Would You Play In Your Own Game?

[JNAProductions]

If yes, what does this say about you as a GM?

If no, why, and what does this say about you as a GM?

For me... Yes, I would. It wouldn't necessarily be my FAVORITE game, because I tend to run seat of my pants style, and I don't mind a game with more preset details. But I feel that I've got a reasonable grasp of making a game fun, and have enough experience that I could make a game I myself would enjoy. There's definitely better GMs out there, DEFINITELY in terms of prep work and also definitely in terms of improv, but I'm not bad, in my opinion.

I think this says that I still have a lot of room to grow as a GM, but am not in a bad spot. I should probably put more work into my games (though that's a mite hard with working two jobs) before running them, and should probably make longer/more detailed posts, but I'm doing okay.

[Quertus]

I'm in a similar boat. I run a very... "rules accurate" game, full of new content (and, not infrequently, a few rules changes) to Explore. But... I'm not the best GM, and I don't enjoy GMing. So... 5-15 clones of myself, all arguing over who has to run the game vs who gets to run Quertus, would be entertaining in its own right, but, as you said, while I'd play in and enjoy my own games, they probably wouldn't be my favorite.

[ComaVision]

I'd be happy to play in any game, at this point.

I'm running a frontier-wilderness sandbox right now, and I think I'd enjoy playing a similar game as well. I miss focusing on one character. I always thought that DMs run the kind of games they wish they could play in.

[Geddy2112]

Of course. If any GM would not play in their own game, it seems a red flag. I could see exceptions to that like a prepublished module the GM has read through or played before, but if the game is not something the GM would play, why are they running it?


I'd be happy to play in any game, at this point.
+1 to this.

[DigoDragon]

I'd be happy to play in any game, at this point.

As a DM who falls under the situation Fable Wright calls "Single DM Syndrome" (whereby you're the only member of your group willing/capable to run games) with my local group, I do feel a similar notion.

I would play in my own games if that were an option. They're usually well thought out adventures, though there are occasional silly moments.

[2D8HP]

No way! That jerk bails on the game too much to deal with "emergencies at work", and when he does sit down to play he acts all exhausted.

I hate that guy

[Lord Raziere]

+1 to this.

+2 yes, I'd love to play in any Exalted game, if I had the power to make five clones of myself, I'd totally do that and start discussing with them "ok which of us is going to be GM, and which one will get which Exalt, we all agree no Solars right?"
"But we're all the same person, how are we going to decide?"
"Well we all want to play Adamant Caste right? we make five adamant caste Exalted and play a game of saving Autochthonia, done."

[Magic Myrmidon]

I'd like to think I'd enjoy my own games. I run them as I wish other DMs would run them, within my ability. I try to put my money where my mouth is, so to speak.

[Knaight]

Usually. I've GMed a couple of games in genres I wouldn't like to play in because my players liked those genres, but with those few exceptions I'd happily play in my own games.

[Jama7301]

I'd do it. It'd be a fun learning experience. It'd be fun to see what kind a DM I actually am, versus what kind I think I am.

[Wasteomana]

I would play a game run by me as a DM/GM.

However, I have the opposite problem of a lot of people. I prefer running games over playing in them. Most of the time that I play in a game I think about how much more fun it would be to run the game and I think primarily about what I would do if I was running. So while I would enjoy the game, I would still be wanting to DM rather than play.

[redwizard007]

No way! That jerk bails on the game too much to deal with "emergencies at work", and when he does sit down to play he acts all exhausted.

I hate that guy

Pretty sure you just channeled everyone on the board over 30. We all work to damn much.

[2D8HP]

Pretty sure you just channeled everyone on the board over 30. We all work to damn much.


Work is the scourge of the gaming classes!

[Max_Killjoy]

I'm probably guilty of running the game I wish I could play in, sometimes.

[Knaight]

Pretty sure you just channeled everyone on the board over 30. We all work to damn much.

Most everyone on the board, really. I'm not 30, but I've worked my fair share of 70-80 hour weeks, and there's not a lot of prep (or gaming) that happens those weeks.

[Honest Tiefling]

I'm probably guilty of running the game I wish I could play in, sometimes.

Considering how many people here are clamoring for a game, I wouldn't feel guilty. Maybe if you rubbed in the fact that you are running a game where they can't be players into their faces a bit.

I'm going to buck the trend and say...I try to, but I'm probably not good at it. I like making settings, and I fear this bleeds over into my play style. I like to think I am at least aware of it and try to be respectful of the DM's work and creativity, but I'm probably not very good at it.

[LordCdrMilitant]

Well, not while I was running it, but yes.

If someone ran my game for me, then I would certainly play in it. I run what I do because I enjoy it, and nobody else runs it, so I never get to play it. It's okay though, I greatly enjoy running games too.

[Quertus]

No way! That jerk bails on the game too much to deal with "emergencies at work", and when he does sit down to play he acts all exhausted.

I hate that guy

You know, I was going to make a complicated post, detailing the effects of different GMing skills that one enjoys vs has, but, really, this is is a far more accessible and succinct way of pointing out that one is not always the GM that one might prefer.


Work is the scourge of the gaming classes!

Words that should echo throughout all eternity.

[Pugwampy]

Trick question ? Technically DMs already play in their own game. Including if they wish to as an NPC adventurer as part of the players for whatever reason .

If you mean the house rules , the setup the world and npc,s I made then yes .
But it is no longer my game when a DM takes over even if he uses all that .

[RFLS]

...huh. That's a really interesting question. I like it.

I think I'd play in my games, yeah. I'd be a little frustrated on occasion when it seemed like I the DM was underprepared, but I always try to set the game up in a way that appeals to me. The one thing I'd really appreciate is the narrative freedom I give my players.

[DataNinja]

I'd definitely play in my own games. I always make sure that my games are things that I'm enthusiastic about, so I'd definitely jump at the chance to play in one of them.

[Cozzer]

Yeah, my preferences as a player are very similar to my preferences as a GM. Though the player me would probably wish the GM me was less freaking lazy... :smallamused:

[Florian]

I would not really want me to gm for me, the same way that I wouldn't want a gm that I know so well, I could practically read the mind. No real surprises, no real challenge in that.

[Black Jester]

Why wouldn't I want to play in the campaigns of the best and most humble Gamemaster I know?

The other way around though, I really wouldn't like to run a game for me as a player. Too egocentric and spotlight-hogging.

[Astofel]

I run the kind of game I'd like to play, so if I encountered an alternate-universe clone of myself I'd absolutely take a seat at their table. It'd be nice to have a GM who gives plenty of opportunities to roleplay and integrates character backstories. Sure, maybe I could take a reasonable guess at the overall shape of the campaign, but I also have a penchant for last-minute sudden bouts of inspiration so I'm fairly sure I could surprise myself.

[death390]

i actually do, i setup scenarios and run multiple character types though them. i do solo runs and standard team comps to get a feel for them.

the trick is to separate what I know with what my Character knows. each character has a particular preference to a specific number (1-10) for RNG and that /# of choices indicates

if i want to build a story i break out things like a zombies board game for dungeon design (its a tile game), roll on encounter tables and place the resulting mess in the dungeon in a balanced fashion. just because my i know the trick to the puzzle doesn't mean my characters do.


some of my favorite scenarios i have done:
Colosseum: many people have been kidnapped by a wizard with a demiplane, he "humbly" requests that you fight to the death and those that survive shall face his challenges (massive campaign WIP)

Seashore Siren: multiple people have have gone missing from a seaside community, your group has been asked to investigate (based on Sally sells seashells by the seashore; Sally the siren sell enchanted shells that tell people to go into the water at night where sally kills them, regains any shells, and sells them again.)

How much would could he chuck?: a wizards pet woodchuck has gone berserk after an experiment and run off to the nearby enchanted forest, he has asked that you go and bring him back alive. he must be knocked out before using a specialized ointment to dispel the effects of the experiments. (there is more in the woods than just the woodchuck, and he chucks trees at the party; how many? as many as you let him MUAHAHAHA)





these also allow me to make my "troll" characters and test them in a "live fire" example. (sometimes just munchkin characters too)
Christopher moss tree: the hide in plain sight coniferous treant who wears crystal armor.
the 1 armed pixie barbarian: uses a whip-dagger and greater flyby attack
As small as possible: using dnd-wiki and dndwiki sites i found traits to reduce the size of a pixie by 2 plus a continuous use item to make a fine sized pixie warlock.

muchkin chars:
great crossbow sniper: crit on 10-20x4 critical 2-3 times per round
know all the things: erudite/archivist for trip 9s.
THE master thrower: crapton of throwing daggers that deal SA + (stacking) bleed damage.
the dervish: need more than 100 ft movement to deal each attack during a deverish dance since has 20+ attacks per round.

[hymer]

I'm currently running two campaigns. One is going into its fourth year, and as a consequence uses a system I no longer enjoy much. I'd play it, because I haven't been a player for years, and I miss it. The other I'd play with unequivocal relish, though I'd be sad to be coming a little late to it.

[Pleh]

Yes! Though, because DMPCs are frowned upon, when I get the urge I usually just remind myself that there is nothing stopping me from writing a novel (or recording my results in a truly solo game).

[NRSASD]

In a heartbeat, although I'd like to play darker games than I feel comfortable running for my friends. I'm definitely missing being a player, but thankfully I've been able to foster a play style that encourages new DMs to step in and try their hand, all in the same world even.

I've also figured out how to channel my desire to play DMPCs satisfactorily. They're called villains.

[inexorabletruth]

How are we interpreting this question?

Literally?
Then no when possible, because DMPCs get a bad rep, and I don't want to spoil the fun for my players. Sometimes, I've had no choice but to become part of the party, but in the event I do so, I try to play a support role, and work my way out of the party dynamic at the earliest convenience.

Would I play in a game that is like the games I run?
Yes. I make the games I want to play and try to find like minded players. It usually works out. My sandboxes are huge, and my dungeon-divers are action packed. I reward players for being creative and thoughtful, using their skills wisely, and interacting with the world I create, and my campaigns do not require mad optimization skills to play. I'm always careful to make time for the players' back story to integrate with the plot when possible, and I make sure the spotlight lands squarely on the PCs, not the DM. It's my world, but it's their story. I win when everyone has a great time, and still talks about their special moments in the game years later. At the risk of sounding arrogant, I'm the kind of DM I'd be a PC for.

[Cluedrew]

Yes, but I would come prepared to push myself in the right direction. I'm still growing as a GM and so I would have to accept that the game will have rough edges from lack of practice. And some times I might just have to correct/help out me. I don't think I would take it personally.


Technically DMs already play in their own game.So the technically correct version of the question would be something like: "Would you be a player- in a game run by someone with your same GMing style, skills and general personality."

(Player- means players excluding the GM.)

[JNAProductions]

Yes, but I would come prepared to push myself in the right direction. I'm still growing as a GM and so I would have to accept that the game will have rough edges from lack of practice. And some times I might just have to correct/help out me. I don't think I would take it personally.

So the technically correct version of the question would be something like: "Would you be a player- in a game run by someone with your same GMing style, skills and general personality."

(Player- means players excluding the GM.)

True enough, but I feel that most people got my drift.

[FreddyNoNose]

If yes, what does this say about you as a GM?

If no, why, and what does this say about you as a GM?

For me... Yes, I would. It wouldn't necessarily be my FAVORITE game, because I tend to run seat of my pants style, and I don't mind a game with more preset details. But I feel that I've got a reasonable grasp of making a game fun, and have enough experience that I could make a game I myself would enjoy. There's definitely better GMs out there, DEFINITELY in terms of prep work and also definitely in terms of improv, but I'm not bad, in my opinion.

I think this says that I still have a lot of room to grow as a GM, but am not in a bad spot. I should probably put more work into my games (though that's a mite hard with working two jobs) before running them, and should probably make longer/more detailed posts, but I'm doing okay.

So, you are basically asking if we are willing to play with ourselves... A little too personal and tmi.

[mephnick]

I would never want to play in my setting run by someone else that's for sure.

I've finally gotten to play a couple characters after DMing 99% of the time for 20 years and...it's fun but I can't stop myself from deciding how I'd rule and treat the players differently which makes me enjoy it less. I think I'm built to DM rather than play. It's nice to have a break, but I'm just waiting for the campaign to end so I can DM again.

[Alcore]

I'm not sure what interpretation you are using. Would i play in a game with another me DMing? No; we would likely derail the game on a random tangent assuming we could play harmoniously.


Would i play in a game i designed myself and someone else ran? No; they would get it wrong. It would bother me all day long.

[RFLS]

I think the problem with asking that question in this forum is that your RPG player sample is skewed. The GM:Player ratio is higher than it is in real life. On top of that, the [Longterm GM]:[Rotating GM] ratio is higher than in real life. With those givens, you have a lot of people that have put a lot of time into the settings they use and the way they run the game. Egos tend to get tied up in those things (that is not a bad thing, and this is not negative judgement on that opinion), and when you have egos tied up in the way you do things, it becomes hard to let someone else do those things, even if it's a clone of you - because it's not you.

[Pugwampy]

So the technically correct version of the question would be something like: "Would you be a player- in a game run by someone with your same GMing style, skills and general personality."


I try my best to bring extra little quality and awesome to my games especially the encounters . I have compared myself to other DM,s always trying to figure out , How can i do what he did but better or thats a friggin cool idea , its going into my diary . I want that title of Best DM ever .

I would be in a constant state of bliss if i played in such sessions as i created for others.

[Faily]

Sure, I'd play in the games I run... as I tend to run games that I myself would like to play!

I know I'm not a perfect GM, and I play with other people who I think are better GMs than I am, but the only way to become a better GM is experience, practice, and being open to constructive feedback. :smallsmile:

[Laserlight]

Work is the scourge of the gaming classes!

It's not the job, it's the kids. The good news is, if all goes well, they eventually become gamers, but there's while when each child soaks up 185% of your available time..


I'll buck the trend and say No, I wouldn't want to play in the game I DM. That's because I run what the players like, as best I can determine it; and my current crop of players is really short on negotiation and quick to draw swords. In contrast, as a player I've been know to con the monsters into escorting me through an entire dungeon level to the boss.

[Velaryon]

No way! That jerk bails on the game too much to deal with "emergencies at work", and when he does sit down to play he acts all exhausted.

I hate that guy

I know, right? In my case, that guy is always a bit late to the game, too.


Work is the scourge of the gaming classes!

This is begging to be added to someone's signature. Specifically mine. May I?

[vasilidor]

The first thing I ask myself is would I play my game. generally speaking the games I run are all ones I would love to play in, or maybe I run them in the way I wish I could play.

[JNAProductions]

It's not the job, it's the kids. The good news is, if all goes well, they eventually become gamers, but there's while when each child soaks up 185% of your available time..

I'll buck the trend and say No, I wouldn't want to play in the game I DM. That's because I run what the players like, as best I can determine it; and my current crop of players is really short on negotiation and quick to draw swords. In contrast, as a player I've been know to con the monsters into escorting me through an entire dungeon level to the boss.

Allow me to rephrase the question, then, possibly just for you in this case.

Would your preferred GMing style match the sort of game you'd enjoy? And, follow-up: Are you capable of running a game you'd enjoy?

I can understand that the two might have different answers. For instance, you might be a more novelist style GM, with relatively strict plots, as your favorite style, but you yourself might enjoy PLAYING in a more sandboxy game. But, if you're a good GM, you can probably run a sandbox game, even if it's not your preferred style.

[2D8HP]

....I This is begging to be added to someone's signature. Specifically mine. May I?


Sure, my inspiration was a the phrase:

"Work is the Curse of the Drinking Classes" (https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/01/12/drinking/)

[Satinavian]

Yes, i would.

Actually i would be kind of suspicious about a GM who wouldn't want to play in the type of games he runs.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

I actually do play in my own game - sort of. We all take it turns to run adventures in a shared world.

Each of the players takes a turn GMing. Each GM's adventure is only allowed to be planned to take one or two sessions (sometimes they spill over, but the plan is that they are short).
As we're all being creative, we're all adding to the sum of the setting, and we're all adding to the nest of plot lines - sometimes we add to someone else's plot line, sometimes we branch out, sometimes the adventure is a one-off.

It's working quite nicely. It's how we always used to play, back in the 80s and 90s.

[hymer]

Sure, my inspiration was a the phrase:

"Work is the Curse of the Drinking Classes" (https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/01/12/drinking/)

And there's your answer to why we don't game in oceans and lakes: Fish **** in it.

[RazorChain]

I guess I must answer yes as I run the games I want to play.

[Tvtyrant]

I as a player would like me as a DM, I think, but I as a DM would not like me as a player, munchkin that I am.

[SimonMoon6]

Generally, most of the games I have run have been games that I specifically would want to play in. The main exception is when I'm running a Call of Cthulhu game; I have no problem running a low-powered investigation-driven adventure, but actually playing in one would probably bore me to tears.

However, this has its drawbacks. After running one particularly interesting game (the players played themselves, gaining powers and abilities of their favorite characters, with the risk of physically becoming more and more like those characters... with a setting of a patchwork world where various different world-types, each with their own "rules", existed next to each other (like a world ruled over by robots with sci-fi rules, a generic fantasy world, a martial arts (Street Fighter-style) world, a Greco-Roman world, a Universal Monsters-style horror world, a superhero world, etc)... and the PCs needed to perform certain tasks quickly because they were hunted by evil duplicates of themselves, who already maxed-out their power levels)... after running this game (that I would have loved to play in), one of the players wondered what we would play next, something that would be run by someone else.

Another player suggested that we play something very different from the game I had just finished because, after all, they had all just played a game like that. So, I wouldn't actually get to play in a game like the one I wanted to play in. :(

[SirBellias]

Definitely. My games that I run are typically spin-offs of games my friends run or draw heavy inspiration from them (and whatever I'm reading at the time). I know I'd like to play in them because I've basically played in them before and now understand both sides of it.

[Velaryon]

I do try to run the sort of game I would like to play in. There are certain aspects of DMing I'm better at than others, of course. I feel pretty good about my ability to craft a story around the party's actions and backstories, and the ability to make the world feel lived-in and like things do still happen outside of PC's actions. On the other hand, I could be a lot better with encounter design and I have trouble running with any kind of a regular schedule.

Overall, I think I would enjoy being a player in a game run by my doppelganger.

I do have a friend who runs DMPCs for this exact reason, and manages to avoid all the pitfalls that normally come with that. It probably helps that he likes playing support roles anyway, so his DMPC often ends up being a healing or support character and shuns the spotlight anyway.

There was one time in a SWRPG game set during an alternate version of the Knights of the Old Republic time period (we screwed up the canon timeline pretty hard), where we ended up raiding Coruscant to rescue a former Jedi who was going to be executed by the power-mad anti-Jedi Chancellor (who was, unknown to us at the time, possessed by the spirit of Revan, who had been slain by said former Jedi). We ended up successfully rescuing the former Jedi, but accidentally left the DMPC behind because we forgot he was even with us!

[Aetis]

God, yes.

I would give anything to be able to play in my own games, and it's my continual lament that I have been unable to find my doppelganger DM.

[RazorChain]

Nope. Maybe if the dude would run BECMI instead of 5e like i wanted, I'd do it. But he caved in, just because he couldnt find a big enough pool of players to run an old school open table dungeon and wilderness crawl campaign unless he switched to the latest system. That wimp.

I like being a selfish GM with a large player pool. I can just run whatever I like.

My players know that when I finish my fantasy campaign I'm going to run a deadly cyberpunk campaign.

One player has been complaining that he only likes fantasy and thinks it unfair of me to want to run something else because we are a group.

[Laserlight]

Allow me to rephrase the question, then, possibly just for you in this case.

Would your preferred GMing style match the sort of game you'd enjoy? And, follow-up: Are you capable of running a game you'd enjoy?


I'd prefer a game which is more intricate--takes more worldbuilding, record keeping and preparation--than I actually want to do.

Although perhaps that's because I'm acclimated to my current crop of players, who are likely to look at the main quest line and suddenly say "No, we're going to go do something suicidal in a completely different direction"; I-the-GM might rise to the challenge if I had Players-Like-Me.

[Celestia]

Of course I would; I'm the only one who does it right.

[Ignimortis]

Absolutely. Newbie DM as I am, that's the first question I always ask myself when deciding on something - "Would I like that as a player?". If the answer is no, then it's probably not a good decision.

[Velaryon]

I like being a selfish GM with a large player pool. I can just run whatever I like.

My players know that when I finish my fantasy campaign I'm going to run a deadly cyberpunk campaign.

One player has been complaining that he only likes fantasy and thinks it unfair of me to want to run something else because we are a group.

Ugh. I hate when you have a certain game you want to run, but there's one holdout in the group that isn't interested. Makes me feel bad leaving them out, so I usually cave in and then resent them for keeping me from playing that game.

On the other hand, I've also been the one guy who wasn't interested in a different game system. When I offered to take a break for a few months and come back when they were done, they decided to scrap that game and play D&D instead. So I dunno, maybe I've been that guy.

[Lorsa]

I would absolutely play in my own game. If I could adopt to my own play style is another matter though...

[Laserlight]

Given a choice between running in my own game, or running with SilverClawShift....no contest. Well, now I have something to aspire to

[Jay R]

Yes. The DM wants a game with the correct flavor - a fantasy game that feels like Tolkien, Malory, or Martin; a swashbuckling game that feels like Dumas or Errol Flynn; a superhero game that feels like the Stan Lee or Mort Weisinger. He wants the threats to be real, the characters to fit in, and the world to be consistent.


[But most of all, how wonderful it would be to have a DM who understands what I'm trying to say, every time.]

[FreddyNoNose]

I guess a corollary might be: Would you GM a game system that you would not want to play in. For me: Yes.

[RazorChain]

I guess a corollary might be: Would you GM a game system that you would not want to play in. For me: Yes.

Did so once in a solo game but I had a horrible player that kinda ruined everything.

[Jay R]

I guess a corollary might be: Would you GM a game system that you would not want to play in. For me: Yes.

I can't imagine why I would run a world that doesn't interest me.

More to the point, I can't imagine how.

[hymer]

I can't imagine why I would run a world that doesn't interest me.

More to the point, I can't imagine how.

Well, the question was about a system. I can see how there could be a divide there. I don't enjoy being DM for a 3.5 game after having started on 5e. But I wouldn't mind being a player in a 3.5 game. It's the higher work burden on the DM of 3.5 that gets me down.
On the flip side, I suppose you could have a system which holds challenges for players that I'm indifferent to and would soon get bored with, but which could have very different challenges for the GM. I could see myself running a game like that, if the players were interested.

[2D8HP]

I guess a corollary might be: Would you GM a game system that you would not want to play in. For me: Yes.


I can't imagine why I would run a world that doesn't interest me.

More to the point, I can't imagine how.


I have GM'd settings that I had little interest in, and I did it really half-assed.

My players liked it better than the adventures that I put more work and passion in.

Basically I still liked the Conan/The Hobbit maah-ups that we did for D&D, and I was interested in doing a more realistic medieval-ish setting (Pendragon), but that's not what my players wanted, they wanted James Bond.

We compromised a bit and did Space Opera using Traveller, which I did some world-building for, but I relented and ran "Top Secret" except that I didn't even bother to learn the rules, and on the theory that the 1920's are close enough to the 1980's I just used the rules for Call of C'thullu instead, and I improvised most everything, no notes and little prep

My players said my GM'img "had improved".

:annoyed:

To be fair we had another GM in our circle you did the kind of adventures that I was interested in better than me (he used RuneQuest or Rolemaster), so my attempts to do likewise always suffered in comparision.

I concluded that besides my players really wanting to role-play PC's who use modern firearms, and that most of my world-building just wasn't wanted.

[hymer]

I concluded that besides my players really wanting to role-play PC's who use modern firearms, and that most of my world-building just wasn't wanted.
Just to one-up you on being a bitter old man, now add that the players asked you for what you poured endless hours, blood and tears into. :smallfurious:

[SimonMoon6]

I can't imagine why I would run a world that doesn't interest me.

More to the point, I can't imagine how.

I can easily run a Call of Cthulhu game because I love the Mythos and all the horrible entities that inhabit that world.

I would probably hate to play in a Call of Cthulhu game because I am not a fan of low powered characters, and I don't think I would enjoy endless, relentless investigation-style gaming as a player. Mysteries are great fun when you have all the answers but considerably less fun when you have to interact with a bunch of NPCs to find out the answers.

[RazorChain]

Ugh. I hate when you have a certain game you want to run, but there's one holdout in the group that isn't interested. Makes me feel bad leaving them out, so I usually cave in and then resent them for keeping me from playing that game.

On the other hand, I've also been the one guy who wasn't interested in a different game system. When I offered to take a break for a few months and come back when they were done, they decided to scrap that game and play D&D instead. So I dunno, maybe I've been that guy.

I'm to old to waste time on that guy. He just gets left out and I run the game I want and just find people that want to participate

[Jay R]

Well, the question was about a system. I can see how there could be a divide there. I don't enjoy being DM for a 3.5 game after having started on 5e. But I wouldn't mind being a player in a 3.5 game. It's the higher work burden on the DM of 3.5 that gets me down.

On that basis, there are systems I'm willing to play but not run - notably 3.5e and Chivalry and Sorcery. But there's no game I'm willing to run but not play. The specific question I replied to was, "Would you GM a game system that you would not want to play in."


On the flip side, I suppose you could have a system which holds challenges for players that I'm indifferent to and would soon get bored with, but which could have very different challenges for the GM. I could see myself running a game like that, if the players were interested.

You bring up an interesting hypothetical situation. I concede that such a game system might be theoretically possible. But in over 40 years of role-playing, I've never actually seen a system I would enjoy running but not playing.

I conclude that in practice, based on the games I know, there is no system I would run but not play.

[vasilidor]

The thing I hate most about the call of Cthulhu games is how the monsters are all portrayed as these completely unbeatable monsters against which there is no hope. I have read the story, I have the complete works of H.P. Lovecraft (half way through it). and I have notice two glaringly huge differences between how the stories are written and how the games are done.
In the games everyone is going to get eaten by the horrible evil inhuman monsters, in the story it is the more human like monsters that are going to kill you. the other is the fact that H.P. Lovecraft is something of a racist, and if you happen to be a Victorian style English gentleman in one of his tales chances are you live where the "poor idiot not English person" did not.
Cthulhu is beaten by a steam ship to the head in his story. not necessarily killed, but definitely Badly hurt. Brains everywhere.
I do not mind Cthulhu being powerful in a game, or the other monsters, but the moment you put something that is supposed to be an unbeatable monster in front of me and say that my character is now a gibbering mad man gouging out his eyes (no save) as some people have said happens in such games I am done playing, not rolling up another character.:smallmad:
now if you have monsters I cannot beat in a straight fight, need to run from, come up with some sort of plan to survive it or some such OK. I can work with that. In the story of Siegfried and Fafnir, trying to face Fafnir in a straight fight was suicide. Siegfried Killed him with an ambush though, one hit up into the heart with a special sword, the once Dwarf now Dragon Fafnir fell to Siegfried's blade.:smallsmile:
This probably tell you about what I like to play.
sorry, it is just that when I hear people say how they think call of Cthulhu should be played, I do not understand how it could be fun. the only time I actually played it my character was a fighter pilot lost between dimensions stuck in a intrigue plot between a version of 1850's British empire (upon which the sun never set) and Russia were each side had a dozen versions of Nick Tesla working for them. (while trying to figure out how to deal with the invasion of mars) . it ended when one of the players (not the DM) intentionally set off a nuke when all the characters were in a 100 yard radius of it. at least that is what I think happened, I missed the last game.

[Florian]

I do not understand how it could be fun.

Chaosium CoC module are still too cute, survivable and D&D-like, so trash. You should take a look at our german localized and reworked versions of the modules. Generally higher quality, better art and layout and dying even more horrible to just not mattering. Like at all. Ever. (Yes, we removed the usual lovecraftian racism and not even a proper gentleman will survive it)

[2D8HP]

I remember GM'ing ("Keeper-ing") Call of C'thullu and finding it one of the easiest RPG's to run, and I remember making PC's ("Investigator's") for it, but I have no memories of my playing any "Investigators" myself, so maybe it counts as a "will run but not play" since I did run but not play it AFAICR.

I do think I have a bit more of a preference for PC power via "crunch" as a player (I like 5e D&D as a player but I would only run an edited version of it), but as a GM weaker PC's and less "crunch" is just easier to run, so BRP (CoC is a BRP game) or TSR "Basic" D&D are my preferences.

Except that I really don't remember the rules for Traveller now, I do remember running it "fluff"-wise.

I've been puzzled why I have a better memory of the rules of old D&D, but my memories of the actual adventures is extremely dim, and with Traveller it's the opposite, I remember the adventures but not the rules. CoC I remember more of both, which I suppose makes some sense in that I ran it after the other games.

AD&D I'd like to play again, but I'd be less I'd be less intetested in running it.

I never did get players for Pendragon ("6th century Britain just isn't that fun dude"), but I may have been distracted by how envious I'd be of my players if I did.

Yes, I really just want to play KAP.

DO YOU HEAR ME STAFFORD, I'VE BOUGHT FOUR EDITIONS OF YOUR GAME ALREADY, I WANT SOMEONE TO RUN IT NOW!!!

[Max_Killjoy]

Cthulhu is beaten by a steam ship to the head in his story. not necessarily killed, but definitely Badly hurt. Brains everywhere.
I do not mind Cthulhu being powerful in a game, or the other monsters, but the moment you put something that is supposed to be an unbeatable monster in front of me and say that my character is now a gibbering mad man gouging out his eyes (no save) as some people have said happens in such games I am done playing, not rolling up another character.:smallmad:


The way that Cthulu has been subsequently deified by other writers and by fans is just eyeroll-worthy.

And yeah, if the premise of the entire game is "you fail", then I guess cool for those who enjoy it, I'll be over hear doing something else.

[SimonMoon6]

The thing I hate most about the call of Cthulhu games is how the monsters are all portrayed as these completely unbeatable monsters against which there is no hope. I have read the story, I have the complete works of H.P. Lovecraft (half way through it). and I have notice two glaringly huge differences between how the stories are written and how the games are done.

The point is not that you can't beat *a* monster. The point is that humanity can't "win" and beat all the monsters. Yeah, you can smash Cthulhu (if you're the one guy on the entire ship who manages to keep his sanity intact long enough) which will defeat him long enough for you to escape. But he'll be back, when the stars are right. You can't ever eliminate him. And when he does come back, that's the end of life as we know it. And even if you could somehow stop Cthulhu, well, there are still tons of gods who are way more powerful. You can't exactly beat up the more abstract entities like Yog-Sothoth or Hastur. We also know the future and humanity's not in it. Humanity is not that important in the universe and slowly realizing that is what eventually drives the average person insane. It's not just "oh, I looked at a ghoul, I am now a gibbering idiot for the rest of my life".

There are monsters that can be beaten. Many of the monsters are on human levels because they are transformed humans (such as ghouls or deep ones).




sorry, it is just that when I hear people say how they think call of Cthulhu should be played, I do not understand how it could be fun. the only time I actually played it my character was a fighter pilot lost between dimensions stuck in a intrigue plot between a version of 1850's British empire (upon which the sun never set) and Russia were each side had a dozen versions of Nick Tesla working for them. (while trying to figure out how to deal with the invasion of mars) . it ended when one of the players (not the DM) intentionally set off a nuke when all the characters were in a 100 yard radius of it. at least that is what I think happened, I missed the last game.


All I can say is... you did not have a typical experience. That is not how it should be played.


----------------------------------------------------

Speaking of how it should never be played, I remember one player once telling me that all the monsters were the same, that whether he was fighting a ghoul or a god, he felt equally helpless, since either one could kill his character. While that's not completely true (against a ghoul, you have a chance, but they are ferocious beasts, while many PCs are mere wimpy academics who can't hope to outfight a wild beast), I had an idea: I would run a game in which the players had superpowers and could fight various levels of Lovecraftian beasts, thereby being able to notice which were the stronger and which the weaker ones.

The game actually became a lot more complicated: the PCs played themselves, traveling to various universes including a superhero universe (where they got powers) and a Call of Cthulhu universe... but there were many more universes (23 in total, or so they thought at first) and they explored many of them, with one setting up home in Lovecraft's Dreamlands. But it was nice to show off the powers of certain monsters, such as the Dark Young of Shug-Niggurath who, upon grabbing someone, renders that person unable to take *any* action.

[Bruno Carvalho]

Would You Play In Your Own Game?

If I'd like to play the game I made? Of course! Now only if I can find a willing GM... I would jump at the opportunity to play it!

[martixy]

Yes. For lack of a better reference I built my game as my own personal dream game.
Heck, I've been thinking of tacking on a DMPC just to do that. Inappropriate at the moment due to reasons of game flow, pacing and plot, but at some point maybe... I keep dreaming.

[Laserlight]

there are systems I'm willing to play but not run - notably 3.5e and Chivalry and Sorcery.

Champions/HERO System. I'd love to play it again. I don't want to run it.

[vasilidor]

palladium is one i have made characters for on multiple occasions, and only ran once. having read through the books on multiple times I have come to the conclusion that balance is a laughable consideration. in those games I would not be bothered if when I ran it someone simply wrote 30 in each attribute and picked 2 dozen skills of whatever they wanted and called it a day. That said I chuck the standard character creation anyhow for that game.

[Cluedrew]

When I request or get feedback from players, most of them generally (but not always) seem to prefer my GMing when I mostly ad-hoc stuff as opposed to do serious world building prep-work.This is refreshing to see after the sandbox thread. But it has been true in my experience as a player. As a GM, I'm not very good at either mode of word. I'm working on it, but I made the mistake of trying to develop a system, a setting and my GM skills all at the same time. There are dud sessions I will admit.

Anyways, my logic is this: in most games even though the story unfolds around you. Maybe on all sides and taking a few queues from what you do, but in the end you are still only watching it happen most of the time. Role-playing games let you be a part of the story in a way few other things can. Improvisational play makes the game even more reactive and play to that strength even more.

[Quertus]

[But most of all, how wonderful it would be to have a DM who understands what I'm trying to say, every time.]

This is a bit of a catch 22. In order for alternate reality me to run a game for me that I'll enjoy, he'll need to have content that I can't predict, a world that I can explore. For that, he'll need experiences I haven't had. At which point, our frame of reference diverging, we may begin to suffer a breakdown in communication. Which, arguably, May happen anyway.


I guess a corollary might be: Would you GM a game system that you would not want to play in. For me: Yes.

Hmmm...is this a trick question? If I were in my group, why would I run myself in a system I know I'll hate?


Speaking of how it should never be played, I remember one player once telling me that all the monsters were the same, that whether he was fighting a ghoul or a god, he felt equally helpless, since either one could kill his character. While that's not completely true (against a ghoul, you have a chance, but they are ferocious beasts, while many PCs are mere wimpy academics who can't hope to outfight a wild beast), I had an idea: I would run a game in which the players had superpowers and could fight various levels of Lovecraftian beasts, thereby being able to notice which were the stronger and which the weaker ones.

The game actually became a lot more complicated: the PCs played themselves, traveling to various universes including a superhero universe (where they got powers) and a Call of Cthulhu universe... but there were many more universes (23 in total, or so they thought at first) and they explored many of them, with one setting up home in Lovecraft's Dreamlands. But it was nice to show off the powers of certain monsters, such as the Dark Young of Shug-Niggurath who, upon grabbing someone, renders that person unable to take *any* action.

Why is that the way it should never be played? Sounds like my cup of tea.

First time I encountered a creature that prohibited actions like that, my reaction was to produce "sentient item-chan", with the ability to teleport itself and me. So that, even if I can't take actions, it can - and can get out of the effect.

Would this tactic work against the Dark Young of Shug-Niggurath? Also, related question, is there a reason for the "no actions" clause? I failed my Knowledge: Mythos roll.

[FreddyNoNose]

If yes, what does this say about you as a GM?

If no, why, and what does this say about you as a GM?

For me... Yes, I would. It wouldn't necessarily be my FAVORITE game, because I tend to run seat of my pants style, and I don't mind a game with more preset details. But I feel that I've got a reasonable grasp of making a game fun, and have enough experience that I could make a game I myself would enjoy. There's definitely better GMs out there, DEFINITELY in terms of prep work and also definitely in terms of improv, but I'm not bad, in my opinion.

I think this says that I still have a lot of room to grow as a GM, but am not in a bad spot. I should probably put more work into my games (though that's a mite hard with working two jobs) before running them, and should probably make longer/more detailed posts, but I'm doing okay.

Whether I play in my own game or not, it shows good taste!

[Cealocanth]

I would love to run in the game I am trying to build. What I actually have run would probably come across as 'he talks it up, but we haven't actually done all that much'. Maybe with me in the group, we'd get to see more of the things the GM has been wanting to show the party, but more likely, it would just turn into a tug of war between 'let's go investigate and explore the world' and 'let's go ignore every clue the GM drops on us and murder things.'

In other words, I'd love to play in my game. I would not like to play alongside my current players with the characters they are running. There's no room for an investigative lore sponge in this party.

[Jay R]

One side issue:

I dislike playing in a module or setting that I've already read, because I can't solve the mysteries, work out the clues, or do any of the problem-solving that involves trying to discover knowledge. So while I'd like to play in the kind of game I run, I could not enjoy playing in my actual game.

[Max_Killjoy]

One side issue:

I dislike playing in a module or setting that I've already read, because I can't solve the mysteries, work out the clues, or do any of the problem-solving that involves trying to discover knowledge. So while I'd like to play in the kind of game I run, I could not enjoy playing in my actual game.


One of my big peeves with module-based play, or in general systems / settings that involve keeping a lot of the published material secret from players.

(Perhaps founded on the old mistaken notion that there were players, and there were dungeon masters, and never the twain shall meet?)

[SimonMoon6]

Would this tactic work against the Dark Young of Shug-Niggurath? Also, related question, is there a reason for the "no actions" clause? I failed my Knowledge: Mythos roll.

Yes, that probably would work. However, keep in mind that a big part of the Cthulhu Mythos is that the player characters don't get to know what the monsters can or can not do, so it would be hard to plan in this way. (Of course, keeping player knowlege separate from GM knowledge is not always feasible, but the *characters* don't know about the monsters unless they have lots of points in the Cthulhu Mythos skill which is dangerous since that makes it likely that you will go permanently insane.)

No, there's not a real reason as far as I know except that the game designers assumed that all PCs would be ordinary humans and ordinary humans wouldn't be able to do anything in this situation.

[Jay R]

One of my big peeves with module-based play, or in general systems / settings that involve keeping a lot of the published material secret from players.

(Perhaps founded on the old mistaken notion that there were players, and there were dungeon masters, and never the twain shall meet?)

No. It was founded on the correct notion that putting together clues, solving mysteries, and figuring things out were sometimes (not always) part of the game.

In a recent game, one of our NPC allies turned out to be a plant from the enemy. I've played a game in which we were trying to find out who was involved in the slavery ring. Sometimes magic items have hidden curses or powers. There might be hidden doors or traps. An enemy might have a hidden weakness.

All of these kinds of games require the DM to know some things that the players do not know.

In the specific game I was talking about, the PCs have dealt with an uprising, a raid, and a seige. They have worked out one of the connections between them, but have not yet determined what the underlying root cause is. And there are enjoying trying to find out.

[Max_Killjoy]

No. It was founded on the correct notion that putting together clues, solving mysteries, and figuring things out were sometimes (not always) part of the game.

In a recent game, one of our NPC allies turned out to be a plant from the enemy. I've played a game in which we were trying to find out who was involved in the slavery ring. Sometimes magic items have hidden curses or powers. There might be hidden doors or traps. An enemy might have a hidden weakness.

All of these kinds of games require the DM to know some things that the players do not know.

In the specific game I was talking about, the PCs have dealt with an uprising, a raid, and a seige. They have worked out one of the connections between them, but have not yet determined what the underlying root cause is. And there are enjoying trying to find out.


So... "players" can never read modules or 'adventure paths' or any GM sections of game books, because a "game master" may someday want to use that material in a campaign?

And there's no crossover between those gamers who are "players" and those gamers who are "game masters"?

That's what I'm getting at -- the idea of 'secret' published material that "players" are expected to have never read or looked at.

[RazorChain]

So... "players" can never read modules or 'adventure paths' or any GM sections of game books, because a "game masters" may someday want to use that material in a campaign?

And there's no crossover between those gamers who are "players" and those gamers who are "game masters"?

That's what I'm getting at -- the idea of 'secret' published material that "players" are expected to have never read or looked at.

I would not enjoy playing through an module I've read. I can and have done so but you have to pretend not knowing who is the bad guy and how to solve the puzzles or whats going to happen.

Reading world books and fluff with adventure ideas is another matter or knowing how for example WoD really works has never been a detriment.

But I think GM secrets have been out of fashion the last 15-20 years

I almost never use modules so I don't buy them or read them.

But for GM's who read a lot of modules and only run a portion of them and are players as well might run into trouble if they dont want to play those modules.

Somebody who is only a player? I don't know? There are people out there that read the ending of the book long before they finish so each to their own I guess.

[Armored Walrus]

I suspect that as a player, I would get impatient with my game. I have one bloodthirsty player that I would say would be happiest with at least two combats per session, but the remainder really enjoy a more complex plot and interactions with NPCs. I would be in the more bloodthirsty corner if I could just dictate that the campaign be run to suit me.

That being said, yeah, I'd play in my campaign, but i'd probably find my descriptions a little ham-fisted and my plots a little contrived, and I'd be a little bit like Travis Willingham at the Critical Role table :P

[Jay R]

So... "players" can never read modules or 'adventure paths' or any GM sections of game books, because a "game master" may someday want to use that material in a campaign?

I did not say that, and to act like I did is unfair and unjust.

I said that **I** do not want to play in games in which I already know the solutions to the problems.


And there's no crossover between those gamers who are "players" and those gamers who are "game masters"?

I did not say that, and to act like I did is unfair and unjust.

I am in fact both a player and a game master - which you knew when you wrote this deliberate falsehood. The post you replied to specifically referred to me as a player and as a game master. Writing things you know to be false does not further the discussion in any useful direction.

I don't want to read the solution to a crossword puzzle or cryptogram before I try to solve that crossword puzzle or cryptogram. There is no honest chain of logic from that statement to "there's no crossover between people who solve crossword puzzles and people who create them."


That's what I'm getting at -- the idea of 'secret' published material that "players" are expected to have never read or looked at.

I won't run a scenario that I know one or more of my players has already read, and I won't play in a scenario that I have already read. That doesn't change the fact that half my players are also game masters

If the game I'm playing is a murder mystery, then I don't want to know the name of the murderer before I start to play. If there is a secret door, I don't want to know its location before I enter the dungeon. If one of the magic items in the hoard is cursed, and another has extra powers that will only manifest in certain circumstances, then I don't want to know which is which before playing.I don't want to read the final chapter of a book before I start the rest of the novel.

These statements are not the equivalent of the nasty things you are trying to turn them into.

Perhaps you want to already know the name of the murderer, the location of the secret door, which item is cursed and which has more powers than we've found, or how the book ends. I don't know, and I don't care, and I have made no statement or judgment about it. I have only indicated my own personal preference.

Please stop making up falsehoods about me.

[Max_Killjoy]

I did not say that, and to act like I did is unfair and unjust.



Please stop making up falsehoods about me.


Really? :smallmad:

Context, then.



One of my big peeves with module-based play, or in general systems / settings that involve keeping a lot of the published material secret from players.

(Perhaps founded on the old mistaken notion that there were players, and there were dungeon masters, and never the twain shall meet?)



No. It was founded on the correct notion that putting together clues, solving mysteries, and figuring things out were sometimes (not always) part of the game.

In a recent game, one of our NPC allies turned out to be a plant from the enemy. I've played a game in which we were trying to find out who was involved in the slavery ring. Sometimes magic items have hidden curses or powers. There might be hidden doors or traps. An enemy might have a hidden weakness.

All of these kinds of games require the DM to know some things that the players do not know.



So... "players" can never read modules or 'adventure paths' or any GM sections of game books, because a "game master" may someday want to use that material in a campaign?

And there's no crossover between those gamers who are "players" and those gamers who are "game masters"?

That's what I'm getting at -- the idea of 'secret' published material that "players" are expected to have never read or looked at.


My initial comment was not an attack on your enjoyment of mysteries, putting clues together, etc. It was also not an attack on the DM having information that the other players don't have.

It was specifically, clearly, and plainly a comment on two things: that there is published system or setting content that only retains its usefulness if most players have fastidiously avoided reading it, and the notion going back decades, that should have died by now, that there are "GMs", and there are "players", and the former is a special breed apart, privy to published system and setting content that others are not.

Your response (that I have italicized above) had so little to do with my post that I was asking if it was somehow meant to be the assertions that I ended in question marks. Note the question marks -- those two lines were questions, not assertions.

[sktarq]

Oh good grief I would love to play in one of my games.

You know the Treat other the way you wish to be treated idea. that is where I developed a lot of my DMing style from.

And now I'm teaching my girlfriend (who has been one of my best players for a decade before she was my girlfriend) to ST/GM/DM which she seems to be enjoying world building at least (watching me worldbuild the last couple months for a game stating tmw seems to have given her ideas...wait TOMORROW...I can't be here-must go prep!)

[GungHo]

No, but that's because the game I am running for the group I am running it for is not the type of game I actually like to play but I simply happen to be really good at running. I prefer political "thriller" and stuff that is much more localized and personal, but I have a head for crunchy games with big set pieces. I want to do Firefly. My guys want Star Wars.

[sktarq]

I guess a corollary might be: Would you GM a game system that you would not want to play in. For me: Yes.

Yes the Palladium System (which for me is basically Rifts) because that system is....hard on the GM. And worse when I'm a player. I think the system is so twitchy and unforgiving for a GM to run. And I frankly don't trust many people not to flub it. I would love to play in a game with a GM I trust but that is a high level of trust.

On the other hand I would see it as a challenge

[RedMage125]

If yes, what does this say about you as a GM?

If no, why, and what does this say about you as a GM?


I would say yes. But that's only because it's why I started DMing in the first place. When I first got into D&D, I only wanted to be a player. But a lot of the games I played in were not as satisfying. I either had no choice and agency in what I did, or there was almost no actual "story" to follow, and we just wandered aimlessly.

So I started coming with an idea for a story, the kind of ideal game I would want to play in. With an overall plot that could take players from seemingly unimportant minor heroics at low levels with a segue into a world-spanning major plot where they could save the world, with JUST enough leeway to allow for player choice to decide HOW. Then I realized that no one was going to run this vision the way I expected it but me. So I stepped up.

I always try and keep that perspective when I DM. I only am willing to run a pre-published module if I find it interesting and compelling when I read it. And I try to put myself in the players' shoes both before and after sessions of games where I actually write an original plotline, constantly evaluating whether or not this would be a game that I would enjoy as a player.

I hope that says that I'm a good GM. At a minimum, my first consideration is fun, followed very closely by fairness. I stick very close to RAW of whatever system I am running, not because I view it as any kind of "one right way to play", but rather so that my players can access the rulebooks if they want to know how something is supposed to go. I have been challenged on the way I viewed certain rules before, and if a good case is presented, I have admitted I was wrong (but I try to keep such debates from impeding gameplay). I do have a few house rules (about 6 for 3.5e, less for other systems), but I always make sure players are aware of them at the outset, and they're pretty player-friendly, so most people don't complain.

If I have a weakness, it's that I am not very good at creating combat encounters with dynamic terrain. I've seen it done in modules, but aside from plagiarizing those (which I do-frequently and shamelessly), I am not very good with coming up with ways to incorporate varied and fun terrain into a combat encounter. With one exception, during the 4e era I had a pretty good encounter with some gnolls in some super thick fog that I came up with.

[bc56]

I would definitely play in my own game. I have a lot of fun just DMing, and I would love to see what it's like on.the other side of my table.

[JNAProductions]

I would say yes. But that's only because it's why I started DMing in the first place. When I first got into D&D, I only wanted to be a player. But a lot of the games I played in were not as satisfying. I either had no choice and agency in what I did, or there was almost no actual "story" to follow, and we just wandered aimlessly.

So I started coming with an idea for a story, the kind of ideal game I would want to play in. With an overall plot that could take players from seemingly unimportant minor heroics at low levels with a segue into a world-spanning major plot where they could save the world, with JUST enough leeway to allow for player choice to decide HOW. Then I realized that no one was going to run this vision the way I expected it but me. So I stepped up.

I always try and keep that perspective when I DM. I only am willing to run a pre-published module if I find it interesting and compelling when I read it. And I try to put myself in the players' shoes both before and after sessions of games where I actually write an original plotline, constantly evaluating whether or not this would be a game that I would enjoy as a player.

I hope that says that I'm a good GM. At a minimum, my first consideration is fun, followed very closely by fairness. I stick very close to RAW of whatever system I am running, not because I view it as any kind of "one right way to play", but rather so that my players can access the rulebooks if they want to know how something is supposed to go. I have been challenged on the way I viewed certain rules before, and if a good case is presented, I have admitted I was wrong (but I try to keep such debates from impeding gameplay). I do have a few house rules (about 6 for 3.5e, less for other systems), but I always make sure players are aware of them at the outset, and they're pretty player-friendly, so most people don't complain.

Assuming you aren't lying your pants off, I'd say yeah, you sound like a good DM. I mean, obviously you've got a touch of bias, but that sounds like a game I'd enjoy playing in too!


If I have a weakness, it's that I am not very good at creating combat encounters with dynamic terrain. I've seen it done in modules, but aside from plagiarizing those (which I do-frequently and shamelessly), I am not very good with coming up with ways to incorporate varied and fun terrain into a combat encounter. With one exception, during the 4e era I had a pretty good encounter with some gnolls in some super thick fog that I came up with.

And ain't nothing wrong with acknowledging your weakness and looking for ways to overcome it. Obviously if you reuse the same setpiece too many times, it'd get annoying, but if you plunder new ideas frequently, and only occasionally reuse, who cares if they're YOUR ideas or someone else's?

[Lorsa]

It was specifically, clearly, and plainly a comment on two things: that there is published system or setting content that only retains its usefulness if most players have fastidiously avoided reading it, and the notion going back decades, that should have died by now, that there are "GMs", and there are "players", and the former is a special breed apart, privy to published system and setting content that others are not.

Obviously if something is published, then anyone can, and should be allowed to, read it.

However, there needs to be communication between the GM of a supposed module and the players regarding if they've read it or not.

It's okay for a GM to ask "Hey guys, have anyone of you ever read 'Ghastly Lair of the Creepy Ghost'?" and if the players say "No, we haven't", the GM should be within their right to ask "So guys, can you promise not to read it while we play this campaign".

It is one thing if publishers see two types of gamers, one being "GMs" and one being "players" and then telling the "players" that they can NEVER read their modules. That's just wrong and quite obviously stupid and delusional.

It is another thing if a specific GM-to-be asks the specific players-to-be in a specific campaign not to read a specific module they are planning on running.

[Max_Killjoy]

Obviously if something is published, then anyone can, and should be allowed to, read it.

However, there needs to be communication between the GM of a supposed module and the players regarding if they've read it or not.

It's okay for a GM to ask "Hey guys, have anyone of you ever read 'Ghastly Lair of the Creepy Ghost'?" and if the players say "No, we haven't", the GM should be within their right to ask "So guys, can you promise not to read it while we play this campaign".

It is one thing if publishers see two types of gamers, one being "GMs" and one being "players" and then telling the "players" that they can NEVER read their modules. That's just wrong and quite obviously stupid and delusional.

It is another thing if a specific GM-to-be asks the specific players-to-be in a specific campaign not to read a specific module they are planning on running.


I have no argument with any of that.

[Lorsa]

I have no argument with any of that.

Great!

Then if Jay R agrees with me as well, your issue was mostly a matter of miscommunication (as I suspect it is).

If he does not agree with me, I still stand by my statement and would gladly argue this point.

[FabulousFizban]

HELL YEAH! I'm an awesome DM

[johnnnrussel]

yeap, why not ^-^

[Poiuytrewq]

I would love to find a DM who is as fun as me. :v

[Kelb_Panthera]

If yes, what does this say about you as a GM?

Of course. It says I'm paying attention to what both I and my players want from the game and I'm doing my best to compromise and make sure we all enjoy ourselves. If the answer were "no" I wouldn't be comfortable continuing to DM.


If no, why, and what does this say about you as a GM?

IMO, it says you're doing something wrong as a GM. If you're running a game you wouldn't find entertaining to play in, you seriously need to examine why that is. I can think of very few acceptable answers to that question and no good ones.

If you think it would be boring because of the campaign premise, why did you think the other players would like it? If you would balk at certain character building restrictions, why did you place them? If certain among the players is too unpleasant to play alongside, why are you DMing for him? If you don't like the particular TTRPG, how are you even suited to running it, much less why did you agree to do so?

I feel pretty strongly that this particular yes/no question very much has a correct answer. "No" isn't it.

[Knaight]

IMO, it says you're doing something wrong as a GM. If you're running a game you wouldn't find entertaining to play in, you seriously need to examine why that is. I can think of very few acceptable answers to that question and no good ones.

If you think it would be boring because of the campaign premise, why did you think the other players would like it? If you would balk at certain character building restrictions, why did you place them? If certain among the players is too unpleasant to play alongside, why are you DMing for him? If you don't like the particular TTRPG, how are you even suited to running it, much less why did you agree to do so?

That last one can split - it is very much possible to like running an RPG and not playing it, and vice versa. This is particularly true if it's a matter of crunch, where if you're the person in the group who likes the most crunch you may enjoy GMing where you'd get bored playing (with the other direction being vastly more common).

[PersonMan]

However, there needs to be communication between the GM of a supposed module and the players regarding if they've read it or not.

There's a temporal aspect, as well. It's one thing to have read Ghastly Lair of the Creepy Ghost once, back in 2016, and barely remember it. It's another to be in the middle of reading it, right now, when the GM asks. I'd say this applies even more to things like Pathfinder Adventure Paths, or similar pre-made campaign type deals - there's a lot more to forget, there.


IMO, it says you're doing something wrong as a GM. If you're running a game you wouldn't find entertaining to play in, you seriously need to examine why that is. I can think of very few acceptable answers to that question and no good ones.

If you think it would be boring because of the campaign premise, why did you think the other players would like it? If you would balk at certain character building restrictions, why did you place them? If certain among the players is too unpleasant to play alongside, why are you DMing for him? If you don't like the particular TTRPG, how are you even suited to running it, much less why did you agree to do so?

I feel pretty strongly that this particular yes/no question very much has a correct answer. "No" isn't it.

I disagree. Playstyle preferences are a thing - I don't know how common it is, but I know that I sometimes enjoy running the type of investigative/mystery games that I don't really enjoy as a player. And if someone is running a game for a group they know, they could easily tailor things to their preferences even if their own are different. If all of my players like to fight tons of fire goblins riding sand skiffs, all the time, and I enjoy running them, why not do so? Sure, I may not like doing that as a player, but how does that reflect poorly on the game that I'm not a player in?

[Cap'n Gravelock]

I do and already have. I try to limit myself as best I can though. Most of my players are newbies as I am so no one really complains.

I usually make a system so that even I am not sure of what we have to go up against.

My GMPC in 40k Deathwatch is a chaplain and I usually play as a dragon in PF wherein I serve as a combination of reconaissance aircraft, fighter-bomber and transport gunship. 😂

[Whyrocknodie]

Absolutely not, the DM is a hack. I'm sure he's got it in for me as well, always saying things about me behind my back. Well, he'll be sorry. I'll show him...

I'll show them all.

[Gallade]

I tend to run very....free-form games. As in there is a setting and an all-encompassing, great event that influences it, but eventually it's up to the players how much they get involved in it and how they alter the course of events. It's the opposite for me: I only DM games that I would enjoy to play.

And yeah, I tend to insert some DMPCs, guilty as charged. They're mostly just for exposition and guidance if the party feels clueless on where to go, though.

[MrStabby]

I would never want to play in my setting run by someone else that's for sure.

I've finally gotten to play a couple characters after DMing 99% of the time for 20 years and...it's fun but I can't stop myself from deciding how I'd rule and treat the players differently which makes me enjoy it less. I think I'm built to DM rather than play. It's nice to have a break, but I'm just waiting for the campaign to end so I can DM again.

I have found a bit of this as well. The power of being a DM is great; it means you don't have to use it. If something looks fun but a bit risky to to the game you still have a huge amount of leeway to undo any mistakes. If as a player there is a path being gone down that might impinge on your fun then you have to spot it early and act early to change the course of the story.



I think the problem with asking that question in this forum is that your RPG player sample is skewed. The GM:Player ratio is higher than it is in real life. On top of that, the [Longterm GM]:[Rotating GM] ratio is higher than in real life. With those givens, you have a lot of people that have put a lot of time into the settings they use and the way they run the game. Egos tend to get tied up in those things (that is not a bad thing, and this is not negative judgement on that opinion), and when you have egos tied up in the way you do things, it becomes hard to let someone else do those things, even if it's a clone of you - because it's not you.

Yeah, I am going to admit that my Ego is a bit tied up in my world. After three years of building it and playing it, adding detail and strong underlying principles to behaviours, factions personalities... yeah - I get pretty invested.


As for would I play in my own game. I would. There are things I could be better at though:

1) Consistency with telegraphing information. I have a world where things can kill you. Not everything is level appropriate. This relies on players either interpreting bad news and being legitimately dangerous or doing the right lore and background research. Where something is dangerous there should be some information out there. I run 5th edition and Arcana, Nature and Religion are some of the most useful skills out there. Where this falls down is where something isn't that dangerous: I don't have much to say it is safe. My players are not always happy when they walk into a room with three skeletons in chainmail with glowing purple eyes, long red cloaks and fine script etched onto the bones of their skulls or similar. Skeletons are not too dangerous. These don't look like normal skeletons. How much unlike them are they? When the party opens with their highest level spells and find the encounter crumbles anti-climatically they feel a bit cheated.

2) Character building. Or rather roleplaying. I find that this is the hardest part of DMing. You are mentally simulating another person. You are focusing their desires, their personality, their knowledge and how they all interact and how they interact with the other PCs. What was their last interaction like? Who said what? Who do they like? Who don't they. We tend to do a fairly hack and slash game so this is a bit less important - but maybe we do hack and slash because I am not so good at this. Actually it isn't really hack and slash - still more plot driven, but I do tend to skimp on the descriptive elements of the game.

3) Speed. 85% of the time I am pretty quick in both combat and setting development. The other 15% of the time I remember there is a detail I need to incorporate, a plan I need to let slip, a plot I need to hint at and then have a bit of a pause whilst i look to incorporate it. This would annoy me.

4) Obscurity of some clues. Whilst I maintain that there is a distinction between things you can work out and things you need to know that is defensible in making some clues obscure, it has been a complaint on some occasions that my clues have been a bit obscure (that an NPC was the big bad guy because they has the same spell list for example). Still, it's an issue. It isn't just would I spot the clues - would I mind missing out? Probably would also be a little frustrating. Others don't like the complexity of the game ("that was three years ago, how do you expect us to remember that this village's name was the same as the one where those children went missing?"). If I were on the other side of the screen would I be similarly annoyed.

5) Number one thing about my DM style that would annoy me: I am bad at names. So many NPCs, NPCs that become very important, end up without names or at least are without names for so long that they actually make it more not less confusing. This would really screw things up for me.