The Role of the GM

[Beastrolami]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is your opinion on the Role of a GM?

[hymer]

What is your opinion on the Role of a GM?

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

[Cluedrew]

That really depends on the group.

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

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

Still some highlights/common trends:

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

[veti]

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

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

[Tanarii]

To present situations, adjudicate resolution of player actions, and determine NPC actions.

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

[JNAProductions]

To have fun, and to help everyone else have fun. Just like everyone else at the table.

[Amphetryon]

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

[Koo Rehtorb]

The players play the PCs and the GM plays the world.

[Aetis]

GM is the guy who spends a lot of time prepping for the session and therefore doesn't have to buy the pizza.

[tensai_oni]

(also, may be CONTROVERSIAL)

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

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

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

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

Everything else is optional.

[LordCdrMilitant]

I'm the second kind of GM, and I like it that way.

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

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

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

[thamolas]

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

[RazorChain]

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

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

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

What is your opinion on the Role of a GM?

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

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

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

[Kane0]

I'd like to be type 3 some day but being a type 2 isnt so bad. My favourite part of the job is providing interesting ways for PCs to kill themselves rather than trying to do it myself.

[Mr Beer]

Ostensibly the GM's role is to act as the interface between the players and an imaginary world.

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

[Martin Greywolf]

It depends. It depends on the group, it depends on the DM, it depends on the system, it depends on the adventure. And no forum post is long enough to give a good account or division of DMs.

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

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

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

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

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

[Darth Ultron]

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

That is a good description.

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

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

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

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

[Cluedrew]

The players play the PCs and the GM plays the world.

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

[Quertus]

IMO, the GMs role is to run the world, and probably the rules.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tanarii]

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

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

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

[Thaneus]

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

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

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

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

And don't lose the reigns on the table.

[Beastrolami]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Koo Rehtorb]

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

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

[SirBellias]

At first, helps to bring together disparate ideas the players have into one (possibly functional) world, and the average set of expectations they have.

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

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

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

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

[Shinigami]

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

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

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

For example: (in my actual campaign loosely based on rise of Tiamat, rise of the Runelords, into the abyss, wrath of the righteous and the earthdawn setting)

Spoiler: More Details

Show

We play in a very Earthdawn like world, the world is overrun with demons and the people live underground (in the Underdark) in big citys like Baldurs gate (just below the real or old Baldurs gate).

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

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

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

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

Each faction wants something different to happen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tanarii]

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

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

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

[RazorChain]

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

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

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

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

[JNAProductions]

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

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

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

[Quertus]

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

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

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

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

[JNAProductions]

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

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

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

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