (in theatre as well as roleplaying), so I feel quite comfortable just sitting down at a table and running things on the fly. In fact, I usually find it requires more on the spot thinking and sudden creativity than playing does, and that's what I enjoy most about the game. (When I do play, I invariably run a fast-talking rogue who tries to solve all problems in the most outlandish manner possible, and sometimes drive my GMs to distraction)

Last game I ran, I had three friends over, each with a finished character sheet, and they announced that they wanted to start playing. I had literaly nothing prepared, so I just spent a minute with them figuring out what it was their characters would want to do in the world and ran a campaign from there. Everyone had a great time, they said they enjoyed the freedom to dictate the plot without feeling they were being secretly bent to my larger story and I had a blast doing nothing but reacting madly to every insane thing they did. Not for everyone, I'm sure, but certainly a play style I enjoy over the more notes and planning based kind (most stories I try to cook up ahead of time end up fairly lackluster).

[The New Bruceski]

Consider D&D as a game of tennis. On one side is the DM, on the other are all the players, bouncing the plot/narrative/whatever you call it back and forth.

A player can rest while someone else gets the ball. In combat it spends a little time in volleys between the DM and one player before moving on to the next, out of combat it's a bit more of a free-for-all though one player's usually the most aggressive.

The DM has the advantage of knowing the court, because he designed it even if the players can choose where the ball goes, but he's always returning volleys. If a player wants to catch his breath he lets the others go for the ball for a while, but the DM doesn't have that luxury. Some systems make it easier for him than others, but there's not much you can do to change that, without removing the DM entirely and making it more free-form.

[oxinabox]

Well, i won't play 4e.
But i'll DM it, all day, off the fly.

I'ld rather DM, than play with a poor DM.
I really enjoy playing when i get to play what i want.
Eg (see my sig) I got to play the self sacrificing Hero, didn't matter that my stats translated badly, because the RP what hat i wanted.
Another player got to use swords, bows, katana's expertly, something he wanted to do. so he was happy.

I also tend to build powerful builds as thought excercise, but always play something kinda weak.

[CrazySopher]

I'll DM 4.0 for sure. It's tons easier to me than 3.5; honestly, I know the system ten times better than I do 3.5, if only because it fits my personal play/GM style a good deal better than 3.5, gods bless'em both anyways. And I'll gladly PC 4.0. In fact, I love PCing 4.0. Tons more room to move about, and my sheet isn't just a simulation of my character.

I love PCing White Wolf more than anything though, WoD in particular. I absolutely adore it. If only I could DM a good game... but I'm far too impatient to do it. I could never draw anything out correctly if you payed me.

[Katana_Geldar]

Someone mentioned my name?

I think I'd rather play 4.0 than DM, though. Star Wars, I started running it so it's more natural to continue.

[Kylarra]

I have a feeling I'm not explaining myself very well here, but maybe we just have different definition of "preparation", because even Oracle Hunter who QFT'd the "DMing without prep" response you wrote, admitted to doing some preparations before/between sessions. My definition of "preparation" is any amount of work you need to do before/between sessions to "prepare" for the next gaming session.

I am not saying that you need to plan out anything and everything (because you can't, honestly, PCs never go where you expect them to go), but you do need [at a minimum]:

Some geography/map of the general area.
A general idea of some plot hooks/interesting things.
A general idea of how the NPCs in the area are thinking/reacting.
A general idea of monsters they might encounter (could be tied to geography/interesting things too, but I figured I'd throw it in to explicitly state it).

I'm not saying you need to stick to what you've written explicitly or even that they'll all come in handy. Maybe when the session actually rolls around your players will go in a new direction and you can save your plothooks etc for another session. In order for the world around them to have some internal consistency*, you'll need to do some work ahead of time, even if it's just imagining the world in your head without actually writing things down.

*If you're familiar enough with the system, you can wing your monsters, craft NPCs on the fly and write dungeon maps in your head while remembering where you've made them go beforehand without any preparation at all. Unfortunately, I don't think most people are that good.

[Rhiannon87]

I vastly prefer being a player to DMing. I don't mind the prep work, honestly, it's just the actual running of a game is pretty tiring. I much prefer getting inside one character's head and playing out their story than narrating someone else's. If it were entirely up to me, I'd probably end the campaign I'm running in a level or two... but my group of players has made it clear that they really enjoy my game (to my eternal confusion, I'm pretty sure I'm not that good at this), and the other DM in our group needs to be able to take breaks every now and then. So I'm more or less stuck DMing.

Of course, this could just all be complaining as a result of the fact that I've been running for a while now and I'm starting to get burned out, but the other DM won't be able to run his game for probably another month. :smallfrown:

[woodenbandman]

I prefer PCing because I can come up with my plans and generally not worry about how they interact with the other players' plans (after all that's part of being a PC). GMing, however, has a lot more stuff to do, more prep, encounter balancing, dungeon design(Which I suck at, by the way), all kinds of stuff, however I still find it fun. It's sometimes even a blast to just go off-the-cuff. My PCs once went in the total opposite direction I wanted, and I was just like "Okay, sure, do that." and i didn't even have to shift the encounters.

[Oracle_Hunter]

I am not saying that you need to plan out anything and everything (because you can't, honestly, PCs never go where you expect them to go), but you do need [at a minimum]:

Some geography/map of the general area.
A general idea of some plot hooks/interesting things.
A general idea of how the NPCs in the area are thinking/reacting.
A general idea of monsters they might encounter (could be tied to geography/interesting things too, but I figured I'd throw it in to explicitly state it).
This pretty much matches up with my "to do" list before a game, but the use of "general" is deliberately ambiguous, no?

A "general idea" of interesting things can be anything from "there's an abandoned wizard's tower a couple days out of town" to "Here's how I'm going to hook the PCs, the items that the Quest Giver are going to ask be retrieved, and a brief description of the tower and the terrain leading up to it."

In truth, the first DM is being lazy while the second DM is more on the mark, IMHO. A hook isn't developed until you know everything the PCs would have to know at the start of the "quest;" still, you can quickly turn a half-finished hook into an adventure if you're quick on your feet (metaphorically, unless things go really bad).

But why should you prepare in advance if you could do it all on the fly? Because even your best impromptu adventures are going to be worse than your worst pre-planned ones. You are doing your players, and your campaign, a disservice by skimping on the legwork between sessions.

[Raum]

Anyone else find this the case?I enjoy both GMing and playing. They're simply two facets of the same game. What changes is how I derive fun from the game, not whether or not I'm having fun. If that changes, it's time to do something else.

As for preparation time, I don't GM game systems which require lots of set up. First because I don't have time and second because I want to get to the fun - the actual game. I tend to spend ~30 minutes in preparation per game - and most of that should be on plot not mechanics.

That said, some systems certainly do take more time to GM than to play. Character creation is one of the obvious differences...a GM may create half a dozen or more NPCs per game while a player only needs (barring death) one PC per campaign. So there's a significant difference between a system where character creation takes two minutes versus one which takes 30 minutes. Preparing the same six NPCs changes from just over ten minutes to 3 hours.


But why should you prepare in advance if you could do it all on the fly? Because even your best impromptu adventures are going to be worse than your worst pre-planned ones. You are doing your players, and your campaign, a disservice by skimping on the legwork between sessions."Impromptu" may be almost as ambiguous as "generally". :smallsmile: I plan NPC goals, resources, and (to a degree) relationships. I don't plan NPC actions. Those are reactive and subject to change based on PC actions. Nor do I base any goal or plan on PC actions which haven't already occurred. So the individual details of a game are still largely impromptu. :smallwink:

[Oracle_Hunter]

"Impromptu" may be almost as ambiguous as "generally". :smallsmile: I plan NPC goals, resources, and (to a degree) relationships. I don't plan NPC actions. Those are reactive and subject to change based on PC actions. Nor do I base any goal or plan on PC actions which haven't already occurred. So the individual details of a game are still largely impromptu. :smallwink:
Ah, but Impromptu has a definition with precision

Impromptu: made or done without previous preparation
An adventure is either impromptu or it is not; you either did some preparation for it (I would add meaningful preparation) or you did not.

Besides, I doubt there's a DM who scripts their NPCs as if they were characters in a computer RPG. Everyone alters their NPCs' actions based off of PC actions - otherwise the PC actions wouldn't matter!

To restate my point: an adventure that you have planned out beforehand will always be more satisfying than one that you have had to make entirely on the fly. Sure, you might end up with fun/exciting games just by winging it, but I'm sure that, if you had planned something in advance, it would have been that much better.

[Zaydos]

Besides, I doubt there's a DM who scripts their NPCs as if they were characters in a computer RPG. Everyone alters their NPCs' actions based off of PC actions - otherwise the PC actions wouldn't matter!


I've seen beginners make the mistake of scripting their PCs like this and their adventures falling apart when the PCs did something other than what the NPCs told them to do. I've even seen people who had DMed for years do this, they're bad DMs but they do exist. That said my first experience DMing was a failure because I tried pure impromptu and the PCs demanded playing 2e psionic half-god dragons (they wouldn't play otherwise) with only the Monster Manual and a knowledge of Red Box. So it ended even worse. It was a bad idea, but I was 7 or 8 at the time so I'm quite willing to use that as an excuse.

Personally I always do planning unless I have too much school work at the moment or just no ideas, but my players enjoy both.

[Oracle_Hunter]

I've seen beginners make the mistake of scripting their PCs like this and their adventures falling apart when the PCs did something other than what the NPCs told them to do. I've even seen people who had DMed for years do this, they're bad DMs but they do exist. That said my first experience DMing was a failure because I tried pure impromptu and the PCs demanded playing 2e psionic half-god dragons (they wouldn't play otherwise) with only the Monster Manual and a knowledge of Red Box. So it ended even worse. It was a bad idea, but I was 7 or 8 at the time so I'm quite willing to use that as an excuse.
I can see no way that adventure could have ended well.

That said, my first adventure (waaaay back in the day) was a 1-on-1 AD&D game where the Paladin had to escape the City of Assassins (tm) alive.

The second adventure involved him getting a Young Adult Gold Dragon mount. So Yeah.

[Katana_Geldar]

I've seen beginners make the mistake of scripting their PCs like this and their adventures falling apart when the PCs did something other than what the NPCs told them to do. I've even seen people who had DMed for years do this, they're bad DMs but they do exist.

The best way I have found to get the PCs to do a quest is give them some other motivation other than Because Thou Must. Throwing a broken bridge at them so they can get something they really value back, or having a few in some sort of commando group in an army and an NPC is their CO.

As a player, thereis nothing I hate more than being sent on a quest for simply that reason alone. And I hate fetch quests that are simply that, I'm an adventurer, not a messenger or courier.

[Raum]

Ah, but Impromptu has a definition with precision

An adventure is either impromptu or it is not; you either did some preparation for it (I would add meaningful preparation) or you did not. You may have missed my point. To put it simply, people plan different things. Some plan events and actions, others plan plot and goals. There's a significant difference in scope and detail between the two. And those aren't the only things which may be planned, just a couple examples.


Besides, I doubt there's a DM who scripts their NPCs as if they were characters in a computer RPG. Really? A large number of published adventures do exactly this. The worst of them even script PC actions.


Everyone alters their NPCs' actions based off of PC actions - otherwise the PC actions wouldn't matter!I wish everyone did as you say! We'd avoid wars about railroading among other things...


To restate my point: an adventure that you have planned out beforehand will always be more satisfying than one that you have had to make entirely on the fly. Sure, you might end up with fun/exciting games just by winging it, but I'm sure that, if you had planned something in advance, it would have been that much better.Meh, any absolute statement is almost always wrong. As I've pointed out above, there's a variety of planning methods...and you can do just as much harm by over-planning as by under-planning. Perhaps more.


The best way I have found to get the PCs to do a quest is give them some other motivation other than Because Thou Must. Ideally, PC motivation comes from the players. As GM, I may ask players to include certain motivating reasons (such as cooperating with the party) as part of the character's build or background.


Throwing a broken bridge at them so they can get something they really value back, or having a few in some sort of commando group in an army and an NPC is their CO.I suspect it has a lot to do with personal taste - I prefer to avoid games where an NPC is giving orders.


As a player, thereis nothing I hate more than being sent on a quest for simply that reason alone. And I hate fetch quests that are simply that, I'm an adventurer, not a messenger or courier.Yep, those can get old fast. :)

[Katana_Geldar]

Hey, if they make the choice of having a character that was was created for the sole purpose of being part of an army and following orders without question, (I am talking of Star Wars clonetroopers here) they can expect some sort of restrictions on them. I explained this to the player when he said he wanted to be a clone, I was against the idea but in the end warmed to it with a few restrictions and made his orders pretty much the campaign plot.

Soldiers who still have commissions don't make very good adventurers unless they have either deserted or have orders to do what the plot needs to happen.

[Rixx]

I play most of the time, but I find that the DM position allows for much more hamming it up. Which is great fun.

[Telasi]

It seems that I almost always end up DMing, usually with good feedback. In fact, I seem to be the one to go to if someone needs a DM. :smalleek:

Given a good group and an idea, I enjoy being DM, though it starts to get old after a while (read: a few campaigns). I was very happy when I finally got the opportunity to run a character, but then found that one game per week was not quite enough for my level of enthusiasm. I promptly got together a group and started DMing again.

The result of this situation is that I get my Friday game to relax as a PC, and on Monday I DM. So far, I find that doing both is probably the optimal situation for me.

[Delwugor]

I like playing much more than GMing. Especially since I don't consider myself that great of a GM.

So why GM? There is a point where the players really get into the campaign and their characters. Then they are smiling and having a blast even when close to death. At this point all of the work and headache I have gone through pays off, and I get to enjoy the players enjoy my campaign.

[Oslecamo]

I GM because I enjoy building the world, filled with monsters and NPCs, then puting the players in there and see what madness they'll unleash.:smallbiggrin:

[Indon]

I enjoy both playing and DMing. I do have favorites, but they're based on the system and environment I'm playing, and the group I'm playing with, not necessarily the role.

Between playing and DMing in the same system, I'd probably prefer one or the other depending on my mood. DMing is more engaging but also more draining - you can better zone out and just get lost in the game as a player.

[jiriku]

I generally DM, and it's satisfying for me, but a lot of hard work. I enjoy playing even more, but for years now, i've been unable to find anyone who will run games for more than 4-6 sessions. Then they get tired of putting in the prep time and quit, and it's back to me running games. After a few years of this, I tend to burn out, and then for six months or a year or more we have no steady DM at all and mostly play board games, until eventually the bug bites me again and I start a new campaign.

If I could run a group on one night of the week and play in a group on a second night of the week, that would be heaven.

[GAThraawn]

To restate my point: an adventure that you have planned out beforehand will always be more satisfying than one that you have had to make entirely on the fly. Sure, you might end up with fun/exciting games just by winging it, but I'm sure that, if you had planned something in advance, it would have been that much better.

Again, I disagree. Certainly this is the case for some people, but I absolutely hate railroading my players, or giving them any indication that "All is proceeding acording to my plans". I want them to feel, and be, supremely in command of what they're doing and what's going on around them. Some GMs are, with a lot of work, able to craft entire worlds with numerous things going on that allows the PCs to interact with any number of pre-generated characters and plotlines, jumping back and forth as they see fit. I've played in one or two games like that, and it was a great experience. However, I abhor the amout of work required for that, and don't feel confident I could pull it off without leaving them feeling they're only bit characters in my novel.

As a result, I seldom do any planning at all. No geography, no characters, no plots, nothing pregenerated at all (of course, I do know basic character ideas and archetypes I can draw on, various types of plot and so on, but nothing tailored to the adventure). It probably sounds like a very poor adventure to you, but I'm a theatrical improviser and make entire cities up on the fly. As long as I have a group of players that is motivated to seek their own ends, acheive goals their characters have and do their own thing, rather than just waiting for the plot to be handed to them, I just react to everything they do. The ideas I'm having now are just the same as what I would have had preparing the adventure, only now, I actually know what places and characters I need to invent. Admittedly, having a background and experience in Improv likely makes this much easier for me than most, but I'm sure there are many other GM's out there with the same style.

My players have said that they love it, because they're alway the centre of the action, and they never feel for a moment like the story is about anyone else. For me, I love throwing out details on the fly and seeing if they become relevant again later on, be it through something I come up with or something the players think to bring back.

[Desmond Tiny]

I have been a DM but never a player. I wanted to be a player but i was the only experienced one in my group.

[Yahzi]

I prefer playing, but all DMs usually suck, so I have to do it myself.

Usually players suck too, though.

So I wind up playing and DMing.

:smallbiggrin:

[kieza]

I'd love to play if I could find a DM who ran roleplay-heavy games, but since I can't, I content myself with DM'ing a campaign with a bunch of friends who prefer combat-heavy games. I've gotten pretty good at making exciting, cinematic combats, but my descriptive abilities have suffered.

I also have about a dozen characters hiding in my "If I ever get to play" folder. One day, my friends, one day...

[Kaldrin]

I GM because I enjoy building the world, filled with monsters and NPCs, then puting the players in there and see what madness they'll unleash.:smallbiggrin:

This is why I GM too... I'm a world builder and tinkerer with concepts and ideas and really the GM seat is the only place that really lets you do that unhindered.

As for being more relaxed when I play or GM... I don't think it's any more relaxing either way. I tend to focus on the game and try and role-play how my character would react when playing. When GMing, even though I've spent a few hours of my time preparing for it, I tend to just let the story flow. In 20 years of gaming I've definitely learned that the PCs will do whatever the hell they want, so trying to railroad them is useless and frustrating for everyone. If you just have point form notes on plot lines (of course, specifics on locations and NPCs) then you'll be fine. Somehow I always see them back to face the big bad by the end of the storyline.

[Guinea Anubis]

As much as I love playing I like DMing more.

When I have a good story in my head that I want to try and see how it plays out. I like playing the NPCs and making traps and stuff and see how my players will counter what I can think of.