PDA

View Full Version : Lorsa's Lovely List (of GMing advice)



Lorsa
2013-10-08, 07:14 AM
I've been on this forum for a wihle now, and I see a lot of people asking for advice on how to GM. So I figured I should join in and give my own advice in a lovely list that is easy to follow. Enjoy!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Tanuki Tales
2013-10-08, 07:20 AM
You missed putting that post in blue text. Or having some other obvious tag that this piece is satirical.

Edit:

Also, Damage Reduction, in the numbers presented for third edition, is complete crap at actually preventing any meaningful damage from semi-optimized melee beatsticks.

Gorfnod
2013-10-08, 07:24 AM
A wonderfully written piece and a boon to the playground as a whole. A highly suggested read for all the new DMs out there and there is even something in there for the veterans.

I do have to disagree with you on one point though.


Their characters shouldn’t die though,

I think that their characters should die a lot. Half of the fun of the game is filling out a new character sheet. If you are killing them all the time then they are spending all that extra time coming up with new character ideas and rolling stats instead of all those boring random encounters. This lets you skip any of the potentially "slow" parts in YOUR story and get right to the part where you really shine. Slaughtering them again!!

Lorsa
2013-10-08, 07:48 AM
You missed putting that post in blue text. Or having some other obvious tag that this piece is satirical.

I thought that would diminish the entertainment value of reading it. Obvious humor is less fun I think. But I can do that if necessary.



Edit:

Also, Damage Reduction, in the numbers presented for third edition, is complete crap at actually preventing any meaningful damage from semi-optimized melee beatsticks.

Edit: I didn't mention specifically you have to follow the numbers listed in the Monster's Manual. A damage reduction of 30/- would only be approriate I think.

Themrys
2013-10-08, 07:57 AM
This is hilarious. :smallsmile:

I don't think it needs a hint that it's satire ... that's obvious.

Gorfnod
2013-10-08, 07:59 AM
I thought that would diminish the entertainment value of reading it. Obvious humor is less fun I think. But I can do that if necessary.

Never point out that your humor is humor. It is always better when someone believes it is real.

Tim Proctor
2013-10-08, 08:02 AM
This is sage advice, I think there are a couple things missing.

1) Players love the usage of heavy puns, so an Earth Elemental that is going to 'rock their world, beat the 'schist' out of them, etc. is really important. It is even better to do so during hgh tension parts of the adventure like in horror so that people don't get too wrapped up.

2) Players love making characters and if they can make a new one every third session it seems to be optimal. The best way to do that is to ask the player if they can make a specific type of character, then while they do that have their old character turn into a crazy worthless sack and have your or your friends character kill them in a brutal way. Also potty accidents to character deaths are good, so having another character find the body of so and so on the toilet might work.

3) Players love long monologues between your character, your friend's character, or just between NPCs. Its like watching a movie so if you can script out them haggling for rations or something like that and then recite it with inappropriate accents it works. The longer the better.

4) Lastly, Players generally understand they wont be the star of the show so the only times they get the full attention is when they are captured and forced to fight another player' character with their own. PvP is hugely popular as it allows players to test out their characters on another player, kinda like pokemon.

Tanuki Tales
2013-10-08, 08:03 AM
I thought that would diminish the entertainment value of reading it. Obvious humor is less fun I think. But I can do that if necessary.

Well, it just makes it less likely to be construed the wrong way; especially with all the heated threads we've had lately.

Especially when some people don't understand satire if it bit them in the rear.




Edit: I didn't mention specifically you have to follow the numbers listed in the Monster's Manual. A damage reduction of 30/- would only be approriate I think.

Oh, I know, that's just more my own "DR, Fast Healing and Regeneration aren't as great as everyone seems to think" crusade butting itself in. Mind you, an 8th level beat stick is doing in the range of 25 to 30 damage. :smallwink:

Tengu_temp
2013-10-08, 08:11 AM
You missed putting that post in blue text. Or having some other obvious tag that this piece is satirical.


No. I am absolutely against the idea of blue text, or sarcasm tags, or whatever. The OP's work is obviously satirical (and very funny), it doesn't need this kind of crutch (which would also make it less funny). If someone takes it at face value, it's their fault for not being able to recognize very obvious satire.

Also, blue text is something I only encountered on this forum. Somehow people everywhere else on the internet manage to convey sarcasm without pointing it out.

Tanuki Tales
2013-10-08, 08:34 AM
No. I am absolutely against the idea of blue text, or sarcasm tags, or whatever.

Good for you Tengu.

I'm not.

Edit:

I only brought it up because we've seemed to have had a few pretty charged topics concerning GMing/DMing as of late and what people think is right and wrong about handling it or what kind of playstyle should be used. So anything that can lead this thread to not being spark and tinder for that all to spill over into here (which it inevitably probably will) is Aces in my book.

Black Jester
2013-10-08, 09:05 AM
Step 0: Basic premise
Remember that GM is short for Game Master. It obviously means you are the most important person in the group and that yours is the only opinion worthy to consider and that the players are only there for your entertainment.?

While the tone is supposed to be ironic, I cannot leave this statement stand on its own without comment, since, well utterly unironic,

The GAMEMASTER IS the most important person in the group.

Always.

The gamemaster bears the most responsibility for the success or failure of the game. The gamemaster has to give the game meaning and direction. The gamemaster carries the weight of the game and determines its premises and its outcome. The gamemaster literally is the key person to the game. You can compensate a bad player, but you cannot compensate a bad gamemaster.
As such any wannabe gamemaster who refuses this responsibility or authority will fail to ever run a decent game. You need to accept that YOU, yes YOU, as the gamemaster has the responsibility and the authority to run a good game and YOU, yes YOU alone carries the major weight of this task. That doesn't make you immune to criticism (no one ever is), but no matter how you put it: Bydesign of the roleplaying game medium, your opinion as the gamemaster will always weigh heavier than those of any of the players andyou need to make sure that your word is final. If you cannot handle this responsibility you cannot run a non-dysfucntional game.

Consequently, this advice is not only bad, it is actively irresponsible.

Tim Proctor
2013-10-08, 09:09 AM
Um, the tone isn't supposed to be ironic, if you read the whole post you'd understand what tone it is supposed to be in. Guess we do need blue ink after all.

Rhynn
2013-10-08, 09:26 AM
Great piece, and...


Also, blue text is something I only encountered on this forum. Somehow people everywhere else on the internet manage to convey sarcasm without pointing it out.

Agreed. The blue text is the dumbest meme to hit the Playground since Pun-Pun.

Oko and Qailee
2013-10-08, 09:43 AM
Never point out that your humor is humor. It is always better when someone believes it is real.

"If you have to explain the joke then its not a joke" - The Joker

AgentofHellfire
2013-10-08, 10:12 AM
That's it! Follow this list and it will make you the best GM ever! Did I miss anything?

There's actually one important thing I'd like to add...

9. Gaming is an important activity in any social circle, so it's a perfect way to resolve out-of-game issues! If you and a player are having a dispute, or if you don't like the way a player's character is behaving, then you by all means should do something about it in game.
9b. Characters are reflections of the people playing them. So under no circumstances should you allow them to display traits you disapprove of.

Tim Proctor
2013-10-08, 10:25 AM
There's actually one important thing I'd like to add...

9. Gaming is an important activity in any social circle, so it's a perfect way to resolve out-of-game issues! If you and a player are having a dispute, or if you don't like the way a player's character is behaving, then you by all means should do something about it in game.
9b. Characters are reflections of the people playing them. So under no circumstances should you allow them to display traits you disapprove of.

^^^ This!

You should add in that it is appropriate to refer to a character by their player's name, and say 'you' instead of 'your character', this helps players get into the role and personalize themselves within the game.

Delwugor
2013-10-08, 11:46 AM
I have to strongly object to this list. It needs much more work that only the most experienced GM's (such as me) can provide.
Read and learn well!!

First The Master portion of GM is redundant when you obtain a certain level of skill. If you ever attain that level you will know what I mean.

2. You are leaving too much room for role-playing. CUT IT OUT! The players want to die in a dungeon not spend time investigating why ... well someone did something but it doesn't matter to the dungeon.

III Stop the most important scene of the session to spend a half hour looking through books to make sure you have that obscure rule absolutely correct and all the arguments of why it can only be used as you dictate.

4) Rewards? My players know that playing within my games is reward enough. Be sure to remind your players of this at least twice a session.

"No you can't do that" is the best answer you can give. There are some times when you have to get firm and shout "H**L NO", but that should only be once or twice a session, don't overdo it.

3: You should strive to kick at least one player out every third session. Be sure to belittle them as they leave to make sure they know how aweful they where.

VV} When a character dies you must write "YOU FAILED MISSERABLE" on their character sheet in red marker. Do not rip the sheet up since the evidence of their failure gets lost.

८ - You must be extremely consistent.

XI A campaign should only end with a TPK against the BBEG, otherwise your players will think it was too easy.

Most importantly - As I have done, be sure to embrace subtlety and humility when GMing. It will take you a long way.

Tanuki Tales
2013-10-08, 11:49 AM
Um, the tone isn't supposed to be ironic, if you read the whole post you'd understand what tone it is supposed to be in. Guess we do need blue ink after all.

Sarcasm is actually defined by the fact it tends to be ironic, so....

Tim Proctor
2013-10-08, 11:51 AM
Sarcasm is actually defined by the fact it tends to be ironic, so....

I really wish there was a facepalm emoticon, maybe I should have used blue print instead of black...

Tanuki Tales
2013-10-08, 11:55 AM
I really wish there was a facepalm emoticon, maybe I should have used blue print instead of black...

Yes, you should have.

I didn't see any sarcasm in your statement. *shrug*

Which is why I don't agree with the mindset that tone, connotation, and intent can be solely gleaned from cold written text that may or may not have any context in which it is sufficiently framed to provide the mentioned items at first glance.

Arbane
2013-10-08, 12:10 PM
The blue text is the dumbest meme to hit the Playground since Pun-Pun.

I fully agree. It should be Magenta for sarcasm.

Jay R
2013-10-08, 12:51 PM
Blue text for sarcasm is an important writing tool. Everybody should use it when they are saying something clearly false.

A_Man
2013-10-08, 05:19 PM
I'll make sure to show this to a GM. Seems like he's been doing it wrong. XD

Lorsa
2013-10-08, 05:59 PM
Blue text for sarcasm is an important writing tool. Everybody should use it when they are saying something clearly false.

It was a long time since I laughed so much! Thank you for that! I would love to use this quote in my signature, with your permission.

Quorothorn
2013-10-08, 08:24 PM
Basically. I have a superior list, of course, but it's still in the testing stages.

Jay R
2013-10-08, 08:27 PM
It was a long time since I laughed so much! Thank you for that! I would love to use this quote in my signature, with your permission.

Feel free. I can keep people from quoting something, or I can post it on the internet. Trying to do both is absurd.

Forrestfire
2013-10-08, 11:46 PM
Basically. I have a superior list, of course, but it's still in the testing stages.

Will reading your list exercise my DMing genes?

TuggyNE
2013-10-08, 11:59 PM
Will reading your list exercise my DMing genes?

The Forge (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/)'s name takes on a new and sinister meaning suddenly.

Lorsa
2013-10-09, 05:44 AM
While the tone is supposed to be ironic, I cannot leave this statement stand on its own without comment, since, well utterly unironic,

The GAMEMASTER IS the most important person in the group.

Always.

Alright Black Jester. I haven't had time to respond to you until now (sorry). I am not one to shy away from a little discussion.

First of all, not everything I said is wrong. I also said that players like to be challenged. They do! But not in the way I wrote. Similarly, "most important" it isn't supposed to mean that yours is the only opinion that matter and the players are only there for your entertainment. I also said you should impose arbitrarily restrictions during character creation, does that mean you shouldn't have any restrictions? Of course not.

Secondly, it all depends on what you mean by most important. Most roleplaying games need a GM, thus she is needed and necessary for the game to work. As you also mentioned, the GM has responsibilities. But having responsibilities doesn't automatically make you more important than the others. It's a matter of perspective so perhaps I should try to clarify.

When I speak of "important" I mean who should, in your mind, be placed first. Whose enjoyment is the one that matters most. I believe that from a GM's perspective, the players should be the most important, and it's their enjoyment that should be placed first. From the players perspective, the GM and the other players should be the most important and their enjoyment should be placed first. I dare say that roleplaying will function best when everyone involved do their best to create enjoyment for all the others. It's when people put themselves over others that things go wrong.

A GM shouldn't use her position of responsibility to put herself in the first place and assume her enjoyment matters more than the players or just because she has the final say that the other opinions don't matter. Whether or not the GM is the most important person in the group is quite irrelevant to my list, I am talking about how she should view herself. Being a GM isn't an excuse for a self-entitled power play.

As such, your rulings as a GM shouldn't be based on "this is how I like it", it should be based on "this is what I think will be most enjoyable to the group". You are there for them, they're not there for you. Does that mean you should give players everything they want? Of course not! Because... that's not actually what they want. Most players want the GM to say no and expect the GM to portray a logical and consistent world where not everything is possible. So that's what she should do for their sake. A GM that believes herself to be the most important person in the group is more likely to break the consistency in favour of whatever railroad is planned. Players don't enjoy that.


The gamemaster bears the most responsibility for the success or failure of the game. The gamemaster has to give the game meaning and direction. The gamemaster carries the weight of the game and determines its premises and its outcome. The gamemaster literally is the key person to the game. You can compensate a bad player, but you cannot compensate a bad gamemaster.
As such any wannabe gamemaster who refuses this responsibility or authority will fail to ever run a decent game. You need to accept that YOU, yes YOU, as the gamemaster has the responsibility and the authority to run a good game and YOU, yes YOU alone carries the major weight of this task. That doesn't make you immune to criticism (no one ever is), but no matter how you put it: Bydesign of the roleplaying game medium, your opinion as the gamemaster will always weigh heavier than those of any of the players andyou need to make sure that your word is final. If you cannot handle this responsibility you cannot run a non-dysfucntional game.

Nothing of what I said in my first post contradicts anything you said here. I said that you shouldn't consider yours to be the only opinion that matters. That's not the same as what you are arguing against. Nor does the GM having the authority and responsibility to run a good game contradict my statement that you shouldn't put yourself first. So who are you arguing with really?

As a side note, why use a double negative? Isn't non-dysfunctional really just functional?


Consequently, this advice is not only bad, it is actively irresponsible.

I believe that the advice of a GM, in her mind, placing the players first is great advice. It's how I have always done it and by the enjoyment of my players, it seems to work well. I have also heard of GMs that place their enjoyment first and that has never worked well.

Kane0
2013-10-09, 06:00 AM
I must admit, this made me laugh.

Lorsa
2013-10-09, 06:35 AM
I must admit, this made me laugh.

Good! That was the point. :smallsmile:

Engine
2013-10-09, 06:47 AM
I laughed reading your list, but since the discussions is becoming more serious I'll throw my two cents.


Secondly, it all depends on what you mean by most important. Most roleplaying games need a GM, thus she is needed and necessary for the game to work. As you also mentioned, the GM has responsibilities. But having responsibilities doesn't automatically make you more important than the others. It's a matter of perspective so perhaps I should try to clarify.

Unfortunately this is false. The one who bears the most responsibilities is also the most important person in a group. In battle who's the most important person: the lieutenant or the private? In a office who's the most important person: the manager or the clerk? You could go on forever, but it's a simple fact: if you have more responsibilities than others, you're more important because without you the group will probably fall apart.

Of course that doesn't mean that others are irrelevant. They're important too: a lieutenant without soldiers is useless.


When I speak of "important" I mean who should, in your mind, be placed first. Whose enjoyment is the one that matters most. I believe that from a GM's perspective, the players should be the most important, and it's their enjoyment that should be placed first. From the players perspective, the GM and the other players should be the most important and their enjoyment should be placed first. I dare say that roleplaying will function best when everyone involved do their best to create enjoyment for all the others. It's when people put themselves over others that things go wrong.

The enjoyment of the GM should be more important. Again, that doesn't mean that the enjoyment of the players is irrelevant, but a GM who doesn't enjoy the game will be probably a bad GM.

I'll use a real-life anecdote to explain what I mean. I'm currently part of a LARP association and the GMs have decided to change almost everything apart the setting. They explained the reasons very clearly: they don't enjoy the game anymore, so the quality of the game has decresead over months.

Some players argued that they don't like this new course. The GMs again were crystal clear: even if changing the course will mean lose some players, they don't care because they want to enjoy the game again and so the players that don't like this new course should find something else. Funny enough, they made the decision after playing a LARP event in Sweden.

Without the GM there's no game. A GM that doesn't enjoy the game will probably drop it. If a player leaves the game, the game could still go on. Without the GM the game ends.


Being a GM isn't an excuse for a self-entitled power play.

Of course.


You are there for them, they're not there for you.

As a GM, you're there to have fun.


A GM that believes herself to be the most important person in the group is more likely to break the consistency in favour of whatever railroad is planned. Players don't enjoy that.

False. A GM who's on a power trip will break the group.


I believe that the advice of a GM, in her mind, placing the players first is great advice. It's how I have always done it and by the enjoyment of my players, it seems to work well. I have also heard of GMs that place their enjoyment first and that has never worked well.

My experience says otherwise. My personal experience says otherwise.
Every time I didn't enjoy the game, the game fell apart. If the players find the game I want to play less enjoyable to the point they're not having fun anymore, they should find another game. Not because I'm on a power trip, but because what we want from the game is clearly incompatible.

Brookshw
2013-10-09, 08:41 AM
Could we please not make this a serious discussion and just enjoy it for what it is? Pretty please?

lytokk
2013-10-09, 08:45 AM
I'll admit, I didn't pick up on the sarcasm/irony in this post when I first read it. I glanced over it, and after seeing the replies pile up I reread it and saw the actual meaning. Now that we're all talking about who's the most important, I'm deciding to throw my hat into this ring.

I actually don't think any one person is the most important member of the group. Sure, you need a DM to run the game, but without the players, the DM is just someone paging through books wanting to run a game that no one will play. I think everyone sitting down at the table has the same level of importance. The players are there to interact with each other, and the DM is there to give the characters a world to explore.

If one of the players isn't having fun, the game will end up suffering because of it. If the DM isn't having fun, the game is again going to suffer. There's a big balancing act going on, and its up to everyone at the table to share the load.

My two cents at least.

Tanuki Tales
2013-10-09, 09:35 AM
Could we please not make this a serious discussion and just enjoy it for what it is? Pretty please?

Yeah...it's going to be serious.

I kind of called that, since this thread was born as satire of several heated discussions that were already going on elsewhere on this subforum. Like I had originally mentioned.

Jay R
2013-10-09, 09:37 AM
You're using the word "important" in two different senses.

The DM is the most important. He or she creates the world, determines the situations, runs most of the characters, and adjudicates the rules. If all the players leave and be ones come in, it is largely the same game. If the DM leaves and a new one comes in, it's a completely different game. In that sense, the DM is clearly the most important.

The players are the most important. The entire scenario revolves around their characters' actions. All of the DM's work has as its primary purpose providing a game for the players. In that sense, the players are clearly the most important.

There's no conflict between these points of view.

lytokk
2013-10-09, 10:10 AM
Sorry Brook, I was writing my post when you posted yours, now to think of something to put it back on track

The players really love it when I make every single magical item they come across cursed, but not appear cursed. No one liked having useable magic items anyway, all they did was create overpowered characters.

The party fighter really enjoys fighting rust monsters, and I should always single him out when they do.

Brookshw
2013-10-09, 10:45 AM
Sorry Brook, I was writing my post when you posted yours, now to think of something to put it back on track


Thanks you! :smallbiggrin: its called the playground so let's go back to having fun with a hobby we love.

For my contribution: players loved to be challenged so make sure to use enemies that align with their abilities, like lots of undead and constructs against rogues.

WeLoveFireballs
2013-10-09, 10:57 AM
The players really love it when I make every single magical item they come across cursed, but not appear cursed. No one liked having useable magic items anyway, all they did was create overpowered characters.

While normally the best character will get all the magic items first, it is a good idea to help them feel special by using these items. Make sure they understand how generous the best character is being in these situations by letting them have magic items. If they aren't being grateful enough for this be more generous until they understand.

The Fury
2013-10-09, 11:49 AM
VV} When a character dies you must write "YOU FAILED MISSERABLE" on their character sheet in red marker. Do not rip the sheet up since the evidence of their failure gets lost.


perhaps a big "F--" in red Sharpie will do in a pinch. Also, think about acquiring a "Binder of Shame" for all those player characters who FAILED.


I fully agree. It should be Magenta for sarcasm.

No, not magenta please. Because...


Basically. I have a superior list, of course, but it's still in the testing stages.

Yeah, that. Too similar to dark orchid to my half color-blind eyes. But, yeah it looks like everyone got the joke so any sarcasm/irony/whatever marker doesn't seem needed here.


Could we please not make this a serious discussion and just enjoy it for what it is? Pretty please?

Of course not! Serious time!

lytokk
2013-10-09, 12:00 PM
Whenever a player makes a character unoptimized for role playing reasons, show them the error of their ways by setting them up against a fully optimized version of their character and when their character dies, explain to them why your way was better. And always wait for them to say "thank you" before putting the sheet into above Failed binder. They will appreciate the advice and must always remember to be polite.

Jay R
2013-10-09, 10:41 PM
As soon as a PC has a skill or device that will work against a particular monster, that monster has been "solved", so there's no point ever using it again. So never use undead against a cleric, or dragons against somebody with a dragon-slaying sword, for instance.

geonova
2013-10-09, 10:50 PM
i have one word for you: trololololololololol:smalltongue::smalltongue:

Black Jester
2013-10-10, 03:11 AM
Okay one thing first:


Nothing of what I said in my first post contradicts anything you said here. I said that you shouldn't consider yours to be the only opinion that matters. That's not the same as what you are arguing against. Nor does the GM having the authority and responsibility to run a good game contradict my statement that you shouldn't put yourself first. So who are you arguing with really?

No, In my understanding you were basically arguing that 'the GM's opinion does not differ in quality or weight from that of any of the players'. This is the premise of my argumentation and nothing I read before from you deviated from this counterfactual statement.
Now, the idea that the GM is the most important person but should not regard himself as the most important person in the game is paradoxical in its own right, but not nearly as bad as the first one.



As you also mentioned, the GM has responsibilities. But having responsibilities doesn't automatically make you more important than the others. It's a matter of perspective so perhaps I should try to clarify.

I am sorry, because this is both uncalled for and actually a bit inappropriate, but when I read nonsense like this, my gut reaction is not a simple 'I disagree', My gut reaction is to ask the utterly unfair and mean question "Do you have ever run a game?" Because to me, this seems like an ideal of equal treatment becoming actual more important than actual facts. This basically seems like a dogma impervious to reality that is basically a reason in itself. And that means that anything I write will probably not convince you, thanks to the power of dogma.
I understand why the idea of a clear hierarchy is uncomfortable. In fact, I know it can be very uncomfortable, especially when it comes to a clash or personalities. And I understand - fully - that a seemingly more balanced approach of equal treatment has its appeal - after all, equality is a great achievement. Unfortunately, at least in the context of games, it doesn't work. This is an ideal, this is a dogma and as such is mostly impervious to actual facts. Fact is, the gamemaster is there to give the game a direction. Fact is, the gamemaster determines the moot and atmosphere and very nature of the game. Fact is, any game requires a final arbiter to prevent unnecessary discussions or arguments. Fact is, that the major part of the game is solely defined through the gamemaster. as a result, it is a fact that the gamemaster is the most important person in the game by necessity. Any argument against this very basic concept comes close to the RPG equivalent of the flat earth society.
If you are not more important while directing the game, you basically lose the authority over the game for making final decisions. Nothing you say is binding, because your word doesn't mean anything more than any of the players. You already fail at one of the most elemental tasks of the GM, namely that of the referee. Fact is, if you cannot accept your own authority or responsibility for the game you run, you basically become an obstacle for yourself.


When I speak of "important" I mean who should, in your mind, be placed first. Whose enjoyment is the one that matters most. I believe that from a GM's perspective, the players should be the most important, and it's their enjoyment that should be placed first. From the players perspective, the GM and the other players should be the most important and their enjoyment should be placed first. I dare say that roleplaying will function best when everyone involved do their best to create enjoyment for all the others. It's when people put themselves over others that things go wrong.

Again, no. This is wrong. This is not an issue I just happen to disagree with; this is basically bereft of any factual background.
As a GM, you are not some kind of service provider who exists to realize the escapist fantasies of your players. Gamemastering is not a job. You are not paid for it. Your players are not entitled to be treated like customers, because they aren't. They also share responsibility for the game, but it is your obligation to give their contributions a framework and therefore a meaning. It is your task to define the outcome and the importance of any decision. Failing to do so is again failing at one of the elemental tasks of a gamemaster.
Besides, trying to run a game that you do not thoroughly enjoy is a good way to prepare an eventual GM burnout. That's certainly not an automatic result, but it is common enough. And that's why I consider this "advice" not just as bad, but as actively irresponsible.
And in my experience (of after all 20+ of playing and running various RPGs) you will only ever run a truly fulfilling game for anybody if you are giving your best and that usually requires to stand completely behind whatever you are doing. The more you are convinced that you a run a good game and the matter at hand is relevant, the more convincing you become as a storyteller.



As such, your rulings as a GM shouldn't be based on "this is how I like it", it should be based on "this is what I think will be most enjoyable to the group". You are there for them, they're not there for you.


Falsehoods like this one doesn't become any more true through repetition. But I can do repetition. Look:


[...] trying to run a game that you do not thoroughly enjoy is a good way to prepare an eventual GM burnout. That's certainly not an automatic result, but it is common enough. And that's why I consider this "advice" not just as bad, but as actively irresponsible.

The basic of any RPG that includes a gamemaster is that it is the group's game directed by the gamemaster in which the players may participate. Any deviation from this basic formula is an exercise in dysfunctionality. A dysfunctional game might work if everybody tries to ignore the fnords, but it is not very likely to become a good game because it lacks a solid foundation to lay a good game on.





As a side note, why use a double negative? Isn't non-dysfunctional really just functional?

I am forge-poisoned in that way. I am used to the term of 'dysfucntional game' as standing terminology. But you are right, that was stupid. :smallsmile:




I believe that the advice of a GM, in her mind, placing the players first is great advice.

And I believe that you believe that you believe that, but that doesn't change that it is factually WRONG. You cannot be the most important person on the table (and I think we have thoroughly established by now that's the gamemaster) and than put him in the role of servitude and submission, as you seem to intent.
The truth is probably closer to the idea that any game is basically owned by the gamemaster and the players are allowed to participate. that, too, is actually not a very good idea because it really shortsells the importance player contributions and their shared responsibility for the game, but at least it has a semblance to the actual ongoings in a decent RPG.

You want good advice for gamemasters? Please, here, you have these one free:


Make sure that the topic and moot of any campaign you plan is actually interesting enough to you that it can hold your fascination and attention as long as you intend to play that campaign.

More often than not, your players will be a heterogeneous bunch of people with different and sometimes clashing opinions and preferences. Respect their opinions, but become the final arbiter to any confrontation. You have to decide.

The rules don't run the game; you do. If you think the mere book is so important, let's see how it runs the game. Feel free to deviate from the rules whenever you can justify it to yourself, your group and the game you are currently playing.



Could we please not make this a serious discussion and just enjoy it for what it is? Pretty please?
If you want to take RPGs as a topic seriously, you have to take it seriously, and as a consequence, you have to discuss it seriously as well. I know, this is not a light-hearted post, because in the context of RPGs, it is not a light-hearted matter.

Lorsa
2013-10-10, 08:11 AM
Could we please not make this a serious discussion and just enjoy it for what it is? Pretty please?

I'll start using spoilers for serious discussion. How's that?


You're using the word "important" in two different senses.

That's why I tried to clarify!

From The Free Dictionary:

im·por·tant (m-pôrtnt)
adj.
1. Strongly affecting the course of events or the nature of things; significant: an important message that must get through; close friends who are important to me.
2. Having or suggesting a consciousness of high position or authority; authoritative: recited the decree with an important air.

important [ɪmˈpɔːtənt]
adj
1. of great significance or value; outstanding Voltaire is an important writer
2. of social significance; notable; eminent; esteemed an important man in the town
3. (when postpositive, usually foll by to) specially relevant or of great concern (to); valued highly (by) your wishes are important to me

im•por•tant (ɪmˈpɔr tnt)

adj.
1. of much or great significance or consequence: an important event in world history.
2. of considerable distinction: an important scientist.
3. self-important.


It's quite clear that the word important holds many different meanings, which is again why I tried to clarify. Since people are still disagreeing with me I can only assume they disagree with me using my definition of the word.


Unfortunately this is false. The one who bears the most responsibilities is also the most important person in a group. In battle who's the most important person: the lieutenant or the private? In a office who's the most important person: the manager or the clerk? You could go on forever, but it's a simple fact: if you have more responsibilities than others, you're more important because without you the group will probably fall apart.

Of course that doesn't mean that others are irrelevant. They're important too: a lieutenant without soldiers is useless.

Again this depends on which useage of the word "important". A lieutentant is in a position of authority for sure, but that does mean he has higher value? They're all parts of the same whole, without either of them everything will fall apart. Thus they have the same value.

I also believe that a lieutenant who values his soldiers more than himself is more likely to make good decisions. "Since I am the most important I will sacrifice these 100 000 people to save my own life" isn't a very good decisions. Ideally they should both view whatever goal they are fighting for as the most important but now we're only arguing about lieutentants vs. soldiers.




The enjoyment of the GM should be more important. Again, that doesn't mean that the enjoyment of the players is irrelevant, but a GM who doesn't enjoy the game will be probably a bad GM.

And a player who doesn't enjoy the game will probably be a bad player. There are at the very least as many players as there are GM, so from a completely utalitarian perspective then the enjoyment of the players over that of the GM should be better. But I never said the GM shouldn't enjoy herself, if you don't enjoy a game you should leave. Everyone's enjoyment is equally important (of equal value).

However, I still believe a GM that goes to a game with the attitude "now let's see what I can do to have the most fun myself" is more likely to be a bad GM than one who thinks "now let's see what I can do to make the players have fun".

In both scenarios, you're dependant upon that the players and the GM finds the same kind of game enjoyable, you'll never get around that. Ideally though, a GM's enjoyment should come out the satisfaction of having created an enjoyable experience for the others.


Without the GM there's no game. A GM that doesn't enjoy the game will probably drop it. If a player leaves the game, the game could still go on. Without the GM the game ends.

Without players there's no game. If all players leave the game there's no game either. If one GM leaves, another one could take over.


As a GM, you're there to have fun.

Don't think this needs spoilers:

Everyone is there to have fun.


False. A GM who's on a power trip will break the group.

Stupid quotes don't include what I said. I said more likely, not will. If it's false or not is something we'd have to do empirical research to find out.


My experience says otherwise. My personal experience says otherwise.
Every time I didn't enjoy the game, the game fell apart. If the players find the game I want to play less enjoyable to the point they're not having fun anymore, they should find another game. Not because I'm on a power trip, but because what we want from the game is clearly incompatible.

So should a GM? If you're not having fun don't do it holds true for both player and GM. My personal experience tells me that a GM who only cares about his enjoyment is less likely to create an enjoyable game for the players than one who puts the players first.



Okay one thing first:

No, In my understanding you were basically arguing that 'the GM's opinion does not differ in quality or weight from that of any of the players'. This is the premise of my argumentation and nothing I read before from you deviated from this counterfactual statement.
Now, the idea that the GM is the most important person but should not regard himself as the most important person in the game is paradoxical in its own right, but not nearly as bad as the first one.

Well, you were wrong, I wasn't arguing that. That it's wrong to regard the GM's opinion as the only one that matters is not the same as saying they're the same in quality or weight.

Also, I don't think it's quite so paradoxical. Quote logical really.


I am sorry, because this is both uncalled for and actually a bit inappropriate, but when I read nonsense like this, my gut reaction is not a simple 'I disagree', My gut reaction is to ask the utterly unfair and mean question "Do you have ever run a game?" Because to me, this seems like an ideal of equal treatment becoming actual more important than actual facts. This basically seems like a dogma impervious to reality that is basically a reason in itself. And that means that anything I write will probably not convince you, thanks to the power of dogma.
I understand why the idea of a clear hierarchy is uncomfortable. In fact, I know it can be very uncomfortable, especially when it comes to a clash or personalities. And I understand - fully - that a seemingly more balanced approach of equal treatment has its appeal - after all, equality is a great achievement. Unfortunately, at least in the context of games, it doesn't work. This is an ideal, this is a dogma and as such is mostly impervious to actual facts.

It's okay to be inappropriate as long as you apologise first? Do you want to hear my gut reaction to that? No you probably don't.

Let me answer your question then: I spend most of my time as a GM. My GM-to-player ratio has dropped a bit lately but it's still somewhere between 80-90% in favor of GMing. As for the quality of it; when people heard that I was setting up a new game at my gaming club there was soon a line of interested people so long that I could create two groups. And that was without me asking around. I know there are other GMs who have trouble finding groups even with asking around. Ok that was more information than you asked for and completely irrelevant but as you ask so shall thou recieve.

Now, and this is very important, I approach all discussions with the mindset that I will change my own ideas. It might not always be evident in the discussion as such because without arguing a point furiously you're not testing the arguments enough. From either side.

Can the same be said about you? It seems to me that you are following a "dogma" as you call it and that nothing I will say can convince you.

It appears to me that you're still using your own definition of important and applying it to me. I have no problems with authority as such, and equal value doesn't mean equal authority. If I were to follow your lead, I would say that you're arguing that a GM should consider the players to be completely irrelevant and the more pain he can brings them to further his own enjoyment the better. It's probably best never to ask them for their opinion either because it doesn't matter. I don't think that's what you're saying, but that's clearly how this argument started; you were against me stating that the GMing shouldn't consider his to be the only opinion that matters. So do you think the GM's opinion is the only one that matters? Maybe you do...


Fact is, the gamemaster is there to give the game a direction. Fact is, the gamemaster determines the moot and atmosphere and very nature of the game. Fact is, any game requires a final arbiter to prevent unnecessary discussions or arguments. Fact is, that the major part of the game is solely defined through the gamemaster. as a result, it is a fact that the gamemaster is the most important person in the game by necessity. Any argument against this very basic concept comes close to the RPG equivalent of the flat earth society.
If you are not more important while directing the game, you basically lose the authority over the game for making final decisions. Nothing you say is binding, because your word doesn't mean anything more than any of the players. You already fail at one of the most elemental tasks of the GM, namely that of the referee. Fact is, if you cannot accept your own authority or responsibility for the game you run, you basically become an obstacle for yourself.

First off, throwing around words like "fact" doesn't make your statements any more true than me repeating them does (which was for clarification). But let's view them one at a time.

Give the game direction: this depends on what you mean by "direction". I could as easily say that the players give the game direction as it is their actions that drives the game forward. If it's the GM that determines the "direction" (as in where the plot is going) then it's railroading and while some players enjoy that most don't. So perhaps you should clarify what you mean by direction.

Determines mood and atmosphere: again everyone does that. If the GM describes a situation according to a specific mood but the players' actions are in a completely different mood then who decided it?

Game needs a final arbiter: yes this is true. Since you've spent time in the Forge though I assume you know this doesn't automatically have to be the GM's job. If anything they were very good at deconstructing the various tasks most often grouped into the GM and show that not all of them have to be there. A player could be the final arbiter.

Major part of the game solely defined by the GM: the GM controls the world and most of the inhabitants in it so I would say this is probably correct. I'm not disagreeing with you (but would be careful with using the word "fact").

As for your flat Earth society statement; since you were honest with me before I'll be honest with you now. Anyone that uses insults in argumentation and thinks that this somehow makes them more right is someone I usually don't discuss with. Could you please stop it?

About accepting authority: I never once argued against the GM having authority over the game. If your definition of "important" is "has authority" then obviously the GM is more important. Important can mean other things too, and it comes with a color of... hrm... disregard for that which is less important. I don't believe you should disregard the players as a GM, that's very dangerous territory.


Again, no. This is wrong. This is not an issue I just happen to disagree with; this is basically bereft of any factual background.
As a GM, you are not some kind of service provider who exists to realize the escapist fantasies of your players. Gamemastering is not a job. You are not paid for it. Your players are not entitled to be treated like customers, because they aren't. They also share responsibility for the game, but it is your obligation to give their contributions a framework and therefore a meaning. It is your task to define the outcome and the importance of any decision. Failing to do so is again failing at one of the elemental tasks of a gamemaster.
Besides, trying to run a game that you do not thoroughly enjoy is a good way to prepare an eventual GM burnout. That's certainly not an automatic result, but it is common enough. And that's why I consider this "advice" not just as bad, but as actively irresponsible.
And in my experience (of after all 20+ of playing and running various RPGs) you will only ever run a truly fulfilling game for anybody if you are giving your best and that usually requires to stand completely behind whatever you are doing. The more you are convinced that you a run a good game and the matter at hand is relevant, the more convincing you become as a storyteller.

If you the GM is not a service provider then what are you? I am reading this and wondering what exactly you think the point of the GM is?

Nothing the GM does has any meaning whatsoever if there aren't players there. Otherwise he's just sitting there coming up with stories by himself. It is the very enjoyment of the players that give meaning to everything the GM does. All his authority, his position and all his tasks are there to create an enjoyable game for everyone.

I never once said the GM shouldn't enjoy himself (damn, when did I switch from herself?). I completely agree that you should give your best and it does involve to stand behind whatever you are doing. Being a convincing storyteller doesn't necessarily mean you are a good storyteller though, but that's neither here nor there.


The basic of any RPG that includes a gamemaster is that it is the group's game directed by the gamemaster in which the players may participate. Any deviation from this basic formula is an exercise in dysfunctionality. A dysfunctional game might work if everybody tries to ignore the fnords, but it is not very likely to become a good game because it lacks a solid foundation to lay a good game on.

So explain to me how I was arguing against the basic princinple of RPGs with a gamemaster? Because I don't really see it.


I am forge-poisoned in that way. I am used to the term of 'dysfucntional game' as standing terminology. But you are right, that was stupid. :smallsmile:

Not so much stupid as funny I thought!


And I believe that you believe that you believe that, but that doesn't change that it is factually WRONG. You cannot be the most important person on the table (and I think we have thoroughly established by now that's the gamemaster) and than put him in the role of servitude and submission, as you seem to intent.
The truth is probably closer to the idea that any game is basically owned by the gamemaster and the players are allowed to participate. that, too, is actually not a very good idea because it really shortsells the importance player contributions and their shared responsibility for the game, but at least it has a semblance to the actual ongoings in a decent RPG.

Oh I can. The GM is given the authority so that he can provide a service to the group as a whole. It's same as elected politicians, they're given authority so that they can provide a service for the country and the people that elected them. Basically, everyone in a position of authority is in essence in a role of servitude for the people below. Or actually, not by default, but that's where responsibility enters. With authority most often comes responsibility. The GM has the responsibility to create a world, situations and events that happen to the players and in order to do this he is given authority over the game that the players don't have. Similarly, more emphasis is often put on the GM to create the fun that everyone is supposed to have from this shared experience. It's part of his responsibility, and failing to acknowledge it is like you said, not very good.

Before you completely misrepresent what I said though, what I did NOT say was that the GM should bow to every whim of the players and that they're entitled to anything they want. Not once did I said that.


You want good advice for gamemasters? Please, here, you have these one free:

Actually, this whole thing started with me trying to give bad advice to gamemasters. Funny how things change. :smallsmile:

lytokk
2013-10-10, 08:19 AM
Did someone already mention that its alright to spend 20 minutes looking through your sourcebooks for the obscure rule that will completely negate all of the PC's plans for the encounter? Don't forget to take a break when you're done with that too. You just spent a lot of energy stopping the players dead in their tracks and you could use a break now too.

Tanuki Tales
2013-10-10, 08:56 AM
I find it a little incredulous that it is being argued that there is an equal distribution of Players and GMs in the make up of any random assortment of tabletop gamers. Maybe that is true for certain areas and certain groups, but by and large they're more like diamonds in the rough.

I also find it a little disheartening that people are arguing either Player happiness over GM happiness or vice a versa. Both sides of the game should be having fun doing what they're doing, or it's not a game anymore. Mind you, the GM being at least content at doing what he/she is doing takes a smidgeon of a priority over the Players.

The Players come to the table, sit down and have fun doing their shenanigans and their roleplay. They have the simplest task at the table and have the easiest pathway to fun. The GM on the other hand is kind of taking a massive burden on his/her shoulders and most likely is in for a lot of thankless hours of work, preparation and actual game running.

To be honest, Players are far more privileged than GMs will ever be. The Players may only be playing tiny mortals in the grand scheme of things while the GM is God Almighty, but the Players never have to worry about all the executive overheard of making sure the Plot hooks are baited, that the Plot Twists are set to twang at the proper moment or that the trains are running on time if an adventure track is happened upon and followed.

Player stress is ultimately miniscule compared to GM stress.

Engine
2013-10-10, 10:06 AM
@Lorsa

I started my post quoting your answer, but then I saw it was pointless. I'll try to explain myself instead of confuting what you said.

The GM is the most important person at the table. These two definition of the dictionary apply to the GM:

1. Strongly affecting the course of events or the nature of things; significant: an important message that must get through; close friends who are important to me.
2. Having or suggesting a consciousness of high position or authority; authoritative: recited the decree with an important air.

Because of that, the GM should have fun at the table. Not more fun than the players, but fun nonetheless. And that doesn't mean the GM should think that the enjoyment of the players is irrelevant: from what you wrote it seems that if a GM thinks first about her enjoyment is an utter selfish person who doesn't care about her players.

Of course this could be true in some group, but that doesn't mean it happens everytime for every group. I'm a GM: when I plan a campaign, I ask myself "Will I enjoy it?". If the answer is "yes", I ask my players if they would enjoy such a campaign. If the answer is "yes" again, then we play it.

My personal enjoyment comes first not because I'm selfish, but because if I have to play a good game for the players too I should be quite sure I would enjoy it. I'm more important at the table because I could affect the course of the game for all of them, while one of them doesn't have such power.

Where I live there are more players than GMs, so I could pick players that are interested in the game I want to play. If the others want a different kind of game, they could start GMing or waiting for someone to start such a game. Again, I'm more important because I'm willing to be a GM, write stories, coordinate a group, reading everything I need to read for the campaign, listen to whatever idea the players have, and so on. In short words: a lot of work. Something a lot of people, where I live, is not willing to do.

So I work hard to be a good GM. I'm more important, but I'm not selfish.

Just a note:


Stupid quotes don't include what I said.

I never used the word "stupid" on whatever you said. So please don't use it on whatever I said like you did.

WeLoveFireballs
2013-10-10, 10:25 AM
Serious Point:
I am a DM, I take pride in the players enjoying the game I run, It means I have come up with something good. I take a similar pride to an author who loves that people enjoy his book. I'm not putting my players' enjoyment first, if they have fun then I have fun, simple as that. If they weren't having fun I would be just as likely to quit the game as they would. For most people, if their friends aren't having fun, they are less likely to. It is mutually beneficial to make sure everyone is having fun. Neither the DM nor the players should sacrifice their own enjoyment for the others. If my players wanted a pure hack and slash dungeon with no roleplaying or puzzles I would not do it, I would hand it off to someone else to run it and I would play a character in my style. If the players don't want to do my style of adventures they shouldn't tough it out so I can show them a story I like and they don't. If that was the case I would stop wasting everyone's time and pull out M:TG or Settlers of Catan. If your DM is running a game you do not enjoy you have no responsibility to make sure he has fun and the DM has no responsibility to run a game he doesn't like. If half the group isn't having fun, no one will have fun.

The Fury
2013-10-10, 11:13 AM
Silly point:

Now, your players and perhaps even other (inferior) GMs might criticize how you run things. If they're very stupid they might even call you a bad GM-- obviously since following Lorsa's Lovely List will make you the best GM any criticism leveled at you is completely wrong. Stick to your guns, argue loudly and at length. Kicking players out of your group is not unreasonable here, once they see logic they'll ask to be let back in anyway.

Jay R
2013-10-10, 04:44 PM
Lorsa: you have explained your point of view well, and everyone of us who will ever agree with you already do so. I recommend that you stop trying to explain yourself to somebody who isn't unsure what you said; he merely disagrees.

Lorsa
2013-10-10, 04:50 PM
I never used the word "stupid" on whatever you said. So please don't use it on whatever I said like you did.

Just a quick reply while I watch Son of Anarchy: I didn't refer to anything you said as stupid. It probably wasn't very clear but what I meant was:

"It's really stupid that when I quote your post, my own quote is no longer there so I can't see exactly what it was I wrote that you were arguing against."

I was referring to the way quoting works on this forum as being stupid. Sorry if you took any offense, it wasn't meant to you.

Black Jester
2013-10-10, 05:25 PM
Well, you were wrong, I wasn't arguing that. That it's wrong to regard the GM's opinion as the only one that matters is not the same as saying they're the same in quality or weight.

Okay, than I have misunderstood your intention, sorry. We agree then, that the gamemaster is, in fact, the most important member of the gaming group (but not the only important one)? In which case, we have basically reached consensus, at least on this basic level.



Now, and this is very important, I approach all discussions with the mindset that I will change my own ideas. It might not always be evident in the discussion as such because without arguing a point furiously you're not testing the arguments enough. From either side.

Honestly, this is the best statement in the whole thread. This is how any good discussion become more than an argument. I think we should all try to be passionate yet open-minded in a discussion like this.


Can the same be said about you? It seems to me that you are following a "dogma" as you call it and that nothing I will say can convince you.

Usually I would say of course; I like to be convinced of good ideas, and I am not nearly narcissistic enough to think that I have all the answers. However, in this case I basically have changed my position almost completely in the last years due to a change of style and, I would argue, a deeper insight in the social dynamics of gaming groups and more confidence in running a game.


It appears to me that you're still using your own definition of important and applying it to me. [quote]
Please, let's not discuss semantics here.

[QUOTE=Lorsa;16190899]I have no problems with authority as such, and equal value doesn't mean equal authority. If I were to follow your lead, I would say that you're arguing that a GM should consider the players to be completely irrelevant and the more pain he can brings them to further his own enjoyment the better.

Having one person authority and therefore power to influence the game establishes an essential inequality. You cannot have one without the other. And yes, this is an inequal value; not as individual people (of course!) but because the opinion of players and gamemaster bear not the same weight. That does not grant immunity to criticism by any means, but within the very limited framework of the game this means that if the opinions and input matter so differently, yes a different relevance for the game (to avoid the term importance) is basically inevitable.
Of course, if you put it into the most extreme possible interpretation, every position becomes a farce.


First off, throwing around words like "fact" doesn't make your statements any more true than me repeating them does (which was for clarification). But let's view them one at a time.

Every statement I made was so basic that they are, in fact, facts. Sure, you can add several layers to them, but that doesn't change that these are essential truisms about roleplaying games.


Give the game direction: this depends on what you mean by "direction". I could as easily say that the players give the game direction as it is their actions that drives the game forward. If it's the GM that determines the "direction" (as in where the plot is going) then it's railroading and while some players enjoy that most don't. So perhaps you should clarify what you mean by direction.

I use direction in this context as 'providing motivation and guidance', through various rewards (both ingame and on a meta-level, like XP) or other form of feedback, establish things the players want to have/defend/become, establish an opposition, obstacle or threat the players want to defeat/overcome/expose/humiliate, etc. But you can easily define this as much more general, especially when you go on a more abstract level and include direction in question like what is an appropriate behavior for a character, how various subsystems work (e.g. alignment, a system that is utterly broken if no direction through the GM is provided).
Of course, players have an intrinsic motivation by default, but without additional extrinsic motivation that will not necessarily prolong for a longer campaign. I am not trying to claim that players have no responsibility in this regard and not plenty of options for their own input, but not to the same quantity or quality.


Determines mood and atmosphere: again everyone does that. If the GM describes a situation according to a specific mood but the players' actions are in a completely different mood then who decided it?

Again, player input has not the same quantity or quality. Actually, they cannot have it, because if a player tried to establish lots and lots of facts and mood pieces and the like they will eventually overshadow the other players or even marginalize the rest of the group.
If you have the GM try to establish one mood and the players do not pick it up or actively block it,you have a communication problem at hand and that is basically a problem anyway and get get ugly.


Game needs a final arbiter: yes this is true. Since you've spent time in the Forge though I assume you know this doesn't automatically have to be the GM's job. If anything they were very good at deconstructing the various tasks most often grouped into the GM and show that not all of them have to be there. A player could be the final arbiter.

I've argued with a few Forgians. I think they are a basically a cult, who follow their own, sometimes cryptic, sometimes very self-righteous self-fulfilling prophecies about roleplaying games. These are the people who have make me loathe roleplaying game dogmatists.
And Ron Edwards is a horribly narcissistic person who has a history in blaming other people for his mistakes. So I am not that familiar with the current, perhaps less aggressive Forgian theories. I could probably read more about it, but for my personal pleasure and learning about roleplaying games, I get a lot more mileage out of a history or sociology text book.
And yes, you can basically divide any tasks among a number of players. My final final arbiter is a basically a die roll (dies have no agenda after all). It is just not a very non-dysfunctional functional way to run a game.


As for your flat Earth society statement; since you were honest with me before I'll be honest with you now. Anyone that uses insults in argumentation and thinks that this somehow makes them more right is someone I usually don't discuss with. Could you please stop it?

Yes, you are right. That was unnecessarily aggressive.



If you the GM is not a service provider then what are you? I am reading this and wondering what exactly you think the point of the GM is?

Basically, a storyteller in the broadest sense of the meaning. Of course it is an interactive story and an open-ended one with ideally predetermined outcome, but the basic of an RPG for me is the collective telling of a story whereby audience and authors (or artists if you like) are basically the same people.


Nothing the GM does has any meaning whatsoever if there aren't players there. Otherwise he's just sitting there coming up with stories by himself. It is the very enjoyment of the players that give meaning to everything the GM does. All his authority, his position and all his tasks are there to create an enjoyable game for everyone.

GM without players is basically an author. Okay, maybe an author without readership, and that could be kind of sad, but essentially, you can, just like any author just write for yourself based on intrinsic motivation. In this case, it is not a roleplaying game anymore, that I freely admit.


Oh I can. The GM is given the authority so that he can provide a service to the group as a whole. It's same as elected politicians, they're given authority so that they can provide a service for the country and the people that elected them. Basically, everyone in a position of authority is in essence in a role of servitude for the people below.

I don't disagree with you in this point, but please, let's not discuss politics here. That way lays only ugliness. If you really want to discuss this analogy, write me a PM and we can do this in private.
I think this submissive attitude is really unappealing and makes the gamemastering part look a lot less fun than it actually can be. Of course, as a GM you have a responsibility for the game and your fellow players but that doesn't mean that you have to carry them. One analogy I like for an RPG group, it is an orchestra in concert, with all these interesting artists playing their parts - violins and woodwinds and so on and everybody is playing their part - literally. And still, you have the chief conductor/dirigent who coordinates and forms the whole thing into a sum that has the potential to become more than its parts.




Actually, this whole thing started with me trying to give bad advice to gamemasters. Funny how things change. :smallsmile:

How does any blatantly and obvious bad advice differ from good advice with a bit of rhetoric playfulness?

Rakaydos
2013-10-10, 05:33 PM
TLDR, I just came to coment on the title.

Because...
Lorsa's gotta Lovely List (of GMing advice) *deedly de*
look at it all written in a row...

Themrys
2013-10-10, 07:26 PM
Because of that, the GM should have fun at the table. Not more fun than the players, but fun nonetheless. And that doesn't mean the GM should think that the enjoyment of the players is irrelevant: from what you wrote it seems that if a GM thinks first about her enjoyment is an utter selfish person who doesn't care about her players.

Of course this could be true in some group, but that doesn't mean it happens everytime for every group. I'm a GM: when I plan a campaign, I ask myself "Will I enjoy it?". If the answer is "yes", I ask my players if they would enjoy such a campaign. If the answer is "yes" again, then we play it.

I think you confuse "thinking about something first, and then about other things later" with "putting something first/above other things" here.

The first is fine, the latter is not.

"Put your players and their fun first" is good advice in most cases, as most GMs will not do something that isn't fun for them, anyway, so they don't need to be told that.
It doesn't mean that the GM shouldn't have fun, of course.

Tim Proctor
2013-10-10, 08:08 PM
A GM/DM should have more fun than the players... I think most authors, actors, comedians, artists, etc. gain the most joy when other people appreciate their work. I find that GM/DMs are in the same boat as those listed above, and they should have the most fun, unless they failed and get heckled.

Brookshw
2013-10-11, 11:57 AM
TLDR, I just came to coment on the title.

Because...
Lorsa's gotta Lovely List (of GMing advice) *deedly de*
look at it all written in a row...

Good tips,
Bad tips,
Some that make your face red...

jidasfire
2013-10-11, 02:15 PM
Players love solving problems. Therefore, you should design difficult problems with few if any clues and only one solution. No matter how interesting, creative, or downright successful another plan by the players might be, you should let said plans fail until they deduce the accurate one you thought of. If they are sniffing out clues in a wildly different place than you set up, you should let them flounder and waste game time. This will teach them to be more accurate in the way they search for answers.

Lorsa
2013-10-14, 05:06 AM
I haven't been ignoring this, just been somewhat busy (with roleplaying and birthday celebrations). However, reading through this I am thinking I should follow...


Lorsa: you have explained your point of view well, and everyone of us who will ever agree with you already do so. I recommend that you stop trying to explain yourself to somebody who isn't unsure what you said; he merely disagrees.

...this advice. I was quite worried because it seemed like I wasn't being understood as people were misrepresenting my opinion and arguing against things I didn't say as though I had said them. There should be a word for that. For a while I was contemplating asking for help to explain myself. I suppose I don't and that is good. I thought I had lost my communication skills.


I don't disagree with you in this point, but please, let's not discuss politics here. That way lays only ugliness. If you really want to discuss this analogy, write me a PM and we can do this in private.

Since it's mostly me and you discussing this issue, perhaps this is the best solution overall. This is a thread about a Lovely List after all. :smallsmile:



As a somewhat related side note, I sometimes see GMs holding games in a fashion that they'd like games to be themselves as players. Not because that's how they enjoy to GM but because they fail to understand it's better to focus on what the ones that are players now like. Then another player in the group that is disgruntled takes over and does the same thing. In the end it leads to a scenario where GMs change and noone is ever happy because instead of running games for eachother they run games for themselves. Seems counterproductive to me.

AMFV
2013-10-14, 05:35 AM
A GM/DM should have more fun than the players... I think most authors, actors, comedians, artists, etc. gain the most joy when other people appreciate their work. I find that GM/DMs are in the same boat as those listed above, and they should have the most fun, unless they failed and get heckled.

Definitely true, at least in my experience, I tend to have a blast when my players are enjoying themselves.

Also this list is amazing, it totally made me a better DM, a better lover, I lost 25 lbs, and I now make 10,000 dollars a week from the comfort of my own home. I would completely recommend this to anyone.

Tanuki Tales
2013-10-14, 04:42 PM
...this advice. I was quite worried because it seemed like I wasn't being understood as people were misrepresenting my opinion and arguing against things I didn't say as though I had said them. There should be a word for that. For a while I was contemplating asking for help to explain myself. I suppose I don't and that is good. I thought I had lost my communication skills.


"Straw Man Fallacy" can sum up what you're looking for a word for. I won't comment on whether or not a Straw Man has occurred, but that's something to put voice to your lack of a term.

Lorsa
2013-10-14, 05:26 PM
"Straw Man Fallacy" can sum up what you're looking for a word for. I won't comment on whether or not a Straw Man has occurred, but that's something to put voice to your lack of a term.

I'm not certain of that either. :smallsmile: