PDA

View Full Version : GMs being players



Seto
2018-10-18, 08:17 AM
Most of us who are GMs have been players first. So, I assume that going from the player side of the screen to the GM side is well known to you.

But what I've been noticing lately is the effects of having been a GM and going back to being a player. Or not necessarily "going back to", but "also being" a player. Personally, I crave both. I'm happiest when I'm GMing a game and playing in another game - and if I only have one of those things for a long time, I feel like something's missing. But for a few months, I've been mostly focusing on GMing my own campaign - reading a lot of GM advice, writing adventures, trying to perfect my craft as best I can. And I've noticed that, obviously, not only is it improving my GMing skills, but it's also changing my attitude as a player. I would say it affects the game in both positive and negative ways - though mostly positive.

The positive. Because I've trained to notice (or craft) those things as a GM, I notice a lot more "meta" things about how the game is going: rhythm, structure, social dynamics at the table, everyone's enjoyment or disappointment with the game... I get more easily into the GM's head. That lets me help them sometimes, especially inexperienced ones (I'm currently playing with a first-time GM). I can sorta guess what they planned for, what direction they seem to be pushing the game towards, and I take it upon myself to make it smoother and steer other players in that direction when they look lost or they start derailing the game. In short, being a GM helped me become an experienced player, able to work with the GM and satisfactorily pull my weight in the collective adventure.
What's more, it helps me become a better GM by observing other GMs, seeing what mistakes they make or what good ideas and tricks they use, and how it impacts my enjoyment as a player. But that's affecting my GMing skills rather than player outlook, so it's sort of off-topic.

The negative. That positive can quickly turn into a negative if I'm not careful. Since I notice those meta things, I tend to get annoyed at what I perceive as GMing mistakes, and that nagging voice in my head saying "ah, I would have done that differently". I think that comes from harshly judging my own sessions and trying to analyze my mistakes to improve as a GM - it's hard to turn that judgment and analysis off when I'm playing under other GMs. Of course, I try to not let it show, and instead compliment cool ideas and things I liked - but if some things are hurting my enjoyment, a GM could notice them and feel pressured. In fact, when I do give compliments, I do my best to give them as a player and not as a fellow GM, because I don't wanna sound patronizing, or seem like I'm taking control of the game. So that's a negative both for me as a player, and potentially for the GM if they feel me being judgmental.
Related to that, being a GM and used to adjucating actions could make me step on the GM's toes. One of the players in my campaign is an experienced GM himself, and sometimes makes judgment calls that should fall under my purview. He says "oh, I wanna attempt that weird action... I know! let's resolve it that way *rolls dice*". Generally, I go with them. They're not unbalanced or munchkiny or anything. They're good judgment calls - they're just not his to make, and it does irk me. So when I play in another person's campaign, I remember it's a risk and I try to avoid that as much as I can.

To reiterate, I do feel the positive outweighs the negative. It's not really a thread with a specific question, I just wanted to point out that phenomenon and know people's experiences. To get discussion going. So, what do you think characterizes players who used to be GMs? What do they bring to the table, positive or negative? How has GMing experience changed YOUR outlook as a player?

Darth Ultron
2018-10-18, 11:24 AM
I think it is a big negative to be both: a person is one or the other.

Some DMs are purely self made and self taught, like myself, but most play the game as a player first. The classic is a player will play in a couple dozen games and then with all that piratical game experience ''move up and graduate" to being a DM. Most players, far too many players, are in a couple games and then they get all excited that they can DM too. After all, they think, they just need to sit back and tell people what to do and roll dice. Of course the vast majority of players that think ''they can DM too" are disasters. To be an even average DM takes more then just ''know a couple rules" and ''tell people what to do."

Being a good DM takes a lot of skills and abilities: Knowing the rules and rule mastery, improvisation, judgement calls,conflict resolution and more. And simply put, not everyone can do it, not matter how much they ''think'' they can.

And maybe worst of all, a DM can't go back to being a player. A good player willing does not look at the game too closely and immerses themselves almost totally in the role playing. A good player is a lot like a good viewer of a movie or TV show: they know it is fake, but pretend it is real. Though a game (or movie or TV show) is pure fiction. If you stop to think about it for more then a second you can figure out the plot, tropes and so forth and know what will likely happen. And for the most part, this does ruin fiction.

Once you see the Man behind the Curtain you can't go back to thinking it is ''real".

LordEntrails
2018-10-18, 12:22 PM
Going back and forth is a good thing, and can be very rewarding. Sure, you can be one or the other for a few decades, but eventually doing both is the best of both worlds.

It just requires the realization that it's not your game and the maturity to ignore anything you disagree with as a GM or think might have been a mistake. If it ever gets serious enough, ALWAYS take it to the GM outside the session and in private. Just because you might have done something differently, doesn't mean you are right, ever.

DMThac0
2018-10-18, 12:49 PM
Once you see the Man behind the Curtain you can't go back to thinking it is ''real".

I tend to disagree with what you've stated except, of course, this part.

--

I've DM'd much, much longer than I've played. 30 some years playing and I think I can count the number of games I've played in on both hands. Most of those games were back in the Gygaxian death machine days. So needless to say I know more about what's going on behind the screen than many of the players out there. Even the rules lawyers don't know half as much as they think they do, since all they're doing is regurgitating the words from the book rather than understanding the nuances that are in play when it comes to story bumps, pacing, and narrative. As a DM who is finally playing, I have seen similar things to what has been said, and agree for the most part, however I do not think a DM is unable to be a good player.

I had to learn to stop trying to help every time the DM seemed to struggle. I had to learn to stop answering DM questions pointed at me when I'm the player. I had to learn to stop telling the DM how I would do things differently in regards to decisions they made. I basically had to turn off the DM side of my brain as much as possible so that the actual DM could do their thing. It's not an easy thing to do, it's built in, it's almost reflex now.

However, I have learned how to help the DM passively, in ways that remove the tedious tasks and allow them to focus on the rest of the game. I'll keep mental track of player initiative, prompting them to be ready. I'll pay attention to the DM and when they look like they're frustrated with the players' shenanigans, I'll do something in game to put it back on track. I'll also stay in character, rather than bouncing between player, off-duty DM, and character. I try to be an asset to the DM without being overt about it.

I've also learned that I'm able to really dig into my character more. Having all those NPCs, BBEGs, and creatures that I've had to give personalities and thought processes to, I now only have one to focus on. I can really explore what my motivations are, how I would react to the situation, what every encounter means to me. I may not be able to forget the stat block of the Vampire Spawn in front of me, but I can think "How would my character respond in this situation" and play to that.

Case in point: My group was attacked by a celestial creature in our last session. I knew we were up against something powerful before it even revealed itself due to the cues given through narrative. I still played my character, asking questions and digging for information. I also knew that my line of questions was going to cause one of my other players to attack the creature. I didn't stop, my character was on a mission to get answers. When the creature revealed itself and started attacking, I still played my character. Rather than jumping into the fray I did what my character would do, I sat down unarmed and told the creature I was no threat, and asked it to stand down.

Players feel their job is defined as "the heroes", so they come into it thinking they're destined to win no matter the situation. They'll attempt to win in any given situation, even the RPers who do try to play into their character. In the end the numbers are their deciding factors when they need to make hard decisions "Do we have enough HP", "Is my skill high enough", "How many spells do I have left", etc. As a DM turned player, we're more willing to forgo the numbers and actually play a character according to their motivations and desires.

LordEntrails
2018-10-18, 01:12 PM
I had to learn to stop trying to help every time the DM seemed to struggle. I had to learn to stop answering DM questions pointed at me when I'm the player. I had to learn to stop telling the DM how I would do things differently in regards to decisions they made. I basically had to turn off the DM side of my brain as much as possible so that the actual DM could do their thing. It's not an easy thing to do, it's built in, it's almost reflex now.

However, I have learned how to help the DM passively, in ways that remove the tedious tasks and allow them to focus on the rest of the game. I'll keep mental track of player initiative, prompting them to be ready. I'll pay attention to the DM and when they look like they're frustrated with the players' shenanigans, I'll do something in game to put it back on track. I'll also stay in character, rather than bouncing between player, off-duty DM, and character. I try to be an asset to the DM without being overt about it.


I really resonated with this part. When you have been a DM or leader and then are not, it's really that you have to step into a Mentor role, or a parent if you have a teenager.

It's not about what you can do or know, it's about being supportive of others learning, growing and doing their own thing. And the way DMThac0 puts it is an excellent approach to doing that.

Koo Rehtorb
2018-10-18, 01:49 PM
There's nothing wrong with telling a GM they're doing something wrong, when they are objectively doing something wrong. If you can point to a rule in that book that they're getting wrong then it's not only permissible, but helpful, to point it out. Though sometimes waiting until after the session to do it may be more diplomatic if it's not immediately critical to fix it.

The trick, though, is recognizing the difference between something they're doing wrong, and something that you wouldn't have done yourself but is still a valid approach.

Theodoric
2018-10-18, 02:03 PM
I'm a GM who hasn't been much of a player and I don't think I could make that transition. Playing doesn't seem so bad by itself, but the rush that comes with planning, improvising and making snap judgements is what I really like about GMing. I'd probably be an annoying rules-lawyer too. I might give being a player a try again, but I don't think I can enjoy it quite as much.

Quertus
2018-10-18, 02:06 PM
So... Hmmm... I, personally, love groups where multiple players have GM chops, where we play by the rules, and where GMs will happily let knowledgeable players adjudicate the rules. So, I suppose, given my preferences, that this isn't a problem.

For metagaming... I was taught that this was Evil. It's taken me a while to get past that, but, as it stands, I don't metagame as much as I should - yet I still metagame more than is optimal for my enjoyment of the game. That is, IME, for me, at least, the game is most fun when a) I don't metagame at all, and b) I don't have to. I don't want to have to pay attention to whether Bob's enjoying the game, out furious at the course of events - that metagaming pulls me out of character. It lowers the ceiling on the game. The problem is, not doing so lowers the floor.

So, IMO, that's less a problem with having been a GM directly, and more with my personal growth, which was, admittedly, was aided by being both a GM and a player.

Joe the Rat
2018-10-18, 02:17 PM
I'm the regular DM for our group, but I've gotten a couple of the regulars to take the Big Chair once in a while. I enjoy playing. Generally I prefer playing. The one thing that happens in this group, is that since I'm the regular, when the GM isn't sure, they defer to me on how something works. I mean yes, I do tend to have the deepest rules knowledge of whatever we are playing (ain't that scary?), but oftentimes it comes down to rulings questions. Would I allow it? Maybe, maybe not, but it's your table tonight, slugger.

In general - particularly when I'm outside of the usual group - I am very much in the analytical knowing-how-the-trick-works mode. Which means I'm always learning new tricks by seeing how others handle the game. And there's a particular joy in seeing someone do it well.

Gnoman
2018-10-18, 02:27 PM
I haven't had the same issues transtioning from GM to player that some in this thread. I have to be careful not to push to hard, because I'm used to being the one "driving" the game, but other than that my biggest issue's been those occasions when I was far more invested in the game world than the GM (who was primarily looking to run a series of dungeon crawls) was.

That's also been my experience with players that also GM. They tend to be extremely helpful, very invested, and quite amenable to actions that make a good story even if they crimp on player agency.

Koo Rehtorb
2018-10-18, 04:06 PM
That's also been my experience with players that also GM. They tend to be extremely helpful, very invested, and quite amenable to actions that make a good story even if they crimp on player agency.

I'd say a good GM would make for a player that has very little tolerance for limiting player agency, because a good GM knows that the players are the ones who are supposed to drive the story.

kyoryu
2018-10-18, 04:51 PM
Good GMs make great players.

Control freak GMs make horrible players.

Vegan Squirrel
2018-10-18, 05:19 PM
I started as a player in D&D 3.5, then after a few years I ran a campaign with that group while playing D&D 5e in another group. Since then I've had mostly short-lived experiences on both side of the screen, mainly due to everyone having hectic schedules. I've played some pbp, but that feels so much different that it's kind of a different category altogether. And now I'm running a campaign again, and I feel like my experience has reached the point that I really know what I'm doing behind the screen. I've become the kind of GM I'd like to play with, and that's pretty much the goal.

I definitely feel that I'm a better player now that I'm a GM, and I think doing both can be very rewarding for a lot of player-GMs. I did a quick count, and I think more than half of the players I've played with have also GMed, and that feels right for a collaborative social game. There are a few people who are in love with DMing but don't want to play—I can get that, because I already have that passion for GMing. Other sometimes-GMs prefer playing because it's less of a mental burden, but they'll run so that the same person doesn't have to GM all the time. For me, they're two very different ways to enjoy the game, with different forms of expression and rewards involved. I like both, and I wouldn't want to stop being either one.

So how has GMing helped my playing? Well, now that I've GMed, I have a much better idea of how to build a character and backstory that's relevant to the campaign. When I first started playing, I came up with all sorts of more or less irrelevant details which would never really affected play, but I didn't really build in any tensions and ideals that could be set against each other in the course of a campaign. My characters were static instead of dynamic, whereas now I expect both the game setting and the characters to have in-build tensions that can pulled on to create a deeper roleplaying experience. I focused much more on the character's mechanics, and oddly enough, it was when I was a beginner that I was the group's go-to rules reference (because I immediately read and really learned all the rules, not knowing which ones would be most important). Seeing behind the GM screen doesn't ruin the magic in the slightest for me, no more than reading the rulebook does. I knew it was a game going in, but it's still easy enough to suspend my disbelief while playing make-believe. I feel more confident making character choices, because I know that's what I'm looking for when I'm running the game.

I played first, and GMed later, so it's a little harder to separate out how playing helps me as a GM. But I know what I want to be able to do as a player, and I've learned a number of lessons (both dos and don'ts) from the GMs I've played with. That definitely impacts how I approach the game as a GM.

As for what marks a player who's been a GM, well I can't say I've noticed much of a difference. I guess they tend to have a more solid handle on the rules, but that's as much from experience as anything (since the more experienced a player is, the more likely it is that they've GMed as well).

So that's my take. I encourage everyone to play and/or GM, and I definitely think doing one can improve how one does the other! :smallcool:

Seto
2018-10-18, 05:38 PM
I'd say a good GM would make for a player that has very little tolerance for limiting player agency, because a good GM knows that the players are the ones who are supposed to drive the story.
Sure, absolutely, players must be the ones to drive the story. But there are scenes that drive the story, and scenes that fail to do so - and having GMing experience helps you tell them apart. To keep the driving metaphor, once we're in the story-car, players should drive. But before we're sitting in the car, it's fine for the GM to lead the players by the hand and tell them "this is the story-car, that blue one, here's the keys", rather than letting them awkwardly go around the street twice knocking on every car door to see if it'll lead them somewhere.

Re: "being a GM helps you be a player". I was actually really surprised by that, it's one of the realizations that prompted me to write the thread. I used to be a quiet player, I had trouble coming up with good plans, or acting true to character. I was bad at adapting to new situations, or improvising in character. I wasn't very confident - I guess I was afraid of sounding stupid. I once tried to play a party face, and I sucked at it. In short, I enjoyed playing, but I was more comfortable leaving decisions or dialogue to others.
Now, after a good while spent GMing? I am baffled at how much more proactive a player I have become. Knowing my experiences as a player, I said "Okay, I'll play the warrior. Not the smart character, not the charismatic one, the warrior. That way I can contribute when I want to, but no one will be relying on me to come up with plans or smooth-talk NPCs or have leadership." Well... Maybe that's because other players are less experienced, but I'm winding up doing significantly more of that than I thought. And finding it natural.


I had to learn to stop trying to help every time the DM seemed to struggle. I had to learn to stop answering DM questions pointed at me when I'm the player. I had to learn to stop telling the DM how I would do things differently in regards to decisions they made. I basically had to turn off the DM side of my brain as much as possible so that the actual DM could do their thing. It's not an easy thing to do, it's built in, it's almost reflex now.

However, I have learned how to help the DM passively, in ways that remove the tedious tasks and allow them to focus on the rest of the game. I'll keep mental track of player initiative, prompting them to be ready. I'll pay attention to the DM and when they look like they're frustrated with the players' shenanigans, I'll do something in game to put it back on track. I'll also stay in character, rather than bouncing between player, off-duty DM, and character. I try to be an asset to the DM without being overt about it.

Yeah, that's what I'm aiming for as well. Still learning that first part, though.

Maelynn
2018-10-21, 04:21 AM
I'm a long-time player and only picked up the DM mantle this summer. It definitely changed the way I play, mostly because you learn the way it works. I think of it like having magic tricks explained - you can never unsee it, but you can still enjoy the performance if you allow yourself to. Some people can't do the latter, which is a shame - though understandable.

One of my players is an experienced DM, who was delighted to finally be a player again (which is why he was top of my list of people I wanted to ask for my campaign). His playstyle and attitude at the table is both a blessing and a curse, but I see it as a good thing. Yes, it can sometimes be intimidating, but it's also challenging and drives me to up my ante. I want to come up with interesting quests, with twists he didn't see coming (and I get such a kick out of it when that happens), and with monsters that are used in an original way. It gives me a far steeper learning curve than I would've had with a group of non-DM/inexperienced players, but I find that I wouldn't want it any other way. Of course, I do have to point out that mileage may vary depending on the type of person; I can imagine some DMs are a pain in the hindside.

As a player myself, I also started noticing a different attitude. My knowledge of the rules is better, to the point that I sometimes mention something that the DM didn't know. Or find myself disagreeing with how he rules - but I keep that to myself, so as not to discomfort him. At least I hope I manage to do that. What I also notice is that I sometimes ask questions about the how or why of people's choices, both DM and players. It's just because I want to learn and understand, but I fear I might appear scrutinising and critical. One time I asked the Ranger what build she used that allowed her pet to have its own initiative and turn and she told me about the Revised Ranger. I felt a bit bad about raising the question, as though I was accusing her of cheating, but I think she didn't see it that way. Still, I find myself a bit on my toes so as not to let my inquisitiveness rub anyone the wrong way.

In both situations, I found that being candid with the other made it easier on both of us. My DM knows that I respect his game and playstyle, and any interference from my end is not ill-intended and meant to aid only. And my player knows that he sometimes gives me a hard time just because of his experience, but also that I don't mind the challenge.

farothel
2018-10-21, 05:27 AM
I play in a long standing group with 5 players, 4 of which are also GM. We often have multiple campaigns running at the same time, switching off (often depending on who has time to prepare a session). I've never had problems with being both GM and player and actually found it a good thing. You know the game from both sides, so you know what players pick up in the way of clues and what not and can adjust accordingly. And having the others help is not a problem either, at least in our group. Nobody can know everything.

We also try to GM different games and systems. Using different systems and worlds also means that it's difficult to compare between the GMs.

Mr Beer
2018-10-21, 10:38 PM
I play and I DM. DM-ing is a more rewarding experience for me but it's also harder work so it's pleasant to let other people do it sometimes.

martixy
2018-10-25, 11:07 PM
I have not had much experience being a player since I became the de-facto DM of the group last year, but it has definitely changed my outlook on being a player.

It has shifted my view to "lead me on this journey" to "let's create something awesome together".

It has made me realize how much more agency I have over the world as a player. Not the character, mind you, but as the player. Many would call this metagaming, and in a sense it is, but it's the good, constructive kind. It's taught me to engage with the game better. Less dropping one liners and disconnected statements about intent and more actual role-playing.

Yora
2018-10-26, 06:37 AM
I think being a GM, I am much more permissive as a player to just run with what the GM says even when it goes against what the rule or setting books say. And I tend to nudge the other players in the same way.

Accuracy is not that super important to a good game, but maintaining a good flow of the action. I think as a halfway decent GM, your main priority is to avoid the game stalling and you get used to things happening in ways you don't think they are supposed to happen. It's something not as visible to players who aren't conductors of the game.