GM Fun

Remove all ads!

Just following a bit of an exchange in RB - it was said that the GM didn't get enough attention (something like that) for the hard work they put into the campaign.

Now, maybe I'm reading too far into what was actually said but 'hard work' sounds awfully like the GM isn't having much fun in setting things up - it's hard work, not something they enjoy doing - kind of like the GM is doing the rest of the players a service rather than playing for their own enjoyment (I see this thinking elsewhere, not just talking about this one comment).

But then, surely if they put all that effort into it, they enjoy it, right? Well then, don't pull the 'poor GM' thing

If they don't enjoy it and need some 'poor GM' appreciation - maybe they should be introduced to the concept of 'GM Fun' - where, surprise surpise, the GM has fun Seriously, there are far less intensive and equally->more rewarding ways of preparing for a game than to spend ten hours in between each session detailing plot points and working on the setting. But uh, before I start ranting (so I have more of an idea what it is I'm ranting against - and for the purpose of creating a discussion and not a rant-fest where no-one has any idea what the other side is talking about but waffles quite happilly on anyway):

What is the purpose of all this preparation? How does it help the game? Why does this appeal to people if it is 'hard work'? Do you agree with it being the most effective way to run/play a game?

 

Yes there is alot of preparation to perfect the story. I always find the creation fun and it's a work of love, even if the story sucks you feel it was worth a million platinum. (er...maybe im the only one with crappy stories) I've been playing since age ten and wouldn't have it anyway else.


@Aikanaro:
I was trying to be mildly humerous. I dont actually find it "toil" and "work" as I put it, I'll watch my words next time.

 

Some GM's actually do find it to be work. If you've got a group where nobody wants to be the GM, then somebody has to "take one for the team" and do all the work while the players are having fun and ignoring all the effort you put into creating your adventure. It does have a tendency to piss you off.

The first time that I GM'ed was very much like that, but I eventually managed to shrug it off, and found that I rather enjoyed creating new worlds for my players (and myself) to explore. And if you find that players are ignoring areas that you put a lot of work into, all you have to do is put most of the rewards in those kinds of areas in the next adventure.

It's simple reinforcement. If they explore the area, they get the rewards and all your hard work gets validated. If they don't adequately explore it, you get a small amount of revenge on them by lack of rewards that they would have found if they'd searched harder, and they learn to be more thorough, enhancing your next gaming experience. It's win-win!

 

Crafty, very crafty Felinoid. I would have to agree with those methods though the group I play with aren't traditional "D&Ders" so they can get dumb at times and careless. So I actually tone down my adventure so they dont get overwelmed. Er...is that considered selling out.

 

No, it's not selling out. You're just doing what you can to keep the game alive.

 

*Stretches and prepares to waffle on for a bit*

Atari Man: Are you the GM of that group then? I was under the impression that you were talking about someone else

Now, I still don't see why a whole heap of prep is necessary, especially if someone is just 'taking one for the team' and is quite disinterested in doing that kind of prep. D&D, as written in the mechanics (as opposed to what is suggested but not supported) surely doesn't take very much time to set up. As a bonus - the story does not have to be crap. Also, there is no chance of the players pissing you off by not exploring your areas - they'll be doing what they're interested in doing rather than what you anticipate them doing.

By the sounds of it, Felinoid's players are interested in exploring areas. Well let's see - what happens when you rock up and improvise it all on the spot? For you, maybe nothing, admittedly Though it is possible to do (maybe harder with D&D, as you need NPC stats if they're important enough to warrent them. This could be easilly fixed with a few variations with on-the-spot descriptions made up).

Random question to throw in here: How much time *do* you spend prepping an area? And how much detail?
As I see it - maybe three notes on a piece of paper would do fine, and the process of bull****ting the rest of the area would be a good deal of fun. I wonder, have you people tried this? Is it fun for you?

And now to be all Forgish over in my corner - how about giving the players some power to create? They don't need much, maybe just adding a small bit of colour - but it would personalise the area for them and could also take of some the the GM's burden. One way I hear of doing this that's worked in D&D is - when they ask for a description, you ask *them* what it looks like

... Not that I'm saying that there's anything wrong with spending a heap of time working out things. But, well - players probably don't give a phooey how deep you went into world creation and stuff, and the results of spontaniouty can be just as satisfying (more for me - seeing that I can never seem to get a world I spend time on into play).

So yeah, those I my ramblings for today

 

Ohhhhh no. If they see you just makin' s*** up, they'll stop trusting you. For all they know, you could just be making it harder for them because you feel like it. So anything that's a little too hard is you being an a**hole, and anything that's too easy is you not trying hard enough to challenge them. Everything wrong suddenly becomes your fault, including dice-rolls.

All the 'work' that goes into making your adventure is just proof that you're taking it seriously. With that in hand, small mistakes can be excused since mistakes are inevitable, and you can't really be expected to spend all of your free time preparing for a game. But if they think that you don't take it (or them) seriously, they will leave, and it will probably not be on good terms.

Players doing the GM's job. Wait, you're serious, aren't you? Do you think there would even be such a thing as a GM if that were remotely possible? Tried it once for about three hours, and spent the entire time trying to keep them from arguing about the tiniest details. I was astounded to hear this argument regarding a landmark between a 15-year old chess player, a 12-year old programmer, and a 14-year old math wiz: (keep in mind that I've been playing since I was eight, and I was 14 myself at the time)

"We'll call it Black Rock." "No, it should be white!" "I think it should be glowing faintly blue."

It reminded me of an old saying (somewhat modified) "Give them a centimeter, and they'll take . . . the best years of your life!" If you give them even a little bit of power, they'll be asking for more and more and more. Eventually you become simply a figurehead as GM, and things will degenerate rapidly.

I find it better for there to be no second-guessing, because too much detracts from the fun of the game. Constant arguing just ruins it for everyone. Some input is of course encouraged, put there's a point where you just have to put your foot down. (Or your book. All I ever had to do to restore order was pick up my Monstrous Manual and drop it on the table. WHAM!!! I almost never had to do it twice.) If the players begin to chafe under your rules, all you have to do is rotate the role among them. (i.e. You think you can do better?) They'll see what you're talking about then.

Not every group plays the same way, though. You have to get a feel for the people involved. If they need a firm hand, you must provide it. If they need a loose leash, you have to be okay with that too. It's not easy, but it is incredibly rewarding; you should try it sometime.

(Wow, long post. Guess I have issues. )

 

Hmm, I think I slammed by palm into my head slightly too hard while reading your post...

I mean ... whoa - what kind of people do you play with?! They sound er ... dysfunctional at best.

Let's see, the first two paragraphs:
I'm just ... not sure where to begin here. I've never even thought of such a reaction. I mean, sure, we probably have totally different aims when we play (and I only play with people I know share this aim), so I don't get this problem - but having your players not trust you to make things up as you go ... blah, that smells. Find new players

Next three paragraphs:
Er, yes, I know these things are possible with a GM. I've read several transcripts of games where this has been done in D&D (and, of course, have done it with other systems). Just because your players are retarded (hope you don't like them too much... ) doesn't mean that it can't work.

Also, if they break the social contract by taking away GM power, well, from the start they should simply know that they shouldn't do that - and that screwing with that will bring the game to a crashing halt. If they don't want that, they won't do it. If they do want that, you shouldn't be playing with them

Paragraph 6:

No second guessing - okay, but why did you let them second guess each other? If someone says it's black - it's black, the hell with what the rest of them want. Something doesn't exist until it's been narrated. Once it's been narrated it's canon. Voila.

I sense that the problem was in your players, though ... I mean, who *cares* what colour the rock is?

And if the players chafe under the rules - System Does Matter. Get a new one that fits the group and addresses the way you play better. D&D is not the be all and end all of systems, and if something fits the group better, then is it not a good thing?

Paragraph 7:

I'll only play with people who play My Way, so I don't suffer these problems. (My Way changes from game to game, and if a game I'm playing in is not My Way I'll promptly leave). I find that this is the best way to get a rewarding game, rather than screwing around trying to cater to players who don't play my way. Consider people playing with you to be a privilege - It's not easy, but it is incredibly rewarding; you should try it sometime.

(Hope this doesn't all come over as 't3h narrativistrzor preacher!!!' as some would have it, but well - in a thread about playing styles it's hard not to talk about/recommend your own...)

 

BLASPHEMER! I demand you leave this forum at once!!!

Seriously though, you could clearly never manage to be a good GM. It requires understanding and an open mind, of which you have neither, judging by your comments (My Way or the highway ). A GM must be a leader, and leaders have to care about the people under their command, which you obviously don't. You're in it for your own enjoyment, and to hell with everyone else. It's called consideration, try it sometime.

As for my players being dysfunctional, well DUH! Of course they're dysfunctional, they hang around with me! I'm probably the craziest person on this site, so you can imagine what my friends would be like. I do consider playing with me to be a privilege, and I would not just dole it out to whatever schmuck decided to bow down to My Way. It is reserved only for those who I know and respect.

Regarding your comments on the sample argument I cited, I was just trying to show how stupid the debates can get. It was not a representative argument. Have you ever tried to stop three simultaneous arguments, none of which had any basis in anything other than opinion? It ain't easy. And as for narrated objects being canon, that makes it rather easy for players to argue using objects.

>"I grab onto a convienient vine and swing across the gorge."
>"The vine breaks, sending you plummeting."
>"I snag a dangling steel chain."
>"A flaming sword falls from the sky, slicing through the chain."
>"Cut it out!"
>"Isn't that what I just did?" *snicker*

Basically, you can't trust players to be responsible with power. They're not supposed to have it in the first place; that's why there's a GM at all. Even in real life, we don't have a lot of power. You can't control the universe, no matter how hard you try. That's part of the challenge, and part of the fun. IMHO, it's a lot more satisfying to beat someone on their turf than on yours.

Giving players input must be done carefully. Taking their suggestions can help 'personalize' the experience for them, but it must be filtered by the GM's judgement, in order to keep unity of vision regarding the game world. Allowing the players direct input is potentially disastrous, and can depersonalize the experience for those who do not speak up as much as the others.

 

Weeeeeeeeell personally a GM should prepare the adventure that he expects the players to take. First of all this will give you a concrete adventure and secondly it'll save you from spending a load of time (and shifting through notes) creating other areas of the world. Of course, you should have a brief idea on what the surroundign area is and if indoubt, just refer yourself to a Campaign book (if its an 'offical' campaign setting) or your very own map that you've created.

Now of course, players aren't always goign to take the hint and will at times go off on one, so a fair bit of 'winging' it is good. It does afterall exercise your imaginative powers and tests your ability to make things up on the fly which in itself, isn't a bad thing, but too much is. After all, one can onyl remember so much and it'll take time digging out that monster manual and/or random monster chart etc.

So in my opinion, a fair bit of planning and alittle bit of stuff on the fly - considering that it is appropriate, is fine

 

Open minds are a wonderful thing, I must admit - and, of course, anyone who has a prefered way which they play and a prefered group of people to do it with should be shot for being inconsiderate arseholes, don't you think? Seriously though, you should never judge someone else's GMing skills or even post in a civil discussion when you're so rooted in your own Way that you can't deal with other opinions. You're in it to spout uninformed crap about others and their playing styles, the hell with them.

Oh yes, make them 'bow down' to My Way. Did you not consider that this is also Their Way, or they wouldn't play that way? If people do not play together with the same style and the same aim, there is a good chance of dysfunctional and unsatisfying play. Eliminating this is the whole point of testing the people I play with before a serious game involving them.

For the rest: I absolutely can't be bothered debating with you because, quite bluntly - you're wrong. Nothing I can say is going to change that - therefore, I don't care enough to try. Good luck and enjoy your playing style, I'll be glad knowing I can trust my players.

And seeing that this is going to turn into a 'Your styl3 i5 t3h suck' 'N0 it d0es no7!' thread, maybe it would be best if we just left it here, hmm?

 

There is no right and wrong way to GM. There is only a Good and Bad way to GM

 

@Aikanaro:
I tried to inject some humor into my post, but I guess you didn't catch that. I wasn't trying to attack your playing style, I was just saying that our styles are so incredibly different that you couldn't possibly handle my players, and I'm sure I'd have just as much difficulty with yours, if not more.

I talk about my players, not yours. I only know the kind of people that I play with; I've probably never even met any of the people you play with. Under such conditions, I can't speak about how your players play, and frankly, I'm a little shocked at your near-constant personal attacks on me and my players. We may have a preferred way to play, and a preferred group, but any who wish to join are free to do so. And as I said before, we occasionally rotate the role of GM, so everyone's playing style has a chance.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that some (or most ) of this communication breakdown is probably my fault. On occasion, I'm not very good at explaining myself. So I'll give it one more shot, and hopefully you won't find that I'm 'wrong' about this too.

Part of the fun (for my players, at least) is goofing around and having fun with it. We don't take ourselves seriously, but we follow the rules of the game, and we try to have a good time with it. We roleplay funny characters, and sometimes even bumble our way through adventures. In combat though, we're all business (after all, nobody wants their character to die just because somebody wasn't taking it seriously).

I know my players and I could not have fun if we took all of it as deadly seriously as you seem to. It's just a game. Lighten up, dude.

 

My players are TOO lose about there game. I dont know about anyone of you but where I live its very, VERY hard to find players, let alone half decent ones. So for me its always been "play with what you got." So really the hardest thing for me is to motivate my players to show up. Does anyone else have problems with findig people interested in role playing?

 

*blinks* Oh, that was a joke? I read it as a personal attack (as you may have guessed), hence the attacking back. I still think you're wrong (unless your comments about 'players' are supposed to be read only as 'my players', in which case I really can't have an opinion on their trustworthiness) ... sooo, yeah.

Anyway, I'll avoid the temptation to analyse where we missed what the other was saying - because misunderstandings suck and are best not dwelt on.

And you probably do know my players (well, the people I would consider playing with): Deathmage, Arabwel, The Kilted Crusader, Blyclaaf, Arifirh ... er, some others? Crossing over to Atari Man - it's absolutely impossible to find people to RP with where I live, but the internet is a great place.

Just a game? JUST A GAME?! I'll admit I'm somewhat hardcore and serious about my roleplaying (not to say that I don't have non-serious games or humour or anything). I like my RP theory and lots of pondering on how to optimise the game. To me it's a bit more than 'just a game', seeing that I can find so much to think of outside the game but about it. *shrugs*

 

@Atari Man:
Sounds like you've got a few flakes on your hands (you did say they weren't showing up sometimes). If only there were some sort of D&D matching service or something. I've had the same problem a number of times, but again incentives can help. Play with the people who show up, and those who don't won't get any of the stuff or XP from that session. You could even split up the story award into sections, and if they aren't there at all in a particular section, they don't get that experience.

It may seem a little manipulative, but once it starts working you can ease off a little and see what effect it has had. You have to be careful on the build-up, though. Too much too soon could just result in people leaving the group. Ultimately, you have to trust your own judgement about the people you're playing with, and whether you really want to use this tactic.

@Aikanaro:
I was talking about my own experiences, and as for the humor, it's a bit thin but it's there. I don't know much about Arabwel aside from her CE attitude (which is pretty hot on an elf ) and her legendary horrendous typing. The rest I know even less about, though they seem to be good sorts overall, and I've never even heard of Blyclaaf.

Do you play with pen and paper, or just on the internet? I can't imagine D&D by email or even instant messaging would be very easy. BTW, why haven't you joined any of the (now numbering four) RP threads in the Roleplay Corner? Rashemen's getting a little bizarre, but one of the others might be to your liking.

Okaay, now I'm starting to get random. Maybe I should get some before I collapse.

 

The problem with punishing them with in-game rewards is that - if they don't show up, they probably don't care all too much. And with D&D there'll be the problem of them lagging behind the rest of the party in terms of levels.

Splitting into different story arcs might work (still might have the leveling problem) - it allows you to play with those who are interested and not have the group drag down the whole thing. That's assuming that you have anyone interested.


I play over chatrooms mostly and it works well. Sadly, roleplaying pretty much doesn't exist where I live, so no PnP. D&D (which I don't play) seems to work quite fine - Lokken's group plays on Saturdays, you could probably drop into the SP channels and watch if you're interested to see how it would work. Usually I play in freeform games, which is great so long as everyone knows what they're doing.

I've looked at all those thread but ... meh, they don't appeal to me. I have very specific tastes when it comes to PBP games as well Every time I play/start one I get more frustrated, usually because of the people involved, so I don't think I'll be joining any more PBP games for a while until I can come up with a good way to not play with people who I don't like/can't play with. I have some ideas along those lines - but implementing them would take too much effort, so I don't

 

@Aikanoro:
You could get an SPS account and check out that forum. I hear there's an RP or two happening in there, and it would be restricted to SPS holders, so you wouldn't get all the weirdos joining in. Plus, you get to help support SP; what could be better?

 

I'm cheap Plus, there are surely weirdos who have SPS accounts as well

 

As a SPS account holder I must speak.

1) A SP account is cheap.

2) Weird? Of course we are weird but (imo) in the best sense of the word. We are a minority of a minority. However, think of this...without us where would the rest of you be? On some game board that to put it politely...sucks!

I have never been a DM/GM but find this thread very interesting. A good DM is hard to find.