Quote from: John Morrow;515400Isn't the alternative the "I am the gamemaster. You are my pawns." school of thought?

No. It's not. The idea that a GM either has to be an ascetic monk servicing their players or a Machiavellian dominatrix who treats their players as pawns is an insipid false dilemma.

QuoteI agree, but my point is that I don't think any of those models, including the GDS, really addresses GM interests, passions, and preferences.

Holy shit! You mean the GDS doesn't do something it was never designed to do?! That's crazy talk!

:rolleyes:

As I mentioned several posts ago: This insistence that the GDS must secretly be about a GM's interests and passions is one of the two major mistakes that leads the GNS astray. While there certainly may be some GMs who treat technique as their exclusive end-goal, most GMs will treat technique as a tool for achieving their goals.

QuoteWhy do GMs GM? What do you get out of it? And how to players please the GM?

I enjoy the experience of a shared fictional reality. I enjoy being surprised. I enjoy exploration and discovery. I enjoy setting up a situation and having no idea how it will resolve. I enjoy playing my NPCs hard and in the moment. I enjoy the tactical and strategic challenges created by my players.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;515722I enjoy being surprised. I enjoy exploration and discovery. I enjoy setting up a situation and having no idea how it will resolve. I enjoy playing my NPCs hard and in the moment. I enjoy the tactical and strategic challenges created by my players.

Probably the first time i agree totally with Justin.

Quote from: John Morrow;515400Since I generally do GM to please the players, I'm curious.  Why do GMs GM?  What do you get out of it?  And how to players please the GM?

In a limited sense I want to please players in that I want the regular players in my campaign (who share my style of play or they would not be regulars) to have a overall good time in the campaign. I could care less how someone who does not share my group's style of play but insists on playing anyway feels about the game.

More generally, I GM because I enjoy creating the sandbox, making it live, and seeing what the players do there. This means I don't GM to provide level-appropriate challenges and rewards, to cater to preplanned level 1 to 20 builds, to cater to rules lawyers, to provide an epic story where the PC are the destined to succeed protagonists, or the like.

When I first GMed, I wasn't all that good, but I got better with experience and after a few years became "pretty good." A good part of being "pretty good" however, is knowing what play styles and what types of campaign I GM well and limiting myself to those. If five players approach me to run a campaign of the wrong type and/or wrong style of play for my skills/what I consider fun, that means having the sense to say "I'm sorry but I can't."

At first, I GMed because I was a young kid and it seemed a very adult thing to do.

Then, I GMed because nobody else would.

Now, I GM because creating the world, intrigues and plots of it, as well as providing entertainment for others, is what I enjoy quite a lot.

But most of all, always, I GMed because I really, really have a lot of fun while doing so.

If only I had to GM more, and play nanny/organiser less to the groups, it'd be perfect.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;515722As I mentioned several posts ago: This insistence that the GDS must secretly be about a GM's interests and passions is one of the two major mistakes that leads the GNS astray. While there certainly may be some GMs who treat technique as their exclusive end-goal, most GMs will treat technique as a tool for achieving their goals.

I don't think it's an issue of the technique being an end goal (and agree that the GNS makes mistakes in this regard) but that the techniques that players and GMs enjoy or dislike reflect their goals and preferences.   You mentioned that, "Trying to fit Laws' concept of 'powergamer' into any model of GM interests and/or criteria in decision-making is going to fail, because the idea of any GM being interested in making 'his character bigger, tougher, buffer, and richer' is preposterous. GMs don't have characters."  While it won't be the same thing from the GM perspective, there are GM interests and criteria in decision-making that harmonize with Powergamers and those that conflict with them.  A GM looking for verisimilitude, deep characterization, or a dramatic story will likely be unhappy running a Powergamer, while they might be quite happy running a Method Actor or Storyteller because their interests correspond to the interests of those play styles.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;515722I enjoy the experience of a shared fictional reality. I enjoy being surprised. I enjoy exploration and discovery. I enjoy setting up a situation and having no idea how it will resolve. I enjoy playing my NPCs hard and in the moment. I enjoy the tactical and strategic challenges created by my players.

And this conflicts with the idea of adjusting your game to cater to the preferences of your players (aka, being the "players' bitch"), how?  Is the issue that there are player interests that you have no interest catering to or encouraging, that you believe the players should adapt to the GM's style, or something else?