PDA

View Full Version : DM Help The Role of the GM



Beastrolami
2017-04-17, 02:58 PM
I just want to have a discussion on what you think the GM's role is in the game. I want to keep this to your own unique perspective. I think many of us can agree the GM's role is to create a narrative for the PCs to explore. I want to know about your personal philosophy on how to approach GMing.

Here's mine (also, may be CONTROVERSIAL):

I think there are 3 types of GM's. I have my own personal preferences, I don't think any of these styles are wrong, just not my style of game.

The first is usually a new GM. They think that GM's have all the power. They talk about how the GM is this omniscient overlord who controls the story. They are often kind of railroady, and get mad when the players try to excercise too much agency.

the Second kind of GM is usually a more experienced one. They realize that the players have a lot of power, and cater their game to the players. The players go on an epic quest, kill a god, and retire as heroes.

The Third type of GM (and my favorite/what I aspire to be) plays to win. They realize that the players have agency, but in the end, they control the story. The players may set out on their epic quest, but victory is not assured. The GM will use every trick in their book to try to thwart the heroes. They will play by the rules, and play fair, but they will play to win.

I'll end with a quote from the Cyberpunk 2020 handbook,

""You should not be afraid to kill off player characters. You should constantly be getting them into fights, traps, betrayals and other soap operas. There should be no one they can trust entirely, no place that's absolutely safe. Never let them rest. This doesn't mean you shouldn't play fair. But you should always play for keeps."

What is your opinion on the Role of a GM?

hymer
2017-04-17, 03:08 PM
What is your opinion on the Role of a GM?

Helps players with worldbuilding and rules. Final responsibility and therefore arbitration in worldbuilding and rules. Runs NPCs. Develops both world and NPCs as needed. Challenges the players and the PCs.

Cluedrew
2017-04-17, 03:36 PM
That really depends on the group.

There are passive groups that to just fine with 'GM as story-teller' who tells the story as the party wonders from plot point to plot point. On the other hand, in my group the GM doesn't control the story as cobble it together from the trouble we get ourselves into. But we are both very active and very willing to do "interesting" things so that may not work elsewhere.

And even within that role they play, there are many different styles with which they can approach it. ... In short, its complicated.

Still some highlights/common trends:
Narrate/control things the players don't. (Especially things they aren't away of yet.)
Make calls, much faster than debating how it works mid-battle.
Introduce challenging elements for the players.
Maintain the complete picture of what is going on in the story world.
Create consequences for the player character actions.

veti
2017-04-17, 04:48 PM
The GM is Maxwell's Demon. While you usually think you know what's going on, you are always working from incomplete information and will often be wrong. The GM is the one who really does know what's going on, and accordingly describes what you perceive of how the world acts around you.

Personally I don't like the GM-as-narrator model, because to me it seems inherently to disempower the players. My ideal GM is one who describes the world around us, while we, the players, decide what we're doing. It's nice to have a quest of some sort, but when and how, or even whether, we take any notice of it - that's up to us. And the world should react accordingly.

Tanarii
2017-04-17, 05:38 PM
To present situations, adjudicate resolution of player actions, and determine NPC actions.

Edit: I should probably be clearer, I consider determining appropriate outcomes and consequences to be part of 'adjudicate resolution'.

JNAProductions
2017-04-17, 05:49 PM
To have fun, and to help everyone else have fun. Just like everyone else at the table.

Amphetryon
2017-04-17, 06:09 PM
The GM is the heat-sink for the group, operating with certain knowledge that any plot hooks laid out are likely to be ignored, decried, or both, while any delays in gameplay will be taken as indicators of lack of preparation. Labelled as sarcasm, but I have known groups where both of these were considered true. Sometimes the same Players held the views both on plot hooks AND delays in gameplay.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-04-17, 06:13 PM
The players play the PCs and the GM plays the world.

Aetis
2017-04-17, 06:30 PM
GM is the guy who spends a lot of time prepping for the session and therefore doesn't have to buy the pizza.

tensai_oni
2017-04-17, 06:36 PM
(also, may be CONTROVERSIAL)

Well, I'll definitely agree with this part of your post if not much else.

Now to answer the question:
The GM's role is to find out what kind of game the players want - dungeon delving, political intrigue, anything in between; and then run that game according to expectations. This also assumes everyone's on the same page regarding lethality levels, loot (when applicable), character drama, pvping, etc.

And here's the important part: if the players want a different game than the GM and a compromise is impossible to be met, it is NOT the GM's duty to run the game they are forced to by the rest of the group.

The absolute priority of any game is for everyone to have fun. This includes the GM as well.

Everything else is optional.

LordCdrMilitant
2017-04-17, 09:46 PM
I'm the second kind of GM, and I like it that way.

It's no fun for me or the players if they die [and didn't see it coming from a mile away.]. My job isn't to make the game excessively challenging, or to test the optimization abilities of my players, but to make the game exciting and fun. I'm not playing against the players, I'm playing with the players.

I generally make things up as I go along. After the session, I rewrite huge chunks of planning, and inevitably throw it out for something better made up on the spot when we're in the session.

My job is to make the world they're in vivid and exciting, to make them feel attached to their characters and the people in the world that their characters know. The world needs to be alive, and it's my job to make it so. Actions should have expected and reasonable consequences, or consequences that at least would allow the players to figured out why it happened.

thamolas
2017-04-17, 09:49 PM
My favorite GMs are those who allow player agency to define the game while they flesh out the world and are able to develop narratives based on player actions. I try to do this and fail badly, but I enjoy those who can pull it off.

RazorChain
2017-04-17, 11:21 PM
The Third type of GM (and my favorite/what I aspire to be) plays to win. They realize that the players have agency, but in the end, they control the story. The players may set out on their epic quest, but victory is not assured. The GM will use every trick in their book to try to thwart the heroes. They will play by the rules, and play fair, but they will play to win.

I'll end with a quote from the Cyberpunk 2020 handbook,

""You should not be afraid to kill off player characters. You should constantly be getting them into fights, traps, betrayals and other soap operas. There should be no one they can trust entirely, no place that's absolutely safe. Never let them rest. This doesn't mean you shouldn't play fair. But you should always play for keeps."

What is your opinion on the Role of a GM?

A GM can't play to win....there is no contest and nothing to win really! I like Cyberpunk 2020 and have played and refereed it a lot. Cyberpunk fosters a bit of an antagonistic GM/Referee as a part of the genre. The corporations are after you...also the yakuza and the russian mob because you are playing an edgerunner that has worked against them and if things get too hot then it's time to change shoes. Also the game is often run as ops/missions/jobs so it is easy to replace characters.

What works in Cyberpunk doesn't work in every others system or premise. The part of being a GM is communicating with the players what kind of game you will be playing.

Now the GM shouldn't try to win but the villains certainly will! Playing villains stupidly is doing disservice to your players and the villains should try to thwart the heroes.

Kane0
2017-04-17, 11:51 PM
I'd like to be type 3 some day but being a type 2 isnt so bad. My favourite part of the job is providing interesting ways for PCs to kill themselves rather than trying to do it myself.

Mr Beer
2017-04-18, 12:05 AM
Ostensibly the GM's role is to act as the interface between the players and an imaginary world.

In reality, they also assist in driving the narrative, as well as refereeing disputes and running the table. All of this is best done with a light touch.

Martin Greywolf
2017-04-18, 02:26 AM
It depends. It depends on the group, it depends on the DM, it depends on the system, it depends on the adventure. And no forum post is long enough to give a good account or division of DMs.

Only real characteristic of a good DM is that he can adapt to the group without sacrificing his own fun, and that's about it. Other than that, it varies, some groups will insist on having maps, others will not mind their absence one bit, and that goes for every possible detail.

Role of the DM is very different when you compare, say, FATE and DnD. In DnD, DM has absolute power over what exists in a world and is expected to create all of it, players themselves can interact with it via their characters, but that's about it. FATE explicitly expects players to do a sizeable amount of worldbuilding on their own - DM has a right to veto, of course, but is encouraged to only use it in extreme cases.

Even within DnD, a role the DM will have is very different if you're running classic dungeoncrawl, Baldurs' Gate-like campaign or Tomb of Horrors. Hell, it the last one, DM is expected to be pretty antagonistic by the design of the place alone.

Even odds of failing are a point of contention. Many players would rather explore their character's journey to saving the world and how they react to stress or to what they had to sacrifice. There's no real danger of failing the quest there, per se, just an interesting character journey. On the other side of the coin, there are many settings where characters are pretty much expected to ultimately fail (Warhammer, W40K, Deadlands), there's nothing you can do to win.

tl;dr If you want to categorize DM roles and quality, you need to very carefully consider what is objectively good DMing/DM role and what is your personal preference that many may not share.

Darth Ultron
2017-04-18, 06:39 AM
Helps players with worldbuilding and rules. Final responsibility and therefore arbitration in worldbuilding and rules. Runs NPCs. Develops both world and NPCs as needed. Challenges the players and the PCs.

That is a good description.

The GM also has the huge responsibility to control the speed and flow of the game. The GM controls the world, so only the GM can make things happen. And sure a single player can say ''come on guys lets got to Rocktown'' the GM can alter time and space and do anything. For example, if the players get bored at any one point, the GM can toss in a surprise ambush.

The GM also controls the tone and feel of the game, as they control the whole game world. So yes a single player can be all like ''my character is so mysterious in his cloak'', but the GM can make the whole world dark and mysterious.

The GM makes sure everyone has fun. And sure you can say that is ''everyone's'' job, but that is not true. A player is first and foremost concerned about themselves and their character....and then the whole group somewhere way after that. And a player can't do even 1/10th what a GM can do to make everyone have fun anyway...

"Babysitter'' is a sad job the GM must do, but it is all too often necessary.

Cluedrew
2017-04-18, 06:57 AM
The players play the PCs and the GM plays the world.You know although this description works, but I still don't like it. It seems to encourage a mindset where each player controls a separate character that wander beside each other and through the world, but there is still hard lines separating them all. {Shrugs} I suppose if it works for you, that is good enough, but I have found that making the lines fuzzier helps.

Quertus
2017-04-18, 07:36 AM
IMO, the GMs role is to run the world, and probably the rules.

There are many hats to be worn in a game. Someone has to organize the time. Someone had to host the game. Someone has to develop the world. Someone has to resolve social disputes between players. Someone has to arbitrate the rules. Someone has to develop a plot. Someone has to run the world. But those could all be different someone's.

The one I'd call GM is the one who is running the world while the players are running their pc's.

And, if they are running the world realistically, their NPCs are playing to win, just like the OP's #3.

Myself as GM, I'm a rules arbiter / rules engine*. I run the world. I present scenarios. I provide an interface to the world. Sometimes I host.

When I GM, it is usually up to the players to survive the world, create a "plot" (the NPCs have plenty), and deal with their ****.

* occasionally I play with individuals who are better suited to the task, in which case I leave such matters to them. Yes, I'll outsource what I usually consider my primary role.

Tanarii
2017-04-18, 09:06 AM
That's an interesting point. There's no particular reason that 'arbiter of player actions' and 'determines scenario' and 'determines NPC actions' need to be embodied in the same person. Most people tend to think in terms of a single GM, not co-GMs with clearly delineated areas of responsibility.

I'm already comfortable with the idea of separating traditional DM responsibilities to a degree, since I often allow players that have all their PCs & Henchmen killed off switch to playing NPCs at a combat tactical-level. And in a few rare circumstances non-combat encounters ... ie they got the NPC motivation / immediate goal, and basic personality, then got to run the NPC side of the interaction.

The interesting thing is, I've found players tend to be FAR more brutal / ruthless than I when they're in control of a NPC, but don't consider themselves ultimately responsible for the game. So I hesitate to make put someone in charge of a specific NPC's strategic level decisions, because at a certain point that just makes them a solo PC with special resources, who is playing against the other player groups.

Thaneus
2017-04-18, 10:31 AM
A GM is most of all an entertainer, a comedian, a storyteller, an actor, a director and coordinator.
If a GM can not be something of each to a certain degree, he will fail.
What operative methods this GM uses is basically not an issue. You and you playmates want to have fun, excitement and overall a nice time. This should be the most important.

The GM who puts himself above all else, will have no play for long.
The GM who puts his players above all else, will cripple himself.

The GM's jop is to make all your PCs shine, polish them, challenge them and some times totally leave them in utter despair, but don't overdose it.

And the GM should be upfront honest, when something is off in game or out of game.

And don't lose the reigns on the table.

Beastrolami
2017-04-18, 10:40 AM
A GM can't play to win....there is no contest and nothing to win really! I like Cyberpunk 2020 and have played and refereed it a lot. Cyberpunk fosters a bit of an antagonistic GM/Referee as a part of the genre. The corporations are after you...also the yakuza and the russian mob because you are playing an edgerunner that has worked against them and if things get too hot then it's time to change shoes. Also the game is often run as ops/missions/jobs so it is easy to replace characters.

What works in Cyberpunk doesn't work in every others system or premise. The part of being a GM is communicating with the players what kind of game you will be playing.

Now the GM shouldn't try to win but the villains certainly will! Playing villains stupidly is doing disservice to your players and the villains should try to thwart the heroes.

i agree that it doesn't work for every game. But that's the type of game I like to run, and I let my players know the type of game it is before they make characters.

Also, the other types of GM's aren't wrong, I have just migrated away from those and find that I like to play a more punishing setting, where you are expected to die, and have to use every dirty trick available to survive. (both as a Gm and a player)

Also, I'm using the term "win" in the loosest fashion. I think that "winning" is achieved when a player can take the GM's job from him. Example, you trick/defeat a god, take their power, and rule over the world, etc. You can win by beating a big boss and saving the world but most of the stories I've seen about winning dnd, involve breaking the game to the point where your character controls most if not all power in the world. In that regard, the dm should make sure that they are never outwitted/outgamed by a player to the point where that happens. But, everyone has their own opinion, and the point of this thread is discussion, not argument.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-04-18, 11:47 AM
You know although this description works, but I still don't like it. It seems to encourage a mindset where each player controls a separate character that wander beside each other and through the world, but there is still hard lines separating them all. {Shrugs} I suppose if it works for you, that is good enough, but I have found that making the lines fuzzier helps.

It's a simplification. The lines can definitely be a little looser, game and group depending.

SirBellias
2017-04-18, 12:02 PM
At first, helps to bring together disparate ideas the players have into one (possibly functional) world, and the average set of expectations they have.

Second, throw difficult scenarios at the PCs, based on where they are, who they are, how bad that decision they just made was, their place in the world, and the expectations laid out beforehand.

Third, let them try anything they can think of within the confines of the world and previous expectations to work through or around the scenarios. Some of it will work, if they're good enough.

If they have goals, a story will emerge based entirely on the characters and their goals. Eventually they should achieve their goals if they succeed enough, or fail if they make poor decisions (or unlikely goals to begin with).

Your goal is to facilitate the creation of a story about the player characters. As such, nothing outside of their vision is necessary. Some of it may be helpful to make the world make sense to you, but none of it will see the light of the table unless the look for it or stumble upon it accidentally.

Shinigami
2017-04-19, 07:19 AM
For me, the Job of the GM is to build an interesting world, NPCs and Story (among other things like finding a new date for playing, judge rule questions, ect). Or better to build the starting point of the story and world state and the ending if uninterrupted by players.

My Players don't like to much sandboxy Settings, they like more to have of a story, they can follow if they want. My world don't resolve around the characters. Maybe sometimes other characters will save the burning town if the players don't want to do it and if not, the next time they will visit the town will be burned and most of the NPCs dead. I think you can have heavy consequences on your game/world without harming or killing your group or a PC. Not that I don't kill PCs if they behave stupidly, but I normally don't.

I must admit I don't know how a GM can "win" the game (DnD)

For example: (in my actual campaign loosely based on rise of Tiamat, rise of the Runelords, into the abyss, wrath of the righteous and the earthdawn setting)
We play in a very Earthdawn like world, the world is overrun with demons and the people live underground (in the Underdark) in big citys like Baldurs gate (just below the real or old Baldurs gate).

The only thing that work against demons are true elements (fire, water , earth, air)

The Citys are protected by Protection Circles. They only one who know how to build them are the (evil) elemental orders (eternal flame, black earth, ..) using runemagic. Since they provide protection from the demons the elemental orders practically rule the world and are also loved by the people. (There is more to the world but it is not interesting in this context)

There is a resistance group/cultists, who wants to rise Tiamat to fight the demons head on (dragon fire is true fire and can therefore damage demons) and break the rule of the elemental orders, even if they are after this enslaved by Tiamat. Some Tiamat cultist even want try to slay Tiamat after she cleaned the world from demons.

So we have this major 3 Factions (there are some small ones as well but they are not interesting in this context), Element orders (ruled by Runelord Karzog), Tiamat cultist and the demon lords (They also fight among themselves, since every demon lord want the world for him/herself).

Each faction wants something different to happen.

The element orders wants to keep the status quo (they rule the world, why change it :smallbiggrin:)
The Tiamat cultist wants to be "saved" by Tiamat, the demons gone and with this also the rule of the element orders. Some of the them want then to destroy Tiamat after she saves the world some of them like to be ruled by a evil dragon goddess.
And the demons just want to destroy, kill, and give their demon lord more power and influence.

If my players don't interfere the following will happen, Tiamat will be resurrected and will fight with Karzog a bloody battle until both realize that if the don't stop fighting the demons will kill them both. After this they will stay in a cold war. None of my 3 major faction get what they want :smallwink:

The players can do a lot of things, kill Tiamat, kill Karzog, kill any of the demon lords, ... (do something crazy I didn't think of, they will absolutly do that :smallbiggrin:)

At the moment my players don't have true element weapons or magic (nobody has, ok the element orders have but nobody knows this), so the cant damage demons and have to flee from every fight. But they can fight all other things like, men (cultists), monsters, beasts...
At the moment they consider to help rise Tiamat even if the cultist raided their home village and killed most of their friends and family and later kill her (if possible)


What would be my win condition if I as a GM have more than 1 faction (see example above), and every faction has some different goal? And it gets worse from that, you can assume that not every leader is into the goal of his faction, maybe they just work for them because its convenient or gives them power or is a family tradition (to be a priest of the fire cult for example) or they are blackmailed.

I think, with a complex world there is no right or wrong way to do things so there is no way to WIN the scenario for either part (GM or Players). Unlike for example an kill the evil overlord scenario. But I admit I really like this "got you" moments when some political or mundane trap works on my players.

I think the most interesting thing about GM is to see how your players solve such problems and what they do with your world setting, what they build with your starting conditions. That's why I love to be a GM.

All above is just how I GM, I don't claim it to be the best or only way. Reading this forum for some time now and also playing at conventions across Europa, made me realize there are a lot of different GM out there.
I must admit I never occured to me that you could win DnD. Thank you for posting such an interesting question. :smallbiggrin:

There are as much playing styles as there are GMs. And some playing styles fit more to some Groups or better Players. I for example have some Players in my Group who could and want to fight all the time and some Players who would prefer to not fight at all and only experience the Story and RP. So I try to balance fighting and dungeon crawling with Story heavy parts to please all my Players.

Tanarii
2017-04-19, 11:45 AM
Also, I'm using the term "win" in the loosest fashion. I think that "winning" is achieved when a player can take the GM's job from him. Example, you trick/defeat a god, take their power, and rule over the world, etc. You can win by beating a big boss and saving the world but most of the stories I've seen about winning dnd, involve breaking the game to the point where your character controls most if not all power in the world. In that regard, the dm should make sure that they are never outwitted/outgamed by a player to the point where that happens. But, everyone has their own opinion, and the point of this thread is discussion, not argument.
I and many of the grognards I play with in grognardy-style games think you "win" at D&D by surviving due to your player skill. And you "lose" by messing up and dying (or suffering some other fate that takes your character out of the game). Which is why we object so strongly to character survival being assumed. You should have to exercise skill and cunning and tactics and all that just to stay alive long enough to earn your XP and treasure.

This style of play clearly isn't for everyone. Or even for the majority, given how much people hate on it, and the newer editions use a much more survivable baseline. And of course it ignores that the DM sets the challenges in the first place and adjudicates them. It's all about the perception of 'a fair win', and what that entails, that matters for this way of thinking.

RazorChain
2017-04-19, 01:23 PM
I and many of the grognards I play with in grognardy-style games think you "win" at D&D by surviving due to your player skill. And you "lose" by messing up and dying (or suffering some other fate that takes your character out of the game). Which is why we object so strongly to character survival being assumed. You should have to exercise skill and cunning and tactics and all that just to stay alive long enough to earn your XP and treasure.

This style of play clearly isn't for everyone. Or even for the majority, given how much people hate on it, and the newer editions use a much more survivable baseline. And of course it ignores that the DM sets the challenges in the first place and adjudicates them. It's all about the perception of 'a fair win', and what that entails, that matters for this way of thinking.


I always found the grognard style of play boring....I mean here I had just found the perfect medium (for me) to have fantastic adventure so why obsess on killing monsters in danky caves and stealing treasure? It's like you've just discovered how to make movies and all you are focusing on is making porn!

So in my games it wasn't about surviving dungeons, I had bigger stories to tell!

JNAProductions
2017-04-19, 01:26 PM
I always found the grognard style of play boring....I mean here I had just found the perfect medium (for me) to have fantastic adventure so why obsess on killing monsters in danky caves and stealing treasure? It's like you've just discovered how to make movies and all you are focusing on is making porn!

So in my games it wasn't about surviving dungeons, I had bigger stories to tell!

To extend the metaphor, though, people have a lot of fun making and watching porn. I actually like the metaphor-there's lots of different movie types, from the big, dramatic stories, to action-packed fight fests, to comedies, and no one type of movie is better than the other. People have preferences, but that's a person-to-person thing.

Quertus
2017-04-19, 01:41 PM
I always found the grognard style of play boring....I mean here I had just found the perfect medium (for me) to have fantastic adventure so why obsess on killing monsters in danky caves and stealing treasure? It's like you've just discovered how to make movies and all you are focusing on is making porn!

So in my games it wasn't about surviving dungeons, I had bigger stories to tell!


To extend the metaphor, though, people have a lot of fun making and watching porn. I actually like the metaphor-there's lots of different movie types, from the big, dramatic stories, to action-packed fight fests, to comedies, and no one type of movie is better than the other. People have preferences, but that's a person-to-person thing.

Grognard: no no no, you're missing the point: D&D may be about porn, but we make realistic porn, where the protagonist has to work for it. Whereas your newfangled action/adventure movie heroes just get handed unrealistic victories. We'd watch your action/adventure movies, if you'd just make realistic ones, where gunshot wounds take time to heal, Batman dies even more often than they (currently) replace the actor, etc.

JNAProductions
2017-04-19, 01:47 PM
Grognard: no no no, you're missing the point: D&D may be about porn, but we make realistic porn, where the protagonist has to work for it. Whereas your newfangled action/adventure movie heroes just get handed unrealistic victories. We'd watch your action/adventure movies, if you'd just make realistic ones, where gunshot wounds take time to heal, Batman dies even more often than they (currently) replace the actor, etc.

I can just see it. 14 hour long porno-the first 13.8 hours are the (wo)man working hard at their job, meeting a nice (wo)man, taking them on dates, buying them nice gifts, having a minor spat, making up, kissing, going on more dates, getting a promotion, and then finally, on the protagonist's birthday, the last 12 minutes are what you came for. :P

And to bring it back to D&D, there IS a sense of reward when you play in a really freaking hard campaign and still manage to triumph due to skill, perseverance, planning, and a bit of luck. But there's also fun in occasionally playing a game when you start at level 30, blast your way through dragons like they're nothing, and generally just kick ass and take names. And the middle ground, where you start at, say, level 3, and oftentimes are not in much danger of dying, but have a good chance of non-death failure.

There's all kinds of ways to have fun with this game, and ultimately, that's what it's about. As I said before-the job of the GM and the players is to have a good time.

Tanarii
2017-04-19, 01:49 PM
I always found the grognard style of play boring....I mean here I had just found the perfect medium (for me) to have fantastic adventure so why obsess on killing monsters in danky caves and stealing treasure? It's like you've just discovered how to make movies and all you are focusing on is making porn!

So in my games it wasn't about surviving dungeons, I had bigger stories to tell!
Fair enough. I've always found trying to "tell stories" with an RPG boring because it eliminates (at least the perception of) challenge. As well as killing player agency / making player in-character decision making (aka roleplaying) pointless, if done poorly. But that's just me.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-04-19, 01:52 PM
Guaranteed victory is boring. But challenge doesn't have to be life/death in a monster cave.

There can be challenge in literally anything so long as the PCs want something and the GM puts obstacles in the way of getting that thing.

LordCdrMilitant
2017-04-19, 02:18 PM
Fair enough. I've always found trying to "tell stories" with an RPG boring because it eliminates (at least the perception of) challenge. As well as killing player agency / making player in-character decision making (aka roleplaying) pointless, if done poorly. But that's just me.

It's not about the GM's story, it's about the player's story. This has probably been said ten thousand times before.

And, when it comes to it, I've never seen challenging combat lead to roleplay. I've seen challenging combat lead to extreme optimization, players telling other players what is tactically sound to do, and players not actually ever considering their character, what their character thinks, how their character acts, and why, and instead thinking about how to get the most out of the numbers on the sheet in front of them. I've seen that dungeoncrawls of random monsters tend not to bring players into the world, not to make them know and love their characters, places, and npcs.

So I prefer not to run games that way. Drop the players off and let them run, and make stuff up as they go.

But to each his/her own.

JNAProductions
2017-04-19, 02:20 PM
Combat can be rewarding in its own right. I like Warhammer 40k, for instance (okay, bad example-balance there is poopy) and the story in any given battle is slim-to-none. Same thing for D&D-there might not be much roleplaying in a hard boss fight, but it's fun in and of itself.

Yora
2017-04-19, 02:44 PM
I think ideally the GM should be the facilitator who enables the adventures of the players by providing a game environment with things the players can interact with. The players are the heroes of the story and have the agency to decide what the story will be. Within the game environment that the GM prepared.

A good GM is one who fills that world that is interesting to investigate and reacts to the players in entertaining and exiting ways. The generic uninspired hexcrawl of "Here is a map, do whatever you want" is very much not GMing. A well prepared adventure is "Here is this dangerous and exciting thing. Go take a look and then do with it whatever you find exciting." Whatever the players might want to do (within the context of the prepared game environment) should be fine. If cities go up in smoke and NPCs die because the players decided on a course of action, it's fine. The cities and the NPCs exist as toys for the players. Not as artworks to be admired but not touched. When you put things into an adventure, their purpose is to allow for exciting interactions. That includes some potential opponents that the players are unlikely to beat in a fight, which require the players to find another way around or ways to avoid a fight.

The main thing that makes RPGs different from any other narrative medium is that the audience can set the direction of the story. Any time there are multiple things the heroes could do, the players can decide what they do. Players in RPGs have agency, which any other audience does not have. Not even players in videogames with scripted multiple-path videogames. If the campaign is a story that the GM could have written as a book and the players read, it's wasting the potential of the medium. Yes, you can tell stories to an audience with RPGs, but I find this to be doing something okay when you have everything in place to do something awesome.

While I am totally for GMs who are hands off during play and disinterested in what outcome the players cause to happen, I am very much in favor for really high involvement and creative heavy lifting when it comes to preparing the board, so to speak. Creating the environments and populating them is where GMs have their time to shine. Once the game starts, the players are in charge.

Tanarii
2017-04-19, 03:35 PM
It's not about the GM's story, it's about the player's story. This has probably been said ten thousand times before.Same difference. If you are writing a story, what you want to happen to further the plot will happen.


And, when it comes to it, I've never seen challenging combat lead to roleplay.challenge != combat. Edit: In fact, it's worth noting that part of the challenge in older versions of D&D was usually trying to find ways to avoid combat.

And roleplay is making in-character decisions, so they're plenty of it in almost all combat. Unless you're playing it as tactical mini-game with a personality free robot.


But to each his/her own.Indeed. What's important here is we disparate each others pay of playing. :smallwink:

Cluedrew
2017-04-19, 03:52 PM
Fair enough. I've always found trying to "tell stories" with an RPG boring because it eliminates (at least the perception of) challenge. As well as killing player agency / making player in-character decision making (aka roleplaying) pointless, if done poorly. But that's just me.If done poorly yes, it can kill agency. But I think that is entirely separate from challenge, which you sort of implied but I would like to expand on. There can be a lot of meaningful decisions in how the characters go about winning, even if the fact that they do is almost a given. It is sort of like re-reading a book, you know how it is going to end, but all the stuff in the middle is still worth going through.

Anecdotally, I come from a more tell stories view point than challenge based, and at least some of the other players and the GM in my group are similar. Of the two best campaigns I've had with them, one ended up with all but 1 PC dying and the other ended up with them all giving up and going home. I'm not sure either could be counted as a win, but they were great fun.

Tanarii
2017-04-19, 04:00 PM
Absolutely staying alive / not removed from play is not the only way to have challenge in a game. Nor the only "win" condition. I brought it up as a classically grognard PoV of a possible win condition, rather than "run the campaign map" being the only win condition.

Quertus
2017-04-19, 05:11 PM
While I am totally for GMs who are hands off during play and disinterested in what outcome the players cause to happen, I am very much in favor for really high involvement and creative heavy lifting when it comes to preparing the board, so to speak. Creating the environments and populating them is where GMs have their time to shine. Once the game starts, the players are in charge.

I don't wanna sig this, I want a slight reworded version of this to be the entirety of the first page of the 6e DMG. I want to teach this mindset to every new DM from the get go.


And, when it comes to it, I've never seen challenging combat lead to roleplay. I've seen challenging combat lead to extreme optimization, players telling other players what is tactically sound to do, .... I've seen that dungeoncrawls of random monsters tend not to bring players into the world, not to make them know and love their characters, places, and npcs.


D&D-there might not be much roleplaying in a hard boss fight,


challenge != combat. Edit: In fact, it's worth noting that part of the challenge in older versions of D&D was usually trying to find ways to avoid combat.

Ok, I've got to backpedal / sidestep slightly to move forward here.

True, hard challenges (which isn't limited to hard combats) reward certain behaviors, including optimization and efficiency. If that's all there is to your games, that may be all that you're teaching.

But.

"Going easy" on the players doesn't teach role-playing, or love of NPCs / the world. No, that requires something different - something which can exist equally in an "easy mode" or a "hard mode" campaign.

And, well, call me a snob, but anyone who stops role-playing in combat probably wasn't really role-playing in the first place. Because if you stop making decisions for your character based on who your character is just because of a little blood or a few dice being rolled, I don't think you really get what role-playing is all about. But, you know, I might just be being an elitist snob, because I don't stop role-playing just because a fight broke out.

RazorChain
2017-04-19, 10:27 PM
Same difference. If you are writing a story, what you want to happen to further the plot will happen.

challenge != combat. Edit: In fact, it's worth noting that part of the challenge in older versions of D&D was usually trying to find ways to avoid combat.

And roleplay is making in-character decisions, so they're plenty of it in almost all combat. Unless you're playing it as tactical mini-game with a personality free robot.

Indeed. What's important here is we disparate each others pay of playing. :smallwink:

Well different players have different emphasis on what aspect of the game they like. For me a 6 hour session going through a dungeon where we spend most of the time moving miniatures on a battlemat is fine occasionally. I like strategy games but I don't roleplay to get my fix for strategy games. So for me combat is used to asnwer a dramatic question not just to kill things for XP. Some people like to focus most on the combat minigame to overcome adversity and fine tune their characters so they can be better at the combat minigame and that's fine but not what I like to focus on.

In my games challenge isnt = combat. The PC's in my game they fail if they don't play smart because they get outsmarted or just fail to accomplish their goal. So they lose and not because didn't win in the combat minigame, combat is just one form of challenge.

Story is what follows when the protagonists do something. In my language story is saga...like the viking sagas and saga can mean history, story, a chronicle. The viking sagas chronicles events and peoples life stories, sometimes the protagonists even die but still the saga continues and focuses on a new protagonists. So I don't invent a story where the characters have to follow a plot to further the story....no matter what they do their story continues. So when people mention story in their games doesn't mean that the tracks have been laid down and all the players are going "choochoo" and player agency has been thrown out of the window, that's what we call railroading and is an entirely different concept.

BayardSPSR
2017-04-19, 11:32 PM
The role of a GM is to make the players' lives easy and their characters' lives hard.

RazorChain
2017-04-20, 02:40 AM
i agree that it doesn't work for every game. But that's the type of game I like to run, and I let my players know the type of game it is before they make characters.

Also, the other types of GM's aren't wrong, I have just migrated away from those and find that I like to play a more punishing setting, where you are expected to die, and have to use every dirty trick available to survive. (both as a Gm and a player)

Also, I'm using the term "win" in the loosest fashion. I think that "winning" is achieved when a player can take the GM's job from him. Example, you trick/defeat a god, take their power, and rule over the world, etc. You can win by beating a big boss and saving the world but most of the stories I've seen about winning dnd, involve breaking the game to the point where your character controls most if not all power in the world. In that regard, the dm should make sure that they are never outwitted/outgamed by a player to the point where that happens. But, everyone has their own opinion, and the point of this thread is discussion, not argument.


Then I heartily recommend Play Dirty by John Wick, the creator of Legend of the five rings and 7th Sea. I've been playing dirty since '99 when I first read his columns in the Pyramid Magazine. In Play dirty 2 he has mellowed so I only recommend the first book.

http://johnwickpresents.com/product/play-dirty/

hifidelity2
2017-04-20, 02:51 AM
The role of a GM is to make the players' lives easy and their characters' lives hard.

I like that definition

Cluedrew
2017-04-20, 06:44 AM
To BayardSPSR: I have never heard that one before. I think it is a pretty good one line summery of the role.

Tanarii
2017-04-20, 09:10 AM
So when people mention story in their games doesn't mean that the tracks have been laid down and all the players are going "choochoo" and player agency has been thrown out of the window, that's what we call railroading and is an entirely different concept.Not all story is railroading, but only because sometimes you're winging the plot as you go. But story is about writing the plot, not playing a character experiencing a world and doing things, nor making in-character decisions as that character (aka roleplaying).

Roleplaying doesn't involve 'story' any more than living in real life involves 'story'. In both cases, you can take the experiences and then make a story from it after the fact. Adding plot, narrative, and meaning to the events to create a complete tale. But if you're writing the story in an RPG, you're focusing on the plot/narrative in lieu of focusing on the character's experience ... you're making decisions about the plot/narrative instead of making in-character decisions as the character.

Edit: Possibly an example of the difference would help.

Roleplaying by players:
DM: Situation is A
Player 1: I do B
Player 2: I do C
DM: B results in X, C results in Y, situation is now Z

Storytelling:
ST: A Happens
Player 1: Then X happens
Player 2: Then Y happens
ST: Now Z happens

Knaight
2017-04-20, 09:14 AM
... you're making decisions about the plot/narrative instead of making in-character decisions as the character.

These aren't contradictory. Well developed characters can generally respond to things in multiple different ways, pursue multiple different courses of action, and generally exhibit multiple different behaviors. Selecting between the set of in-character options with an eye towards narrative hardly destroys role playing, and that's without getting into the GM role and how much broader the options get when you're selecting between a set of in-character and in-setting options across a much wider space.

Delicious Taffy
2017-04-20, 09:18 AM
The role of the GM? Well...

http://dubaiinteriors.ae/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/16.jpg

That said, I doubt my experience is typical, and if it is, I hope that only applies to new GMs.

BayardSPSR
2017-04-20, 03:41 PM
I like that definition


To BayardSPSR: I have never heard that one before. I think it is a pretty good one line summery of the role.

Thanks! I'm genuinely proud that one. I immediately started thinking of all the exceptions and qualifications it needs to be a perfect representation of my perspective, but I'm glad I left the chaff out.

Pugwampy
2017-04-21, 06:53 AM
http://mythicscribes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/conan-the-barbarian-225x300.jpg


Crush the Players . See them driven before me and to hear the lamentation of their women .

Cluedrew
2017-04-21, 07:15 AM
To BayardSPSR: I can think of a few. For instance another tip I think is good is "be the character's biggest fan", which really means let them be awesome. Sometimes it means letting them shine out do those around them, other times it means show their epic battle to reach some goal. And of course even that is far from complete and I used two lines to do it. So you could expand the one line into a small essay, but I think it gets the point across.

Tanarii
2017-04-21, 08:05 AM
Crush the Players . See them driven before me and to hear the lamentation of their women .PCs. Not Players. :smallwink:

hymer
2017-04-21, 08:57 AM
Crush the Players . See them driven before me and to hear the lamentation of their women .

That is good. That is good.

Scripten
2017-04-21, 09:10 AM
Possibly an example of the difference would help.

Roleplaying by players:
DM: Situation is A
Player 1: I do B
Player 2: I do C
DM: B results in X, C results in Y, situation is now Z

Storytelling:
ST: A Happens
Player 1: Then X happens
Player 2: Then Y happens
ST: Now Z happens

I have to admit, I don't see much practical difference between these two examples in a narrative sense. Mechanically, they are obviously very different, but you still have the fundamental progression of the situation from A -> X -> Y -> Z. The only major difference is that the players announce their intentions and attempt to act, with the DM resolving, in the first example, and the ST/Players collaborating in a linear progression in the second.

True, the back-and-forth flow of roleplay is why many people (including me) play TTRPGs, but I don't see how the first example is not effectively resulting in the same type of result as the second.

Tanarii
2017-04-21, 09:44 AM
I have to admit, I don't see much practical difference between these two examples in a narrative sense.It doesn't appear different to people that think "in a narrative sense". Which is why people that think RPGs have something to do with storytelling (usually called 'collaborative storytelling') don't understand why it doesn't actually have anything to do with role playing. Because making in-character decisions for an imaginary character isn't the same thing as determining the narrative for the story (or game world).

The first is like playing a character living in an imaginary world. The latter is like writing a free-form story on the fly as a group. They may seem to result in the same thing after the fact, if wrote them both down and took the former and added a plot and narrative structure to it. But they are very different approaches to playing the game.

kyoryu
2017-04-21, 11:11 AM
There is no single "role" of the GM. It completely depends on the system and style of game that you're playing.

What is excellent GMing for one system/style is piss-poor GMing in another. I would GM 1e AD&D very, very, very differently than I would GM Fate or Apocalypse World.

2D8HP
2017-04-21, 11:42 AM
The players play the PCs and the GM plays the world.


I prefer that division as well.


....A good GM is one who fills that world that is interesting to investigate and reacts to the players in entertaining and exiting ways. The generic uninspired hexcrawl of "Here is a map, do whatever you want" is very much not GMing. A well prepared adventure is "Here is this dangerous and exciting thing. Go take a look and then do with it whatever you find exciting."....


Sounds good.

Avoids both the "Railroad", and the "Empty Room".


It doesn't appear different to people that think "in a narrative sense". Which is why people that think RPGs have something to do with....
....But they are very different approaches to playing the game.


I think you're on to something


There is no single "role" of the GM. It completely depends on the system and style of game that you're playing.

What is excellent GMing for one system/style is piss-poor GMing in another. I would GM 1e AD&D very, very, very differently than I would GM Fate or Apocalypse World.


@kyoryu's in the thread.

Cool!

Because I find them useful for discussion (so useful that I've quoted them before) I'm going to use and label @kyoryu's excellent typology's (please suggest better labels than mine!), with some comments.


I consider there to be there interaction types in RPGs.

Type 1:
GM: "This is the situation."
Player: "I do the thing!"
GM: "This is now the situation."


(GM as worldbuilder, player as explorer, I'll call it the Fiatist style).


Type 2:
Player 1: "I move my pieces in accordance with the rules"
Player 2: "I move my pieces in accordance with the rules"
Player 3: "I move my pieces in accordance with the rules"


(GM as stopwatch holding referee, I'll call it the Gamist style).


Type 3:
Player 1: "A thing happens!"
Player 2: "And then another thing happens!"
Player 3: "And then another thing happens!"


(Collaborative storytelling in which that the fictional "world" created is decided as much by players as by the nominal GM, I'll call it the Collaborationist style).

I'd add another style:

Type 4:
GM: "This is the situation."
Player: "Well I do.. !"
GM: "This is now the situation."
Player: "Hey I didn't say.."
GM: "This is now the situation."
Player: "Are you deaf? I said.."
GM: "This is now the situation."
Player: *groan*

(Often called "The extreme railroad", and only nominally an RPG, I'll call it Storytime style).


No game is really purely any of these... .


*Full disclosure*

My own preferences are probably:

4 parts Fiatist,
3 parts Gamist,
2 parts Collaborationist (PC backgrounds), and
1 part Storytime (narration past the boring parts)

for TableTop, and:

7 parts Fiatist,
1 part Gamist,
1 part Collaborationist, and
1 part Storytime

for PbP (please someone suggest better labels!).

Either late when 1e D&D was still current or early after 2e D&D came out (I remember what motorcycle I rode to the game, and what job I went to in the morning, but not the exact year), a player I'll call the "Melnibonean", and the DM I'll call "Too-tired-for-this-mess", had this interaction:


"Melnibonean" the player: As the Dragon closes it's jaws I place the sword hilt down blade up so that when it bites down it gets pierced.

"Too-tired-for-this-mess" the DM: Roll to hit.

"Melnibonean" the player: What do you mean roll to hit? Didn't you hear what I said?!

"Too-tired-for-this-mess" the DM: Yeah, roll to hit.

"Melnibonean" the player: You're doing it wrong!


So, a play style argument between a player who wanted a Collabarationist game (and to do some power fantasy showboating), and a Gamist DM, both of whom only knew TSR D&D.

If the conversation happened today I suspect that they'd post how (whatever)edition/game makes for poor GM's or players.

I also suspect that who the GM's and players are, and what they want matters more than the particuliar RAW, but I have a poor memory for learning new rules, and I first learned to game when you had to make up a lot to keep it flowing, so I probably place less importance on RAW than many.

Aftet character creation I'm fine with "rules" like this:

1) GM describes a scene.
2) Player says an action that their PC attempts.
3) GM decides if the PC has no chance of success, no chance of failure, or a partial chance of success.
4) If a partial chance of success, GM makes up on the spot a percentage chance of success.
5) Player rolls D100 (two 0-9 twenty-siders once upon a time), or over something with a d20, or under something with a d6, or shuffle cards like in Castle Falkenstein.
6) If the player rolls under/over/whatever the made up number their PC succeeds in attempting the task, if over the PC fails.
7) GM narrates the immediate consequences until it's time to again ask, "what do you do".
8) Repeat.

I don't like my PC being "Locked into Lameness" (i.e. forced to fight other PC's in an arena), or in an "Empty Room" (very little GM provided content, if the GM asks me "what do you want to find there", my response is "A setting, not a blank page!").

Sometimes the "Empty Room" (which doesn't seem to bother other players as much as the "Railroad", but sure bugs/bores me), actually results from GM's who under-prepare, can't improvise (fatigue or inexperience is often a big cause of that), but it also results from "passive/aggressive railroader's" ("Nothing is going to happen until YOU GET BACK ON THE TRACKS BY CROM!").

I've also seen "Empty Rooms" result from GM's going mute while the players did "Backstory based competitive soliloquies" showboatin' (usually at the start of "campaign's" that die at inception).

As less than fun as it often is, I more readily forgive "Story-time" GM's (especially when their inexperienced), to "Empty Room", "We're collaborating on the story" GM's (well go ahead and "collaborate" a setting dagnabbit!).

To each their own.

Cluedrew
2017-04-21, 01:05 PM
To 2D8HP: Not only have you quoted them before, I am starting to recognize the surrounding text as well.

Names for the types of interaction.
Type 1: Situation-Response (There is a situation, the players give a response. The GM uses this to create a new situation, repeat.)
Type 2: Mechanics-Based (Possible moves and outcomes are mapped mechanically before hand.)
Type 3: Round-Table (Control bounces around the table as each player provides their input.)

Also I think type 4 is Storyteller is either just a more complex situation update under situation-response, or shouldn't to be in the list at all. I was there at the original posting of this and as I recall we were talking about forms of interaction. Storyteller doesn't have interaction, it is just a burst that the players sit and watch. Actually, if we clean it up, removing the rather dysfunctional conversation included, it becomes a lot clearer.

GM: This is the situation, This happens and now this is the situation.

There is the players have no input into the evolving situation and the GM has nothing to respond to, it isn't interaction as I understand your description. So I say scratch it from the list, unless I'm missed something. That is what I got for interaction right now.

kyoryu
2017-04-21, 01:07 PM
The 4th type (which I hate to include because it's so dysfunctional) is basically the first type, except where what the players say doesn't actually matter.

There's a little more subtlety in those types, as well, in terms of roles and rules and who interacts with rules and whatnot.

(And, FWIW, I gave them numbers and not names just to avoid any bias, explicit, implicit, or perceived, in labels).

A few other key points:

Type 1 games rely on a person who has the "job" of GM - that is, their job is to provide the interpretive layer between the players and the rules, and to respond in terms of the game world. In a "pure" Type 1 game, the players wouldn't need to understand the rules at all. A Type 1 player's job is only to act as their character in the game.

In Type 2 games, everyone is interacting with the rules and is equally beholden to them. This prevents the abuses that can happen in Type 1 games, but also means that (in the pure form) everyone has to think in terms of rules, and you are limited to what the rules allow. While it's reasonable to have multiple characters in a Type 2 game, generally a given character will "belong" to only one player. It also presents some number crunching fun for people that like that.

In Type 3 games, people take turns decribing what happens, perhaps according to some rules to define who gets to speak at what time. The concept of "strong" ownership of a character is minimized - part of your narration may well involve saying what a different character does.

AD&D 1e, and B/X are primarily Type 1 games, with a bit of Type 2 added in.
D&D 3 is about halfway between Type 1 and 2 for non-combat, and pretty heavily Type 2 for combat.
D&D 4 is mostly Type 1 for non-combat (with a bit of Type 2), and extremely Type 2 for combat.
Fiasco is Type 3, with a touch of Type 2.
Fate has bits of each type mixed in.

(I mean for usual/default applications of the rules. Any table can veer closer to any type)

The Extinguisher
2017-04-21, 02:59 PM
The GM's role is to keep the game fun for the other players while also having fun themselves.

If it seems unusably broad, that's because it is. I don't think it's all that important to try and figure out what a GM is for, or the different broad strokes "styles" of GMing because inevitably all that does is get people to take sides over which way is better.

PhoenixPhyre
2017-04-21, 03:02 PM
Type 1 games rely on a person who has the "job" of GM - that is, their job is to provide the interpretive layer between the players and the rules, and to respond in terms of the game world. In a "pure" Type 1 game, the players wouldn't need to understand the rules at all. A Type 1 player's job is only to act as their character in the game.

In Type 2 games, everyone is interacting with the rules and is equally beholden to them. This prevents the abuses that can happen in Type 1 games, but also means that (in the pure form) everyone has to think in terms of rules, and you are limited to what the rules allow. While it's reasonable to have multiple characters in a Type 2 game, generally a given character will "belong" to only one player. It also presents some number crunching fun for people that like that.

In Type 3 games, people take turns decribing what happens, perhaps according to some rules to define who gets to speak at what time. The concept of "strong" ownership of a character is minimized - part of your narration may well involve saying what a different character does.

AD&D 1e, and B/X are primarily Type 1 games, with a bit of Type 2 added in.
D&D 3 is about halfway between Type 1 and 2 for non-combat, and pretty heavily Type 2 for combat.
D&D 4 is mostly Type 1 for non-combat (with a bit of Type 2), and extremely Type 2 for combat.
Fiasco is Type 3, with a touch of Type 2.
Fate has bits of each type mixed in.

(I mean for usual/default applications of the rules. Any table can veer closer to any type)

And (at least in my experience) D&D 5e is a mix of 1&2, more of type 2 in combat than type 1, but much much much more evenly mixed than 3.X or 4e. I've run multiple tables of people who basically only knew the "roll d20 and add #number from sheet" mechanic and it was fine (if a bit slow). That is, 5e has a much lower system-mastery floor than 3.X or 4e did. That's part of the reason I like it.

As for the main topic, I consider my job as DM to be to facilitate fun. All other issues are secondary. I'm willing to "break the rules" if (and only if) it will be more fun for the party.

I'm also a warm-fuzzy DM (on the lethal/fluffy-bunny spectrum), but that's mainly because my dice like my players. I consistently roll < 5 on attacks when facing players, but 15+ when acting as friendly NPCs. I've had 5-round combats where my entire group of monsters hit (against normal ACs) a total of twice. Curse those empathetic dice.

2D8HP
2017-04-21, 03:27 PM
Curse those empathetic dice.


Sig-worthy!

Pugwampy
2017-04-23, 07:27 AM
A word thats i noticed is not really used alot but I think it covers just about everything .

The Dm is the entertainer . He does what is needed to make the game fun for everyone including himself .

Me1000
2017-05-22, 01:56 AM
I just want to have a discussion on what you think the GM's role is in the game. I want to keep this to your own unique perspective. I think many of us can agree the GM's role is to create a narrative for the PCs to explore. I want to know about your personal philosophy on how to approach GMing.

Here's mine (also, may be CONTROVERSIAL):

I think there are 3 types of GM's. I have my own personal preferences, I don't think any of these styles are wrong, just not my style of game.

The first is usually a new GM. They think that GM's have all the power. They talk about how the GM is this omniscient overlord who controls the story. They are often kind of railroady, and get mad when the players try to excercise too much agency.

the Second kind of GM is usually a more experienced one. They realize that the players have a lot of power, and cater their game to the players. The players go on an epic quest, kill a god, and retire as heroes.

The Third type of GM (and my favorite/what I aspire to be) plays to win. They realize that the players have agency, but in the end, they control the story. The players may set out on their epic quest, but victory is not assured. The GM will use every trick in their book to try to thwart the heroes. They will play by the rules, and play fair, but they will play to win.

I'll end with a quote from the Cyberpunk 2020 handbook,

""You should not be afraid to kill off player characters. You should constantly be getting them into fights, traps, betrayals and other soap operas. There should be no one they can trust entirely, no place that's absolutely safe. Never let them rest. This doesn't mean you shouldn't play fair. But you should always play for keeps."

What is your opinion on the Role of a GM?

I agree, totally

Pilo
2017-05-22, 08:44 AM
I don't get how the 3rd GM style could be the best. It is basically a great waste of time for everyone :
The GM prepares a big epic story, learn the world and the ruleset of the game.
Each players roll their characters, create a backstory, find a way for their characters to be together.
At the first challenge, TPK, the GM wins and can now throws away all her/his previous work.

I think a good GM is someone who wants its players to find out, in game, what she/he has prepared for them.
Someone who will improvise a new part of the story when the characters leave the railroad long enough for
them to feel free then link this new chapter to the rest of the story so her/his work don't go to waste.

And of course, she/he will try that in a way that everyone have fun, her/himself included.

JNAProductions
2017-05-22, 11:32 AM
I don't get how the 3rd GM style could be the best. It is basically a great waste of time for everyone :
The GM prepares a big epic story, learn the world and the ruleset of the game.
Each players roll their characters, create a backstory, find a way for their characters to be together.
At the first challenge, TPK, the GM wins and can now throws away all her/his previous work.

I think a good GM is someone who wants its players to find out, in game, what she/he has prepared for them.
Someone who will improvise a new part of the story when the characters leave the railroad long enough for
them to feel free then link this new chapter to the rest of the story so her/his work don't go to waste.

And of course, she/he will try that in a way that everyone have fun, her/himself included.

That's opinion.

And the thing is, you make the encounters with fairness in mind. So you don't say "MWAHAHAHAHA! I'll throw an ancient red dragon at this level 2 party!" you say "I'll throw an EL 2 encounter at this level 2 party, then later, some EL 1s right in a row, and for the boss fight, an EL 4 one."

But once the encounters are made, THEN you hold nothing back.

Darth Ultron
2017-05-22, 12:10 PM
I don't get how the 3rd GM style could be the best. It is basically a great waste of time for everyone :
The GM prepares a big epic story, learn the world and the ruleset of the game.
Each players roll their characters, create a backstory, find a way for their characters to be together.
At the first challenge, TPK, the GM wins and can now throws away all her/his previous work.


The DM makes it a challenge, not a TPK. It's not the DM doing the ''your 3rd level characters fight a beholder!''. It's the 3rd level characters vs a tribe of kobolds...

Beastrolami
2017-05-22, 01:07 PM
The DM makes it a challenge, not a TPK. It's not the DM doing the ''your 3rd level characters fight a beholder!''. It's the 3rd level characters vs a tribe of kobolds...

Yep. You PLAY FAIR, but play to win. My most recent game ended with a tpk, and afterwards, we talked and agreed the battle was winnable. I even warned the players in advance that I was going to take the training wheels off, and try to kill them this session. There were other traps, and dangers leading up to the encounter, which the party cleared, they made some mistakes in the fight, and in the end, they died. Because the campaign was winding down, we just ended it there, but that is a good opportunity to teach the players they can lose and still have fun.

Another campaign ended when the party decided they were going to win a seemingly unwinnable fight... turns out when a couple major powers in the world tell you to keep your nose out of a situation, you should pay heed, and let it play out the way they want. Party wasn't tpk'd in that game, but they did lose a bunch of powerful allies, and added a few more enemies to their growing revenge list.

You shouldn't drop a dragon out of the sky, insta-kill the party and say, I won. You should plan encounters to challenge or kill the party, because otherwise there is no real conflict, and the heroes (in my opinion) won't feel heroic.

I was playing in a game with a new gm, and I built a really tanky character. There was an npc behind a statue with a sword (which was obviously enchanted to attack) I walked right past it. Dm stopped me and said no, you can't. I said why not? It will attack. Bring it, I can take an attack. He missed my ridiculously high AC, we killed the statue without a problem and saved the npc. That whole game left a sour taste in my mouth because I knew I could go anywhere and do anything, but instead I was on the railroad. Even if it wasn't a railroady campaign, at that point, I would have asked where the BBEG was, so i could go murdurize him/her/it because so far, there was nothing in the world to say it would be challenging.

Knaight
2017-05-22, 01:14 PM
Yep. You PLAY FAIR, but play to win. My most recent game ended with a tpk, and afterwards, we talked and agreed the battle was winnable. I even warned the players in advance that I was going to take the training wheels off, and try to kill them this session. There were other traps, and dangers leading up to the encounter, which the party cleared, they made some mistakes in the fight, and in the end, they died. Because the campaign was winding down, we just ended it there, but that is a good opportunity to teach the players they can lose and still have fun.

Up to a point, yes. Playing every enemy as seeking only to take out PCs and nigh suicidal doesn't make a lot of sense though; presumably most of them want to live. Then there's enemies established as being really, really stupid, where they absolutely should act stupidly. Playing to win can conflict with maintaining the setting verisimilitude, and the latter should take precedence in most campaigns.

LordCdrMilitant
2017-05-22, 01:45 PM
Yep. You PLAY FAIR, but play to win. My most recent game ended with a tpk, and afterwards, we talked and agreed the battle was winnable. I even warned the players in advance that I was going to take the training wheels off, and try to kill them this session. There were other traps, and dangers leading up to the encounter, which the party cleared, they made some mistakes in the fight, and in the end, they died. Because the campaign was winding down, we just ended it there, but that is a good opportunity to teach the players they can lose and still have fun.

Another campaign ended when the party decided they were going to win a seemingly unwinnable fight... turns out when a couple major powers in the world tell you to keep your nose out of a situation, you should pay heed, and let it play out the way they want. Party wasn't tpk'd in that game, but they did lose a bunch of powerful allies, and added a few more enemies to their growing revenge list.

You shouldn't drop a dragon out of the sky, insta-kill the party and say, I won. You should plan encounters to challenge or kill the party, because otherwise there is no real conflict, and the heroes (in my opinion) won't feel heroic.

I was playing in a game with a new gm, and I built a really tanky character. There was an npc behind a statue with a sword (which was obviously enchanted to attack) I walked right past it. Dm stopped me and said no, you can't. I said why not? It will attack. Bring it, I can take an attack. He missed my ridiculously high AC, we killed the statue without a problem and saved the npc. That whole game left a sour taste in my mouth because I knew I could go anywhere and do anything, but instead I was on the railroad. Even if it wasn't a railroady campaign, at that point, I would have asked where the BBEG was, so i could go murdurize him/her/it because so far, there was nothing in the world to say it would be challenging.

So, another 2 cents I'm going to add to the pile.

I used to believe that my objective was to make every encounter a challenging puzzle for the players to overcome. I spent a lot of time balancing enemies, and preparing hostiles that gave the party opportunities to play to their strength, and could exploit tactical deficiencies in the player's actions.

I now believe my job is to bring to life the world in which the characters live. I also believe that a character dying should always be the players' choice, never mine.

Beastrolami
2017-05-22, 03:11 PM
Up to a point, yes. Playing every enemy as seeking only to take out PCs and nigh suicidal doesn't make a lot of sense though; presumably most of them want to live. Then there's enemies established as being really, really stupid, where they absolutely should act stupidly. Playing to win can conflict with maintaining the setting verisimilitude, and the latter should take precedence in most campaigns.

I would lump that under the umbrella. I would call it playing fair because yes, enemies have moral, and after seeing some of their friends get murdured in the first turn, will probably turn tail and flee.

But, I would also consider it playing to win because there are occasionally characters with one track minds. They will do 1 thing unless they are really close to dying, or there is something/someone actively preventing them from doing their thing. Monster that feeds on magic will rush the caster in the back. I'm not going to pull my punches because I know he is squishy. The monster wants his magic, and the caster better pull a good spell out of his a$$ quick, or he'll be squished.

I always try to maintain verisimilitude. But, because of my dm style, I build worlds which are generally dark and or bleak. Or.... just tell the players that they aren't the chosen heroes. They are adventurers in a world where adventurers are common and people die. The cleric isn't going to heal you/raise you just because you asked nicely.

Darth Ultron
2017-05-22, 07:14 PM
Up to a point, yes. Playing every enemy as seeking only to take out PCs and nigh suicidal doesn't make a lot of sense though; presumably most of them want to live. Then there's enemies established as being really, really stupid, where they absolutely should act stupidly. Playing to win can conflict with maintaining the setting verisimilitude, and the latter should take precedence in most campaigns.

This just comes down to style.

My ''stupid'' giant encounter is more of the giant doing ''Giant Smash!''. Your ''stupid'' giant slips on a banana peel and falls down and drops his club..waka..waka..waka.


I also believe that a character dying should always be the players' choice, never mine.

It is true that most players kill off their own characters. Though I'd guess your talking about a ''very special game'' where the player has prepared a ''swan song drama'' for their ''doomed character''. I'd talk more about ''ok, so your character jumps into the room alone to fight two beholders?''

Quertus
2017-05-22, 08:15 PM
I'd talk more about ''ok, so your character jumps into the room alone to fight two beholders?''

Quertus, my tactically inept academia mage, has done just that! Of course, it's just because he won initiative, and he did successfully alpha-strike the beholders (it's one of the few things he's actually good at fighting!), but... what did you want to talk about about it?

LordCdrMilitant
2017-05-22, 10:28 PM
This just comes down to style.

My ''stupid'' giant encounter is more of the giant doing ''Giant Smash!''. Your ''stupid'' giant slips on a banana peel and falls down and drops his club..waka..waka..waka.



It is true that most players kill off their own characters. Though I'd guess your talking about a ''very special game'' where the player has prepared a ''swan song drama'' for their ''doomed character''. I'd talk more about ''ok, so your character jumps into the room alone to fight two beholders?''

Nah, the latter is what I'm talking about.

Your death is your own fault if you: 1: knew about the presence and location of Chaos Space Marines before dropping planetside, 2: conducted forward reconnaissance and confirmed the presence of 16 traitor Astartes and 2 Predator Annihilator tanks, and 3: decided to engage them in a frontal assault.

Frozen_Feet
2017-05-23, 02:52 AM
Depending on game, a game master has several different roles.

During a game, a GM is:

1) An arbiter: the GM is supposed to know the rules, watch that they are heeded, mediate rule disputes, penalize players who break the rules and either annul rules or create new rulings when existing rules prove incomplete. This duty is what "GM has final say" really means. It tells where the buck stops so players know when to stop arguments during the game. While this is colloquially called "rule zero", it's actually the final rule.

2) A chairperson; a tabletop game is fundamentallya meeting of N people. The GM exists to facilitate smooth discussion and make sure everyone gets their turn to speak.

3) A narrator: the players' characters are the viewpoint characters of a game. The GM provides them with that viewpoint via telling (=narrating) them what their characters see, hear etc.

4) Non-viewpoint characters; the GM is also a player, his characters are all the non-viewpoint characters in the game. The three greatest subgroups are:

a) the environment: the GM details the mood and atmosphere of locations and inanimate things and how they react to actions by players' characters.

b) support: the GM details motives, actions and reactions of animate characters needed to facilitate the world the players' characters live in, whether that be animals, shopkeepers, townspeople etc.

c) antagonists: when players are not playing their characters against each other, they are usually playing against the GM's. So GM details motives, actions and reactions of all characters opposed to the players'.

This where some of the work can most easily be offloaded to other players. In a minimalist game, a GM can play just the environment while the players play against each other, with no animate non-viewpoint characters present.

---

Before a game, a GM is:

1) A content maker. Whether this means drawing maps, writing fiction or building miniatures, the GM is largely responsible for making all the pieces their game system doesn't provide.

2) a scenario designer; if not in possession of a ready-made scenario, the GM also has to set them up for a viable starting situation for the game.

3) a game designer; the GM now has to fit all the pieces from previous two steps with whatever rules system they have. Where the system does not provide fitting rules, they now have to make them.

You can offload these to a professional game designer by using ready-made game materials.

---

Socially, the GM is:

1) a group manager: the GM typically is responsible for finding the players for a game, scheduling the game, making sure everyone shows up in time and managing social relations between players as pertains to holding the game.

2) a game host: quite often, the GM is also responsible for finding and securing the physical location for the game. This includes providing all physical items required for the game, such as rulebooks, dice, pens, paper etc.

3) a bouncer; the GM is responsible for making sure the players behave and removing people who are disrupting the game event.

All three can be offloaded to other people but a GM who can't do at least 1) is pretty useless.

---

Games without GMs distribute these roles between players or perform these functions via some group decision model, such as voting or consensus. Despite claims to the contrary, GM-less games are not a superior alternative and they rarely achieve anything a game with a GM couldn't. Neither are such games inherently inferior, however.

Mutazoia
2017-05-23, 04:05 AM
I would have to say that the role of the GM, really depends on the group he plays with. Some groups prefer to have a story or central plot to chase down, others just want a big sandbox that they can run wild in, with no direction other than pure whim. A GM has to cater his style to his group. Or more likely a like minded group will form around a particular type of GM over time, as players come and go.

Personally, I would say there are really only two types of GM: Good ones and bad ones. Maybe 3 types, if you include those transitioning between the two poles....

A good GM will be able to establish a raport with his players, and craft a game that will keep them engaged. This doesn't always mean happy because, after all, how can you have an epic, grand adventure, if you always succeed at everything with out breaking a sweat? Their players will be challenged regularly, an a good time will be had by all.

A bad GM will either rule his game with an iron fist...or surrender all control to his players.
On one hand, keeping too much control, railroading your players, insisting on superfluous rolls to see if you can tie your shoes in the morning, and generally forcing your players to take more of a spectator role in the story of how your NPC"s are awesome, isn't going to keep players engaged, or entertained.

On the other hand, if you surrender too much control and become a passive GM, your not doing anybody any favors either. If you just give your players a sandbox, and let them decide where they go and when, what they do, who they do it to, sure...your players may have a good time...or at least think they are having a good time. After all, who doesn't like winning all the time? And you may think you're having a good time, because your players are always grinning ear to ear, so you must be doing a good job, right? But are they really learning to be good players, and are you learning to be a good GM. No. Your players are just learning to expect to have the world handed to them on a silver platter, and eventually throw a fit when a different GM doesn't kow-tow to their every whim. And you don't learn to be a better GM, because you are not learning how to control the pace and flow of your game, or how to guide your players with out railroading them. Your not learning when and how to say "no" or "maybe" or "yes, but". At that point, your players really don't even need you, except as a random number generator for the enemy durning combat. Combat which they will always win, with mior (if any) injuries, while gaining massive ammounts of loot, because that's what makes your players happy....

In the end, you have to learn how to strike a balance between laying down the law, and sitting at a table of free-range chickens. And since every group dynamic is different, this takes some people longer to learn (if they ever do), especially if they primarily game online where group membership can change, quite litterally, over night.

Lorsa
2017-05-25, 07:49 AM
I just want to have a discussion on what you think the GM's role is in the game. I want to keep this to your own unique perspective. I think many of us can agree the GM's role is to create a narrative for the PCs to explore. I want to know about your personal philosophy on how to approach GMing.

Here's mine (also, may be CONTROVERSIAL):

I think there are 3 types of GM's. I have my own personal preferences, I don't think any of these styles are wrong, just not my style of game.

The first is usually a new GM. They think that GM's have all the power. They talk about how the GM is this omniscient overlord who controls the story. They are often kind of railroady, and get mad when the players try to excercise too much agency.

the Second kind of GM is usually a more experienced one. They realize that the players have a lot of power, and cater their game to the players. The players go on an epic quest, kill a god, and retire as heroes.

The Third type of GM (and my favorite/what I aspire to be) plays to win. They realize that the players have agency, but in the end, they control the story. The players may set out on their epic quest, but victory is not assured. The GM will use every trick in their book to try to thwart the heroes. They will play by the rules, and play fair, but they will play to win.

I'll end with a quote from the Cyberpunk 2020 handbook,

""You should not be afraid to kill off player characters. You should constantly be getting them into fights, traps, betrayals and other soap operas. There should be no one they can trust entirely, no place that's absolutely safe. Never let them rest. This doesn't mean you shouldn't play fair. But you should always play for keeps."

What is your opinion on the Role of a GM?

I know much of what I will say has been covered already, but I still wanted to approach this topic, as it is something I take issue with.

Before we set out to define "the role of the GM", which is a really contextual thing, we must first acknowledge what power the GM actually has. Your definitions only state what the GM thinks in terms of power, which is kind of misguided and why your third type has intrinsic logical issues.

According to the majority of all RPGs, the GM has power over the entire world outside the PCs. They could make whatever happen and it would be within the rules. Therefore, it is quite accurate to say that they indeed do have all the power. So your "type 1" is not wrong in their assumption.

This is also why your "type 3" doesn't work. If you say the GM should "play to win", you must first define the win condition. According to your post, this win condition seem to be the negative of the player's win condition (that is, their PCs survive and succeed with whatever they set out to do). If we take it to what seems to be the logical conclusion, you define the GM's win condition to be "the player's characters die". Since the GM HAS all the power, this is not difficult at all. In fact, it is the easiest thing in the world to kill PCs. I can kill all of mine in less than a minute should I be so inclined.

Therefore, it is impossible for a GM to play to "win". They can't, or the game ends before it even begins.

I think you try to modify this with "the GM plays fair". But what does "fair" really mean in this context? In most contexts, fair means playing by the rules. But, unless the rules clearly define exactly what the GM has in their arsenal (such as in Descent), fair includes a very very large broad of things. Within the rules, the GM has the possibility of a Balrog appearing to kill the 1st level PCs. There is nothing that says they couldn't. So it's all fair play, and the GM just won. Joy for all!

So, I don't think you want the GM to play to win. Not truly.

What could be possible is for the GM to play their NPCs to win. However, that is still tricky as there are no rules limiting exactly WHAT type of NPC is allowed to be in conflict with the players. Therefore, one must add in an extra type of category to define games by.

Namely, how difficult/lethal situations the GM set up, how likely success is for the characters. So, you might think your "type 2 GM" set up situations where the success is almost guaranteed, something like 99%, whereas the "type 3 GM" set up 70% situations.

This is really the spectrum you might be interested in defining, how likely success is in the various situations the GM sets up. Is it that it?

Now, I don't actually want my GM to "play the NPCs to win" anyway, regardless of what success percentage they make. I want my GM to play their NPCs in a way which is logically consistent with the NPCs personalities. Not all NPC is a tactical mastermind (and the rush of combat makes this very hard anyway), and the way the GM plays them should reflect that.

What I really want is for the GM to set up situations in which it seems to me as though the odds are against my character, but that somehow, through some extraordinary wit and luck, my character comes though. I want to feel as though I managed to beat the odds, come out victorious through difficult, almost impossible, situations. Sometimes though, I might not and my character will die. It happens. But I really don't want the GM to "play to win" as if killing my character is some great achievement. No, making me feel as though I won despite having the odds against me, THAT is an achievement.

Now, if we look into the other thing you talk about (and somehow mix together with situation difficulty in your three types), we have player control over the story. That is a different spectrum entirely, and involves how open-ended the situations are, what scene transitions are allowed etc etc. On this spectrum, I think players should have absolute agency over their characters. If they want to go somewhere or do something, they should be allowed to attempt it. Then its resolution should be determined within the verisimilitude of the world. Railroading isn't fun for anyone. Least of all, I think, for the GM.

EDIT: Oh, and I forgot. As for the "role of the GM", I think the GM has the following role:

"To make the game as enjoyable as possible for everyone."

Incidentally, I think the players also have that role. The GM has more tools to make it happen though, but that's a different story.

2D8HP
2017-05-25, 10:43 AM
"To make the game as enjoyable as possible for everyone.".


:confused:

Where's the sport in that?

I prefer some earlier advice:


I've been on this forum for a wihle now, and I see a lot of people asking for advice on how to GM. So I figured I should join in and give my own advice in a lovely list that is easy to follow. Enjoy!

Step 0: Basic premise
Remember that GM is short for Game Master. It obviously means you are the most important person in the group and that yours is the only opinion worthy to consider and that the players are only there for your entertainment.

Step 1: Finding a group
Just grab any random bunch of people you can find, you’re going to play other characters anyway so what does the personality of the players matter? Also, even if they have vastly different ideas of what they want out of the game, the only one that matters is you so again any random bunch of players is fine.

Step 2: Scheduling sessions
Players like variety so having a fixed day/time is a bad idea. Make sure to schedule it according to when it is convenient for you, players should be expected to re-schedule around your times. Preferably, give them as short notice as possible for when the next session is, like the same day. Make sure to penalize players that don’t show up, it’s very bad form after all.

Step 3: Making characters
Make sure to have arbitrary enforcements of what sort of characters the players can make. If they question you, just mysteriously hint at “story reasons”. Also, select one player that gets to be special like being the only one allowed to be a jedi in Star Wars or play a silver dragon wizard without level adjustment in D&D 3.5. This player should be your girlfriend or best friend. If no such player is present, it’s a good idea to make a character of your own that will follow the party around that can take on the role of being special. The purpose of this is all to make sure the players don’t wrongly assume that their characters will matter in the story. Also, if there’s a woman in the group playing a female character, make sure to impose some arbitrary houserules such as forcing her to place the highest stat in charisma or have a strength cap or something similar. If someone questions this, say it’s for increased realism. Obviously this won’t affect your girlfriend’s character.

Step 4: Interpreting the rules
Follow the rules when they work against the players. Break them on arbitrary occasions, especially in favor of the aforementioned jedi or your own character. If the players question you, just say it’s for “story reasons”. Like mentioned in step 2, players like variety so make sure things don’t stay consistent and boring. Just make sure the players know they can’t break the rules in favor of themselves, you’re the GM after all.

Step 5: Running the game
Remember that the players are there for your benefit. Don’t give them the idea that their choices in any way matter or that they’re important to the story. It’s your story after all, and it should revolve around your girlfriend’s or best friend’s character or even better your own “special” character. Whenever the players try to deviate from your story, make sure to punish them hard or make it impossible. They will realize your grandeur soon enough anyway; when they see the full story you have planned.

Step 6: Challenges
Players don’t like to have it easy, so make sure to involve a lot of things that remove many or most of the player character’s abilities. This has the added benefit of putting the players in their place so they don’t get the idea that they’re special in any way. For example, in D&D, consistently have monsters that negate the player’s class abilities. The best way to do this is to have magic-immune constructs with very high damage reduction. That way you negate as many special abilities as possible and will sufficiently challenge the players. Their characters shouldn’t die though, the longer they stay alive the more involved they’ll be in the characters and the less likely they are to quit (they’re there for your benefit remember) so make sure to save them with your own "special" character, or possibly let your girlfriend’s jedi do it. Players like to be saved by GM controlled characters on a regular basis. Just make sure that the character reminds them how they failed the challenge.

Step 7: Rewards
Awarding a bit of experience is always good form. The players shouldn’t be greedy though, so the more they complain about it the less you should give them. Also, you should give extra experience to the character that solved the challenges. This should then be your girlfriend’s or best friend’s character or ideally your own. It is a good way to motivate your players to perform better in the challenges to come. Monetary rewards are also good, but when it looks like items makes the players’ characters too powerful make sure to rob them of it all in some way. Either they can have it stolen by a master thief, or they can be imprisoned and stripped of their gear. Players usually think it is fun when this happens regularly because then they can go through the process of hoarding all over again! Also, make sure all very special and powerful items end up with the character that matters (you should know which one by now).

Step 8: Concluding the game
Players don’t like to see the end of a campaign, so make sure it never reaches that point. Alternatively if you have a really great ending in mind (such as all the player characters dying) make sure that nothing the players do in game prevents this from happening. If the players look like they’re actually enjoying your story, make sure to cancel the campaign for some arbitrary reasons (blame real life or something) and start over at step 3 with a new campaign.



That's it! Follow this list and it will make you the best GM ever! Did I miss anything?


:biggrin:

Lorsa
2017-05-26, 01:00 AM
:confused:

Where's the sport in that?

I prefer some earlier advice:


:biggrin:

Wow. I didn't think anyone still remembered that. :smallsmile: