I'm curious to know how many of you here *actively* GM, or haven't and want to?
My thoughts around many of the arguments/debates that have gone on and on and on over the decades has to do with the lack of recognition in what GM's actually do, and the skillset required to be "good" at it. There are many discussions about the trees of the GMing forest but there is very little discussion, at least to me - honest discussion, about GMing in a holistic manner. There *are* levels to it. There *are* best practices.
GM's are the heart of the hobby. And frankly with the implosion of the D&D brand when they go mostly digital, I predict having GM outreach is a massive opportunity for non-D&D gaming in our hobby. And no, I'm not advocating for "The TTRPG Culture" - I don't believe in that *at all*. But I do believe that we need to be bringing up GM's into the hobby, and creating and refining GM's currently in the hobby. GM's are the center and primary consumers of product. I feel GM's are the invisible demographic that has been sorely ignored and taken for granted. And I see very little modern attempts in the D&D brand to nurture new GM's... which means of course it's on us.
Do you just play? Do you GM? Do you want to GM? Are you a GM that is always looking for new tools for you toolbox? Would you consume content concerning structured and expansive guides to GMing from top to bottom? Do you think the hobby at large does this sufficiently well?
I GM far more than I play--probably 95%+ of my gaming time. I GM regularly in the sense of "steady hours per quarter" though my gaming sessions tend to be long, with several weeks in between.
In general, I find that weeding through GM advice to get the useful bits to be somewhat tedious, because it is difficult to separate advice on practices from advice on style (both for the one giving the advice and the one receiving it). Not to mention all the GM advice that is misleading or in some cases outright boneheaded. :)
While I don't agree with everything in his approach, I think the Angry GM has been doing yeoman work in breaking a lot of bits down to basics, whereas most advice skims over such things.
I GM maybe 25% of the time; I'm not a mainstay GM and I would not say that I'm particularly talented at it. I can do it, but I think I'm incurably mediocre, especially if I'm using a commercial system. One of the key reasons I got into TTRPG design is because I can more reliably fill the holes in my GMing skills from the game designer chair than I can from the GMing chair, because they offer two different toolsets for dealing with the same problems, and I am notably better at the design angle than the GMing angle.
I'm presently GMing a weekly campaign and a bi-weekly one, while playing in a bi-weekly one and either playing or running the occasional pick-up game when some of my busier friends are free.
I generally prefer something of an improv sandbox... the world is open, but not prebuilt per se; though back when I ran Mage, after a decade and a half in the same general location, nearly all the NPCs were just past PCs with their own agendas so that made it a LOT easier to run.
It's also why I prefer more mechanically solid systems where I can quickly judge encounter difficulty as I'm often having to improv said encounters on the fly... knowing what it takes to make a cake walk and what will make a deadly fight reflexively is an important part of keeping the game sessions moving.
What do you mean by "actively?" Due to my employment, I frequently leave town for a couple of months at a time. This has the down side of killing long running game. :(
However, I tend to spend free time away getting sessions ready to go so that when I get home I can run for my table. Everyone keeps coming back so I think they like what I'm doing.
I am constantly looking for tools that make my games better. I read a lot of core books, blogs, and GMing guides. Oddly, I have found that most of the more well known GM guides are less useful to me than some of the stuff that's off the cuff statements by GM's in chat rooms.
I DM fairly regualarly, but it's slowed down for the summer. I did run D&D 5e for my daughter and her friends last night.
Out of all my years of gaming, I've probably ran 90% of the games I've been in, which is actually annoying because I like playing, too. But sometimes I want to play something like Rifts or DC Heroes and no one is willing to run it, so I end up doing it myself. Thankfully one of the other guys I play with doesn't mind running AD&D or Gamma World, so at least there's that.
Related to the initial post, I gave my 7 year old daughter a Mentzer Red Box and she likes playing and is interested in running a game sometime. Trying to do my part here.
Have been GM for 70-80% of the time I've played ttrpgs. Right now, I'm on a GM break as one of my players wanted to try running Curse of Strahd and I don't want to start a new group since I may be moving soon.
I'm always looking at new material because I am working on my own system and want to see what I can steal borrow.
I GM a lot, usually several times per week, though on a bit of a break right now/past couple weeks.
I've nearly always been the GM mainly because I've always been the one to put the effort in. To be fair I like running games, you get to be the one making it cooperative and fun.
I GM a lot, probably more than 50% of my game time is GM time.
I read advice here as well as Angry, Johnn Four, and others. I don't always agree but I try to absorb it all.
By far the best learning tool I've found is to play in games run by GMs who have something I'm missing, whether that is more experience, a unique or interesting style, gimmicks, whatever. Eg: All those tips about making combat more interesting by getting inside the mind of the monster and using its special abilities to the maximum — in one ear and out the other, until I witnessed it done expertly by another GM. Now this lesson is seared into my brain.
Quote from: tenbones on July 31, 2023, 11:51:34 AM
GM's are the center and primary consumers of product. I feel GM's are the invisible demographic that has been sorely ignored and taken for granted. And I see very little modern attempts in the D&D brand to nurture new GM's... which means of course it's on us.
Do you just play? Do you GM? Do you want to GM? Are you a GM that is always looking for new tools for you toolbox? Would you consume content concerning structured and expansive guides to GMing from top to bottom? Do you think the hobby at large does this sufficiently well?
I've been GMing consistently 90% of the time since the mid-90s. Almost every week, though I have taken time off when things like kids and night-shifts take up time. It's been every week since 2018.
The "Guides to GMing" that I've read over the years seem to have been, by and large, vanity projects from game designers who wanted to tell everyone just how awesome a GM they were that one time in college.
Most of the good advice about GMing I gleaned from the designer notes and examples of play in various games like
Stars Without Number,
SWADE, and
Twilight:2000 (2nd edition was great for this). Real concrete procedural advice about how to get groups together, how to make an adventure, where to get maps (if any), how to play NPCs... basically just how to make it all
work: this can go right in the main rulebook under the "Refereeing the Game" chapter. Additional supplemental advice for GMs can be found implicitly and explicitly in extended examples of specific in-game systems: combat, trade, etc.
I've found some good bits of advice on Youtube, but I find actual plays utterly unwatchable. Which is fine: TTRPGs aren't a performance media, per se, so it's not for general public consumption.
What I think I'm saying is that it's probably better to get the GMs reading actual rulebooks that are complete, and that contain step-by-step instructions for how to run a game, than to get GMs reading a separate book about how to be good at the hobby. They've already paid their money for the main rulebook, and it should be explicit in this regard. Additional specific tools are cool (I like
Social Encounters on the Silk Road, for example), but the main goal needs to be helping new GMs in setting up their workshops, as it were.
I amactively 'GM"-ing since April of 2022.
Currently my GURPS Star Trek group tries to do two game sessions a month or something close to a 'onvr every two weeks' rhythm.
The tricky part is scheduling all three of the adult players in my group have active work schedules and thigs come up with their side jobs.
We were lucky to do two game sessions in July, we almost had three.
Unfortubately we might only be able to have ONE game session in August.
The guy who plays the captain in real life is a somewhat popular musician in demand during Renaissance fest season.
Most of August he was asked to be certain events playing guitar or other instruments (all paying gigs)
In September we will have to game on Fiday nights because Ohio Renn Fest starts Labor Day weekend.
-Ed C.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 31, 2023, 12:01:45 PM
I GM far more than I play--probably 95%+ of my gaming time. I GM regularly in the sense of "steady hours per quarter" though my gaming sessions tend to be long, with several weeks in between.
In general, I find that weeding through GM advice to get the useful bits to be somewhat tedious, because it is difficult to separate advice on practices from advice on style (both for the one giving the advice and the one receiving it). Not to mention all the GM advice that is misleading or in some cases outright boneheaded. :)
Understood. If you GM most of the time, and have been doing it for a long time (10+ years) then yeah you're probably going to be particular about the advice they take. My thoughts are crystalizing on something more concrete than just "Hey here's my advice on how to GM better."
I do believe there are stages of development that all GM's go through and there are nested capacities required for each stage to pull off. It's like playing a kazoo vs. being in a band, vs. being a composer and conductor for an orchestra. They're all making music, but the difficulties and understanding of the music required to each thing is vastly different and increases in complexity. MOST players never get a GM capable of pulling off big multi-year campaigns that take them from 1st level to the pinnacles of power - and do it with fidelity.
So I'm thinking of trying to frame a method of GMing at each stage for people to use and they can rest where they feel most comfortable. But the idea is to give them tools and a direction to work towards, regardless of their experience level. Of course young folks new to the hobby will get the most benefit. The real issue is finding those people that *want* to do it. Not just "I'm a GM because no one else will do it" (but that counts too), but those people that catch the bug and want to really run with it.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 31, 2023, 12:01:45 PMWhile I don't agree with everything in his approach, I think the Angry GM has been doing yeoman work in breaking a lot of bits down to basics, whereas most advice skims over such things.
I've seen his videos. He's kind of what I think of when you talk about about "style/advice" and how the two criss-cross one another largely without context. I'm looking at straightforward developmental guides to get people to start small, then work their way up to full blown sandbox affairs, but with plenty of jump-off points where they feel most comfortable.
Quote from: BadApple on July 31, 2023, 01:34:59 PM
What do you mean by "actively?" Due to my employment, I frequently leave town for a couple of months at a time. This has the down side of killing long running game. :(
However, I tend to spend free time away getting sessions ready to go so that when I get home I can run for my table. Everyone keeps coming back so I think they like what I'm doing.
I am constantly looking for tools that make my games better. I read a lot of core books, blogs, and GMing guides. Oddly, I have found that most of the more well known GM guides are less useful to me than some of the stuff that's off the cuff statements by GM's in chat rooms.
Actively in the sense that when you game - are you the one GMing? In terms of volume of play, that's definitely a consideration in terms of developmental experience, but for the purposes of the thread, I'm just asking in general.
Corollary question:
Do any of you active GM's try to sell your players, or others on GMing?
And if so, how'd it work out?
I'm great at selling the idea to people. But the results were shit. Largely because of the issue of the tyranny of proximity. "If I'm GMing Tenbones, he's surely judging me, and if I suck, he'll HATE ME..." (which of course is silly - I just want to play). But without fail, the players that take up GMing (specifically with me as a player) get in way too deep, they start trying to emulate very deep sandbox play without understanding what it takes to run something like that. When I tell them to not overthink it - I find they have no idea what I'm actually talking about. I usually tell them "Just run a module, or adventure path. Don't get crazy." Part of the problem is many of them have it in their head (as some here do) that *I* hate modules and think they're for weak pussies, or something.
I don't. At all. I think they're great for new GM's to cut their teeth on or for GM's that don't have a lot of time, and will take them apart and repurpose them for their own uses within the timeframe of effort they can muster. But in the cases where my players try GMing... they go *waaaaaaay* overboard despite me telling them not to.
This is why I think there needs to be more than just "general advice", I think we should be talking about GMing in a developmental fashion.
Quote from: tenbones on July 31, 2023, 04:50:24 PM
Actively in the sense that when you game - are you the one GMing? In terms of volume of play, that's definitely a consideration in terms of developmental experience, but for the purposes of the thread, I'm just asking in general.
I wouldn't presume to give you a % but I GM more often than I play as a player. I love both but there's something special about being the guy that brings in the adventure.
I DM quite a bit at conventions. I have run many games over the years.
But my home group basically has one dude who DMs are pretty much doesn't let anyone else DM (even though I prefer to run games vs. playing in them)
now this guy does a great job, but the problem is this:
EVERY game needs to have elaborate dungeon tiles (custom --not even the stuff you get from DF), electric lights, miniatures, wilderness pieces, etc. He puts in a huge effort on this, and while it is appreciated, it makes everyone else in the group feel like they would have to produce something similar if they were to DM
I don't need the damn tiles or even the minis. I use handouts, a mat, and tokens. Mostly theater-of-the-mind.
I'd really like to get back to the good ole days on that. We didn't have minis when I was a kid--they were expensive, rare, and didn't even look good. And we certainly didn't have the damn dungeon-tiles
I've tried from time to time to encourage others to GM. I get mild interest, and an occasional attempt. Part of it is the time pressure. When our groups get together, we want to get on with it, and that's usually whatever I have lined up next. Plus, from lack of practice, I suck as a player. (When I play, I'm actually playing an NPC in the GM's world, trying to quietly help him out. Which is not always helpful, but I find it almost impossible to turn off this mode.)
I've also run into the problem where the player doesn't feel as if they can live up to the expectations. A couple of people in the groups have run before they met me. They know they can do it. They'd just prefer not to. The rest do feel that oppressive shadow of trying to emulate what I've spent 42 years practicing--which is crazy when we say it like that, which they acknowledge. Doesn't change the feeling. My daughter was one of them, though I think she is coming around. She finally got to game with some other groups, where she felt like she could manage what they were doing. And of course, the younger people in my groups don't see all the stupid things I did when I was learning.
One thing I'm trying to do in my own design is to embed the practical advice/procedures for getting started into the rules. Not how to be a GM. Not how to role play. Rather, how to get started as a GM running this particular game in its intended style. That's a much less ambitious goal. Early D&D had some good stuff in that respect, even if it did come across as a bit arcane in material we had at the time.
I played when young in the late 1970s and 80s, and never was GM. I played off and on thereafter, and still never was the GM. I first gamemastered when teaching my kids and friends to play, and ran a campaign for them for about a year. Several years later, my high school friends and I started up a game online, and I then became the GM and did so for three years. I have been GM for a local FtF campaign as well.
I was always scared of being a GM for the fears about preparation, and handling surprises. It wasn't until I just jumped into the deep end and did it that I realized how much fun being the GM could be.
Quote from: tenbones on July 31, 2023, 04:58:42 PM
Corollary question:
Do any of you active GM's try to sell your players, or others on GMing?
And if so, how'd it work out?
I have sold GMing to one or two players over the years. Most recently, a player has taken up Call of Cthulhu GMing, and we're enjoying how he's running things. He has been taking it easy: episodic adventures with recurring characters, no sandbox. It helps that he's actually something of an expert in Lovecraft and English literature, so he has the background research taken care of. I don't know if I sold him on GMing,
per se, but I definitely gently nudged him in that direction. He is a natural. It's a little annoying, quite frankly. ;D
About 12 years ago a player of mine went for GMing, and ran a very long campaign that he considers something of a success. But it was a huge, sprawling campaign with a lot of narrative baked in. No sandbox, and it generated
a lot of aggravation, even with players who were mostly on board for that sort of game.
Quote
I'm great at selling the idea to people. But the results were shit. Largely because of the issue of the tyranny of proximity. "If I'm GMing Tenbones, he's surely judging me, and if I suck, he'll HATE ME..." (which of course is silly - I just want to play). But without fail, the players that take up GMing (specifically with me as a player) get in way too deep, they start trying to emulate very deep sandbox play without understanding what it takes to run something like that. When I tell them to not overthink it - I find they have no idea what I'm actually talking about. I usually tell them "Just run a module, or adventure path. Don't get crazy." Part of the problem is many of them have it in their head (as some here do) that *I* hate modules and think they're for weak pussies, or something.
I don't. At all. I think they're great for new GM's to cut their teeth on or for GM's that don't have a lot of time, and will take them apart and repurpose them for their own uses within the timeframe of effort they can muster. But in the cases where my players try GMing... they go *waaaaaaay* overboard despite me telling them not to.
This is why I think there needs to be more than just "general advice", I think we should be talking about GMing in a developmental fashion.
I tend to bounce off of modules because I don't often "get" whatever it is the author is trying to set up. Even something simple like The Palace of the Silver Princess, which I ran a couple of years ago, required no small amount of work to get it to make sense to me. But that's probably just me.
I do think that a pedagogical/developmental approach is important. The GM advice in SWADE at the end is good, but only provides a general overview of themes and topics to cover in greater detail. I like what Kevin Crawford has done in Stars/Worlds/Cities Without Number, because it assumes barely any GMing experience. But there need to be more worked examples, for sure.
Quote from: tenbones on July 31, 2023, 04:58:42 PM
I'm great at selling the idea to people. But the results were shit. Largely because of the issue of the tyranny of proximity. "If I'm GMing Tenbones, he's surely judging me, and if I suck, he'll HATE ME..." (which of course is silly - I just want to play). But without fail, the players that take up GMing (specifically with me as a player) get in way too deep, they start trying to emulate very deep sandbox play without understanding what it takes to run something like that. When I tell them to not overthink it - I find they have no idea what I'm actually talking about. I usually tell them "Just run a module, or adventure path. Don't get crazy." Part of the problem is many of them have it in their head (as some here do) that *I* hate modules and think they're for weak pussies, or something.
I think what you need to convey is that GMing is like driving, you suck when you start. It's ok to suck. It's ok to be noob. Some of my best experiences at the table have been new GMs fucking it up completely. Be a train wreck and have fun.
Quote from: tenbones on July 31, 2023, 11:51:34 AM
I'm curious to know how many of you here *actively* GM, or haven't and want to?
My thoughts around many of the arguments/debates that have gone on and on and on over the decades has to do with the lack of recognition in what GM's actually do, and the skillset required to be "good" at it. There are many discussions about the trees of the GMing forest but there is very little discussion, at least to me - honest discussion, about GMing in a holistic manner. There *are* levels to it. There *are* best practices.
GM's are the heart of the hobby. And frankly with the implosion of the D&D brand when they go mostly digital, I predict having GM outreach is a massive opportunity for non-D&D gaming in our hobby. And no, I'm not advocating for "The TTRPG Culture" - I don't believe in that *at all*. But I do believe that we need to be bringing up GM's into the hobby, and creating and refining GM's currently in the hobby. GM's are the center and primary consumers of product. I feel GM's are the invisible demographic that has been sorely ignored and taken for granted. And I see very little modern attempts in the D&D brand to nurture new GM's... which means of course it's on us.
Do you just play? Do you GM? Do you want to GM? Are you a GM that is always looking for new tools for you toolbox? Would you consume content concerning structured and expansive guides to GMing from top to bottom? Do you think the hobby at large does this sufficiently well?
I've been the forever GM for the over the last decade. The way I see it, unless I want to play D&D, then I have to GM the games that I want to play. I'm going to TravellerCon this October and will be able to play for the first time in (I think) 14 years.
I play some solo, usually as a way to flesh out the sandbox.I do GM more often than not.I keep my eyes open for new tools to use, but not every tool is worth using either (I test them outfirst in solo play). I would not consume GMing guides from top to bottom - I know my style of GMing and can tell what will fit that style and what won't. I think that the hobby doesn't teach GMing well.
About that last one - over the years I've seen a lot of people get self-important and stand upon a soapbox of the internet proclaiming their wisdom as GM, not understanding that every tool does not work well for every GM or player group. Good examples of this are the various "safety tools" which get espoused by people, which are rendered obsolete by having good communication between consenting adults in session zero yet people still swear by them in GM advice. To be a "Good GM" to me means to play and run games enough to find your own path and to modify that as necessary.
I mostly DM these days, have for years.
Last time I was a player I ragequit because the DM was a shitbag and I got tired of dealing with it. That was last summer, and was probably the last time I'll give being a player with that particular group a shot (and therefore probably the last time I'll be a player for the foreseeable future).
Since I don't mind DMing, it's fine.
8) I GM & play. In the recent past more GM than play. Lately not much of either.
I do believe best practices discussions are useful for current & would-be GMs. Also I think every player should be in the GM seat once so they can appreciate the effort involved. It's very much like a child finally seeing what the teacher sees from the front of the class; your classmate secret shenanigans are so very visible, just politely ignored. ;D
Corollary, yes I do encourage new GMs! And I play on their tables, sometimes giving advice at the moment, like a safety net if they get lost. Other times I just hold my piece until the end and try to celebrate what they've done.
I think of it as a performative art: you gotta practice and make your mistakes to get better. Expecting virtuosity out of the gate is unrealistic -- show me your "ugly" art that you put your heart & soul in it :D Like flatulence, you gotta let it out sometime! So I'll be your household critic, not the bright lights, big time stage.
Quote from: tenbones on July 31, 2023, 04:58:42 PM
Corollary question:
Do any of you active GM's try to sell your players, or others on GMing?
And if so, how'd it work out?
This meme pretty much describes it. My players responded with everything from disgust to disinterest to Lovecraftian horror. Not to mention a "How dare he!" for even asking.
(https://socoandsfrpgs.files.wordpress.com/2023/07/gamer-friendsa.jpg)
Quote from: tenbones on July 31, 2023, 04:58:42 PM
Corollary question:
Do any of you active GM's try to sell your players, or others on GMing?
And if so, how'd it work out?
A few weeks back one of our campaigns wrapped up and I suggested to my buddy who I've known for over 20 years and been gaming with almost as long if he'd run a game. His answer was, "No, I don't think I'd be any good at it." I offered some gentle prodding ("Come on, pussy, you would be fine") but he is firmly in the "I just wanna play" camp. Similarly, I asked my wife years ago if she wanted to try running a game and got the same answer. She has only played a handful of times to humor me, so that could have something to do with it. Another one of my buddies was convinced by me a long time ago to DM and he's been the secondary ever since.
I can remember an incident at some minicon thing we ran at a bar in Austin years ago wherein I was a player and one of the people in the group was a 13 year old kid who had randomly showed up with his dad to play, sans any books or dice. He was actually a really good player (first game no less) so after the game was over I was pretty inebriated and gave him my copy of the rules (Labyrinth Lord I believe) and a nice set of dice and told him to run his own games. He seemed to take me seriously, so I hope he was successful.
I'm 90% the Game Master because I approach the game as a legitimate fine art form and I am always on some specific mission or experience with a particular set of rules, or more likely, a particular genre. What I've taken from this since I got back into gaming in 2012 ( I first played 1980-1990 and played a lot) accumulating real-life experiences makes you able to react in the moment with a much thicker backlog of reactions to actually draw from. When I was a kid I played a kid's game. As an adult I play a much "better" game. Recording as many of my game sessions as I could and listening back to them. Helped me move through "bad" behaviors quicker. Feedback from players is most always general, friendly, and not much thought given. If you want some honest criticism your own reaction to listening to your own play is excellent for those capable of getting over themselves. Complete immersion in the source material. Get your nose out of the rule book and into the paperback books, comic books, films, songs, etc. of the genre you intend to run. Read and watch everything you can on the genre before and during your campaign. This last bit of advice I find gets me accused of gatekeeping. That not everyone has access to books or has the luxury of being able to consume much media. Elitist, classist, that kind of shit. In the end attempting to provide hard worked for experience to others in the craft feels a waste of effort because there is very little positive discourse which follows. You are quickly labeled a gate-keeper.
And do I really care? Since I first heard about ttrpgs in 1977 I have wanted to do it. It has never left my thoughts since my first boxed set as an eleven year old. There are always players to find. Any game or campaign I want is a singular unique experience into the unknown recesses of creativity, imagination. What matters if the hobby dies tomorrow or 100 years from now? This "game" requires other people to be satisfying and my are they unpredictable. If you want to get better at this hobby you need to do it, play, read about it, wade through other people's opinions and in the end make your own decision. Answer your "own" questions.
Sidenote; I never stick with one game. I go from genre to genre. This has had the result of having different groups of players in over 5 or 6 cam[aigns I've run. The thought of playing with the same people over and over again makes me cringe. Increasing the number of different people I've played with has just given that more breadth to my overall experience with the medium.
Been GMing for 40 years. In the last ten years I have run games 80% of the time and play in them 20%.
Although I mostly play with the same guys, a few times a year I try to run games for other groups and I think this helps me get better - kids, at cons, and such.
For the last 5 years I've actively sought out advice on how to get better, mostly in the form of YouTube, but with a few blogs, and some other media thrown in.
I've encouraged a few people to run and it worked out. Making them feel like they are not going to be judged is the key, I think. I also have not offered ANY advice unless they specifically asked. Also, don't give any negative feedback unless someone asks specifically.
______
The stuff I'm most proud of: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/browse/pub/24813/Wicked-Cool-Games (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/browse/pub/24813/Wicked-Cool-Games)
I've wanted to ask this same question before, mostly because of occasional comments I see around here that make me think the commenter has been only GM-ing for a bit too long.
The thing is that while GMs have always driven the hobby, GM-ing is not "the point" of roleplaying. You're always going to get GMs over-represented on forums, because forum-goers are going to be the people most devoted to the hobby, and that tends to be GMs, but I think it would benefit the hobby if more of the serious discussion came from people who spent more time on the other side of the screen.
Personally I'm in the unique (for my life) position of playing more than I GM. Over the last couple of years I've been in an average of 2-4 games at any time, and never GM-ing more than one of them. I like GM-ing, but after 15 years or so of only doing that, it's nice to get to sit on the other side for a while.
Quote from: tenbones on July 31, 2023, 11:51:34 AM
Do you just play? Do you GM? Do you want to GM? Are you a GM that is always looking for new tools for you toolbox? Would you consume content concerning structured and expansive guides to GMing from top to bottom? Do you think the hobby at large does this sufficiently well?
Off and on. Probably 50% (number pulled out of my ass) of my gaming is me being the GM. I really like it. I like interpreting player actions and the results. I like to come up with interesting scenarios and encounters. I like to tinker with the game and how the players interact with it. I do consume a fair bit of GM advice and tips. Especially advice that's practical and makes the "job" both more efficient and more effective.
The Hobby generally doesn't do GM advice well. I think the most bang I've gotten for my buck is out of The Alexandrian website, The Angry GM's blogs and videos, and Pondsmith's Listen Up You Primitive Screwheads! book. Sly Flourish's Lazy GM book and video blog is pretty good as well.
I like stuff on structure, pacing, nuts and bolts advice on encounter building and distributing rewards.
Most offical books do a really half-assed job. Especially, especially published adventures, which to my mind, should be setting up the GM with the framework they need to run a good adventure, often need tweaking and sometimes to be completely torn down and rebuilt. Railroads with "guidance" on how to beat the party into going along with the proscribed "story".
At least once a week for my main campaign (currently Planescape), and quite often twice a week for short campaigns, one-shots, play-tests, etc.
Content-wise, I read blogs, sometimes watch a relevant video on the topic, and so on. The most useful material in that regard, IMHO, is ready to play modules, and tools that streamline their creation.
Quote from: tenbones on July 31, 2023, 11:51:34 AM
I'm curious to know how many of you here *actively* GM, or haven't and want to?
My thoughts around many of the arguments/debates that have gone on and on and on over the decades has to do with the lack of recognition in what GM's actually do, and the skillset required to be "good" at it. There are many discussions about the trees of the GMing forest but there is very little discussion, at least to me - honest discussion, about GMing in a holistic manner. There *are* levels to it. There *are* best practices.
GM's are the heart of the hobby. And frankly with the implosion of the D&D brand when they go mostly digital, I predict having GM outreach is a massive opportunity for non-D&D gaming in our hobby. And no, I'm not advocating for "The TTRPG Culture" - I don't believe in that *at all*. But I do believe that we need to be bringing up GM's into the hobby, and creating and refining GM's currently in the hobby. GM's are the center and primary consumers of product. I feel GM's are the invisible demographic that has been sorely ignored and taken for granted. And I see very little modern attempts in the D&D brand to nurture new GM's... which means of course it's on us.
Do you just play? Do you GM? Do you want to GM? Are you a GM that is always looking for new tools for you toolbox? Would you consume content concerning structured and expansive guides to GMing from top to bottom? Do you think the hobby at large does this sufficiently well?
I GM (usually 1-2 times a week), and I run games for people who also GM
EDIT: To answer the questions. Yes I want to GM, I am often looking for tools to add to the toolbox. I don't really buy GM guides these days (once in a while maybe), but either try to focus on what is working at the table and read or watch shorter things like blog entries on GMing ideas (I think it is rare to have a whole book GMing that is gold the whole way through, but occasionally bloggers, YouTubers, posters on forums occasionally strike gold).
I'm GM'ing every other week (not my choice but player's). I don't mind running games but it has to be of interest to me. If it's just an analog version of WoW then I'm not doing it. I'm running the game b/c the other GM was doing 5E and it was just murder hobo time and I was checking out of it as were some others (the kill-loot cycle was boring them). We're using Mythras now (started with BRP but some minor reasons I made the change) and Aihrde for the setting. I've checked out some of the GM material on youtube and read some blogs and story telling books but I feel it's one of those things you have to just do to get a base from which to mold your style. Many of the guides start to repeat each other or hit on specific topics that may not apply, now I only look at 2 people on youtube for information. It's like painting minis: you can watch all the videos you want but until you start painting you'll never get it done or improve.
I actively GM. I am in a long-term stable weekly roleplaying group of five of us. Four of us happily GM and want to. One is a player only. So ~25% of the time. [Also GM for another group of old University friends but we only meet a few times a year and play for a whole day. Been GMing that for ~years in my latest stretch.]
In general, I agree that this is an interesting issue. I've seen posts on FaceBook [Dungeons and Dragons UK] of players looking for a DM. One time it was with a list of demands for the sought-for DM. (Develop game based on backstories, run to level 20, blance roleplay and combat, ...). Another time, it came with a declaration that all the players had tried DMing and didn't like it so were seeeking a DM. I tried pointing out it wasn't a very sustainable view of how the hobby can work.
So yes -bottom line - if you want an average gaming group of N players (whatever N is) then it needs 1 in N fulltime GMs or an equivalent input from several people.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on August 01, 2023, 01:54:27 AM
The Hobby generally doesn't do GM advice well. I think the most bang I've gotten for my buck is out of The Alexandrian website, The Angry GM's blogs and videos, and Pondsmith's Listen Up You Primitive Screwheads! book. Sly Flourish's Lazy GM book and video blog is pretty good as well.
The Alexandrian blog is great for GM help!
Yes, I GM bout 95% of the time (about twice a month). I think I should be a player more often, but TBH I do not like the play-style of most GMs I know.
I participated in some awesome adventures, however, and I'm unsure if I am a good GM in comparison (for example, I admire GMs that do good "voices", even though I do not think this is what the game is about).
I have a feeling - also when GMing but especially when playing - that many people want to play a "story". Which I dislike.
Some of my campaigns fizzle out when a PC dies. I didn't find a good solution for this.
One "bucket list" goal is running a campaign for dozens of characters. Not sure I can find enough players to try it, and it is probably a lot of work...
I've read some good and bad GM advice... even tried to write some of my own.
Here is a fun discussion from the G+ days:
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2017/03/12-things-i-wish-i-would-had-known.html
* Your PC is only cool if he is cool during play, not because he has an amazing backstory. Likewise, your NPCs are only cool if they do cool stuff during play. Your adventure is only good if it provides good times to people playing it.
* The story does not have to be cool or make sense to anyone other than the people playing the game. Like in real life, you go on adventures to have experiences, not to tell stories after the fact.
* Different people like different things, including mechanics. Some people will never spend inspiration or that last potion of healing, no matter what you do. Some people want to pick fights, some people want interaction, some people want to play ninjas. If it suits them, that is okay.
* Find the best system for you and your players. Eventually, this will be the system you have created yourself.
* That puzzle (or conspiracy) you built for your players is not as obvious as you think. The players are not in your head.
* Everybody will forget most of the details after a couple of days. If you want long arches and complicated plots with various adventures, that is fine, but don't expect you player to remember every NPC they meet, unless they are recurring. Also, if something happens to the PCs - specially if they are wronged - they are more likely to remember.
* Every important person, thing or location should have ONE obvious distinction. Not grey hair, but a mohawk. Not a scar, but a distinct lack of nose. Not grey houses, but impossibly tall spires. Think "caricatures".
* Do not plan the story in advance and do not keep safeguards against derailing. No fudging dice, no saving the players from bad luck or bad choices. You're robbing them of some amazing experiences. Failing is part of the game.
* Few fights should be to the death. People are more likely to surrender than to fight to the bitter end, and few animals will take a beating if they can escape.
* Common sense trumps the rules. But if the rules defy common sense all the time, you should be looking for a different set of rules. This is about rules as physics, not story - people defy common sense all the time!
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YeMJDsu-y8M/WNa62kBx12I/AAAAAAAAA4w/MsfBWIAGweojLT8uAIeXJiMtml1LyTQrQCLcB/s1600/104279-101867.jpg)
* Let the dice push you out of your comfort zone. Your PCs all failed their saving throws - now what? Your important NPC was killed before he could start his plan - what happens now? If you always rely on common sense to decide probabilities without using the dice, everything will become predictable.
* Everyone said that already, but expect the unexpected from your players. Do not assume they will be nice to a baby in the crib when they are invading a castle.
There is a story to the last one, of course, but I'll leave that to another post.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on August 01, 2023, 01:54:27 AM
The Hobby generally doesn't do GM advice well. I think the most bang I've gotten for my buck is out of The Alexandrian website, The Angry GM's blogs and videos, and Pondsmith's Listen Up You Primitive Screwheads! book. Sly Flourish's Lazy GM book and video blog is pretty good as well.
It's funny I *love* Pondsmith. Definitely had a big impact on my own GMing experience. Great guy. Justin Alexander has great GMing advice... but for some reason he really seems to hate me. At least he builds up an intense vitriol to my posts, even though I think we agree on an awful lot of stuff, I've never understood if he is mistaking me for someone else, or he projects some caricature of what he thinks I mean about stuff. /shrug. I think his website is pretty solid. But my experience with him here and other places have been, LOL nasty? to say the least. I never knew why... but maybe he just posts when he's angry. Dunno.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on August 01, 2023, 01:54:27 AMI like stuff on structure, pacing, nuts and bolts advice on encounter building and distributing rewards.
Most offical books do a really half-assed job. Especially, especially published adventures, which to my mind, should be setting up the GM with the framework they need to run a good adventure, often need tweaking and sometimes to be completely torn down and rebuilt. Railroads with "guidance" on how to beat the party into going along with the proscribed "story".
Totally agree with you here.
I feel a lot of the posts here are pointing to a specific place that I figured was true - we've all reinvented the wheel for the most part, without really discussing a methodology for GMing as a "craft" that like other crafts have developmental stages which require different needs and sub-skills to master. At least that's my take on it...
Keep it rolling guys!
Yet another place where style/advice are hard to separate:
Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 01, 2023, 11:23:01 AM
Some of my campaigns fizzle out when a PC dies. I didn't find a good solution for this.
I've got some techniques to work around this. They aren't special to me, as I learned them from applying some pretty common stuff in certain combinations. However, they do imply a style. To wit, if you don't want a campaign to fizzle because of character death, then make the campaign about the party instead of a player. Or make it about something even larger than the party, if you don't want a TPK to derail it. This
necessarily means that certain "story" options are off the table, which will conflict with some styles.
Another example, how do you run a good mystery? I know how to run a good mystery in the terms of what makes "good mystery" to me (players finding clues, deducing, mixed with some action, chances of failure all around, including not solving the mystery or even realizing that a mystery is there). What other people often mean by running a "good mystery" is that they hit all the tropes of a whatever mystery sub genre they have in mind. It's Picard on the Holodeck playing at a mystery, not players solving a mystery. Which personally I find pointless in a game, but hey, whatever people want to do. Point being, my techniques work for my style, while being mostly useless or counter-productive for that other style. And vice versa. The "3-clue rule" is essential to the play acting; actively harmful and stupid to player mystery solving.
That's one of the reasons we go around and around, and why as several have stated, the only way to really become a good GM is to do it. You can't develop a style without practice, and you can't really even know exactly what your style is without experimenting. Even assuming a perfect GM manual for every possible style (ha!), the beginning GM would still need to flounder around a while to decide which manual to follow.
Quote from: tenbones on July 31, 2023, 11:51:34 AM
I'm curious to know how many of you here *actively* GM, or haven't and want to?
<snip>
Do you just play? Do you GM? Do you want to GM? Are you a GM that is always looking for new tools for you toolbox? Would you consume content concerning structured and expansive guides to GMing from top to bottom? Do you think the hobby at large does this sufficiently well?
I'm playing my first game in decades where I'm a player. We're 20 sessions (one year) into it. It was weird and took a lot of getting used to.
My wife is getting ready to GM her first game with a one-shot. For the rules lite games we looked at, the problem was the adventures/modules weren't complete enough for a first time GM. (She wants/needs fully stat'd NPCs/Monsters and maps of the town. Descriptions of rooms. Etc.) We are going with DwD Studios BareBones Fantasy. She's played it and the modules are incredibly well written. Lots of "setup the situation, let the party figure out the solution."
For some games, this is a problem. They're basically limiting themselves to experienced GMs.
Too much of the time to me, the hobby (people in generally really) insist there is only one way to do things. I'm sure though someone will come along to disagree with my examples below.
As GM, I do not generally intimately wrap the story around the PC's backstories.
Our current GM is incredibly good at it, to the point where for some pivotal sessions, if someone can't make the session, we have to run a one-shot instead, because it requires that PC's skills (along with everyone else's).
Neither of us is wrong. It's just different styles.
As a GM, I don't require a player to talk to the NPC as if they were talking to a person. Some people just aren't good at that. I let them explain to me what they are attempting and how. And then I determine if they get a bonus or not.
Other people want you to talk to the NPC as if you were talking to another person.
And apply a bonus or not depending on how good your acting was or how eloquent you were.
This doesn't work well when the character is really, really good with people and the player is not eloquent and is not good with people.
A lot of people think the only way to do it is using the second method. Which really sucks for those of who just aren't that way.
Neither approach is wrong. Just different styles. But insisting that people must follow only one of the two styles, is wrong.
Similar to the above is mini-puzzles. Some players love mini-puzzles as part of their session.
I don't. Neither do my regular players.
But for those who like them, they are great. I know of several people here that really like them.
Not right. Not wrong. Just different styles for different groups.
I hate "sandboxes". That does not mean I'm in favor of railroads. But, I want to be presented with a problem to solve.
How it gets solved is up to the party. (It's usually way more entertaining that whatever railroad was scripted.)
The other way is too much like life for me. I want to willfully jump into the planned adventure.
Other groups love sandboxes and want to come up with their own adventures based on really light-weight hooks.
Anything more they think is railroading.
Neither is wrong. Just different styles.
GMing a face-to-face game once every couple of weeks. And run and play in one online game.
I'm generally happy to GM.
Quote from: tenbones on July 31, 2023, 04:48:43 PM
<snip>
I do believe there are stages of development that all GM's go through and there are nested capacities required for each stage to pull off. It's like playing a kazoo vs. being in a band, vs. being a composer and conductor for an orchestra. They're all making music, but the difficulties and understanding of the music required to each thing is vastly different and increases in complexity. MOST players never get a GM capable of pulling off big multi-year campaigns that take them from 1st level to the pinnacles of power - and do it with fidelity.
So I'm thinking of trying to frame a method of GMing at each stage for people to use and they can rest where they feel most comfortable. But the idea is to give them tools and a direction to work towards, regardless of their experience level. Of course young folks new to the hobby will get the most benefit. The real issue is finding those people that *want* to do it. Not just "I'm a GM because no one else will do it" (but that counts too), but those people that catch the bug and want to really run with it.
<snip>
My fear is that this ends up with a right/wrong way to GM. (Because the top level is obviously "most right". Right?)
I think it is more of a toolkit. And the more options you are familiar with, the more experienced you are. Even if you generally don't use certain tools, either through GM or Player preference.
I like being a player because it is more relaxing. I just have to show up and play -- keep track of one character's personality, etc. The biggest issue is letting go of interpreting the rules - I'm still working on that one to a degree.
As a GM, I spend a lot more time prepping, even for low prep sessions, since you need/want maps etc. This is particularly an issue for online games, where if you want fog-of-war, the map needs to be prepped or purchased beforehand. As a GM I have to track different NPCs personalities and preferences. (I had one NPC mid-sentence change to a different accent, that fitted him perfectly. But it just kind of happened accidentally. I can't/don't really do accents.)
50% GM, 50% player. I split the work between myself and another GM. There's a 3rd 'holiday' GM which runs Call of Cthulu on New Years Eve once a year. We also allow other players to GM when they say they'd like to give it a shot. We contain that side mission a bit to areas of the campaign that are untouched or won't matter for the actions happened therein.
All in all it's a ton of work to GM, to plan things out, and to run the herd all the cats with a firehose to get people to show up.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 01, 2023, 11:23:01 AM
Some of my campaigns fizzle out when a PC dies. I didn't find a good solution for this.
Any idea about why?
Did the player lose interest in the story that was no longer about them?
Or, assuming what a lot of people do, not wanting to restart a character from zero?
Or just being invested in the character and not wanting to start a new one?
I'm 50-50% GM-player, usually in long stretches of either (my home group has one other GM, so he'll run for 6 months until he burns out, then I'll run for 6 months, rinse, repeat).
I think you are correct about stages of GMing. Personally, I liken it to teaching. At a fundamental level, everyone can teach someone else any particular subject. But there are definite stages (or levels) of teaching, and even master teachers can find that circumstances have them back in stages they had left long before.
For example, an early teacher might be focused on making sure they are barely more conversant with the material than the students are expected to be (this is a serious problem with career-switchers who go into teaching. Sure, you were working with laser interferometers at NASA before you became a teacher, but do you remember all of the subject matter that the students will need? Nothing kills a beginning teacher in the eyes of students faster than assigning a problem that can't be solved, because the teacher forgot some detail because
he didn't remember how to do it from all those years ago). Then, once they get comfortable with the material, they have to work to break down the process of getting from knowing nothing to knowing what is needed, step by step. It's one thing to know how to calculate conservation of momentum; it's another to be able to structure the lessons so that students will internalize what steps they need to take and what questions they need to be asking. Then, once a teacher knows the material well, knows how to "chunk" it into learnable pieces, they can start developing clever or engaging ways to present these lessons to students. Modern teacher education is most worthless, because it focuses on that step (student engagement) before most beginning teachers even know what they should be teaching, or how. Then you get assigned a new course after 15 years of teaching, and it's back to stage one!
I think it would be useful to try and delineate the stages of GMing similar to what I've described above. The elephant in the room, however, is that, while anyone can become a competent teacher. many years of experience has convinced me that
great teachers are born, not made. I'm not convinced that the same isn't true about GMs...
Since I encouraged it, I'll take a stab at delineating stages:
- Rules and events: Beginning GMs tend to focus on rules (and when to ruling) and events (like set pieces). They spend most of their time on "cool" moments that they are trying to get to and what rules govern what actions the players or NPCs take
- Flow: Once comfortable, the GMs move to concentrating on how to get players from one "event" to the next. They start developing "worlds", "side-quests", "homebrew", and other extensions of the setting and rules
- Immersion: GMs discard most of the things they developed in the previous stage (or de-emphasize it).
They begin to focus on the setting as a "place", with it's own logic, life, events, and presence beyond just the actions of the players.
Have at it...
Quote from: Tod13 on August 01, 2023, 01:43:10 PM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 01, 2023, 11:23:01 AM
Some of my campaigns fizzle out when a PC dies. I didn't find a good solution for this.
Any idea about why?
Did the player lose interest in the story that was no longer about them?
Or, assuming what a lot of people do, not wanting to restart a character from zero?
Or just being invested in the character and not wanting to start a new one?
I think my players say they are on board with PC death, but they lose interest immediately when this happens. Some times in the very next session, despite creating a new PC.
I think people just like their PCs.
Once we canceled the campaign, I asked for feedback and they said "they are not engaged with their PCs", because we usually build PCs with detailed backstories, and these weren't.
I have friends with D&D and CoC campaigns that last for decades - literally - with not a single PC death. It is a matter of play-style, I think.
It happened to me once; I lost a PC I enjoyed in an awesome campaign, created a new one but only played a couple of sessions (it was an open table, however, so each session was independent and I was not attending every session with my favorite PC either, mostly becasue scheduling).
Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 01, 2023, 02:45:09 PM
Quote from: Tod13 on August 01, 2023, 01:43:10 PM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 01, 2023, 11:23:01 AM
Some of my campaigns fizzle out when a PC dies. I didn't find a good solution for this.
Any idea about why?
Did the player lose interest in the story that was no longer about them?
Or, assuming what a lot of people do, not wanting to restart a character from zero?
Or just being invested in the character and not wanting to start a new one?
I think my players say they are on board with PC death, but they lose interest immediately when this happens. Some times in the very next session, despite creating a new PC.
I think people just like their PCs.
Once we canceled the campaign, I asked for feedback and they said "they are not engaged with their PCs", because we usually build PCs with detailed backstories, and these weren't.
I have friends with D&D and CoC campaigns that last for decades - literally - with not a single PC death. It is a matter of play-style, I think.
It happened to me once; I lost a PC I enjoyed in an awesome campaign, created a new one but only played a couple of sessions (it was an open table, however, so each session was independent and I was not attending every session with my favorite PC either, mostly becasue scheduling).
I was lucky in that my players were upfront -- at least one didn't want their character to die.
So we ran it with 0 HP meant unconscious.
You can still fail though. So, we had a lot of fun.
I think our Traveller group is prepared for character death. It's been close several times. But also, we all adore Traveller chargen.
I GM a bi-weekly AD&D game. I wouldn't mind playing in a game, but I only have the bandwidth/time for a monthly game, and have yet to find a monthly game that I'm really interested in. (I have a friend who runs a monthly game, but I don't like his GMing style so I passed on it.)
Quote from: Tod13 on August 01, 2023, 02:50:03 PM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 01, 2023, 02:45:09 PM
Quote from: Tod13 on August 01, 2023, 01:43:10 PM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 01, 2023, 11:23:01 AM
Some of my campaigns fizzle out when a PC dies. I didn't find a good solution for this.
Any idea about why?
Did the player lose interest in the story that was no longer about them?
Or, assuming what a lot of people do, not wanting to restart a character from zero?
Or just being invested in the character and not wanting to start a new one?
I think my players say they are on board with PC death, but they lose interest immediately when this happens. Some times in the very next session, despite creating a new PC.
I think people just like their PCs.
Once we canceled the campaign, I asked for feedback and they said "they are not engaged with their PCs", because we usually build PCs with detailed backstories, and these weren't.
I have friends with D&D and CoC campaigns that last for decades - literally - with not a single PC death. It is a matter of play-style, I think.
It happened to me once; I lost a PC I enjoyed in an awesome campaign, created a new one but only played a couple of sessions (it was an open table, however, so each session was independent and I was not attending every session with my favorite PC either, mostly becasue scheduling).
I was lucky in that my players were upfront -- at least one didn't want their character to die.
So we ran it with 0 HP meant unconscious.
You can still fail though. So, we had a lot of fun.
I think our Traveller group is prepared for character death. It's been close several times. But also, we all adore Traveller chargen.
Yeah, I think making some kind of agreement up front is the best way to deal with this. I once proposed a rule that a PC can only die if WILLING; otherwise, they get unconscious before that. I'm now using a modified version, where 0 HP can have various effects but death only happens immediately on a nat 1. FWIW:
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2019/12/sacrifice-d-5e-are-you-willing-to-die.html
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/07/deaths-door-table.html
Anyway, my PCs are currently level 5, and they just found a high-level cleric who can probably raise dead, no it is a non-issue.
OTOH, if a TPK ever happens I doubt they'll want to keep playing.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 01, 2023, 03:12:44 PM
Quote from: Tod13 on August 01, 2023, 02:50:03 PM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 01, 2023, 02:45:09 PM
Quote from: Tod13 on August 01, 2023, 01:43:10 PM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 01, 2023, 11:23:01 AM
Some of my campaigns fizzle out when a PC dies. I didn't find a good solution for this.
Any idea about why?
Did the player lose interest in the story that was no longer about them?
Or, assuming what a lot of people do, not wanting to restart a character from zero?
Or just being invested in the character and not wanting to start a new one?
I think my players say they are on board with PC death, but they lose interest immediately when this happens. Some times in the very next session, despite creating a new PC.
I think people just like their PCs.
Once we canceled the campaign, I asked for feedback and they said "they are not engaged with their PCs", because we usually build PCs with detailed backstories, and these weren't.
I have friends with D&D and CoC campaigns that last for decades - literally - with not a single PC death. It is a matter of play-style, I think.
It happened to me once; I lost a PC I enjoyed in an awesome campaign, created a new one but only played a couple of sessions (it was an open table, however, so each session was independent and I was not attending every session with my favorite PC either, mostly becasue scheduling).
I was lucky in that my players were upfront -- at least one didn't want their character to die.
So we ran it with 0 HP meant unconscious.
You can still fail though. So, we had a lot of fun.
I think our Traveller group is prepared for character death. It's been close several times. But also, we all adore Traveller chargen.
Yeah, I think making some kind of agreement up front is the best way to deal with this. I once proposed a rule that a PC can only die if WILLING; otherwise, they get unconscious before that. I'm now using a modified version, where 0 HP can have various effects but death only happens immediately on a nat 1. FWIW:
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2019/12/sacrifice-d-5e-are-you-willing-to-die.html
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/07/deaths-door-table.html
Anyway, my PCs are currently level 5, and they just found a high-level cleric who can probably raise dead, no it is a non-issue.
OTOH, if a TPK ever happens I doubt they'll want to keep playing.
It's tough when the players aren't or can't be honest about their preferences. There's also so much, "if there isn't death, you're doing it wrong" attitude, it makes it difficult for some people to say they don't want character death. (Same with the opposite in different groups, with "you can't have death, it's wrong!" attitude.)
With a TPK, I think our replacement characters would go to town on whatever killed their predecessors. (We use the chargen to make relationships with the current characters.)
Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 01, 2023, 02:45:09 PM
Quote from: Tod13 on August 01, 2023, 01:43:10 PM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 01, 2023, 11:23:01 AM
Some of my campaigns fizzle out when a PC dies. I didn't find a good solution for this.
Any idea about why?
Did the player lose interest in the story that was no longer about them?
Or, assuming what a lot of people do, not wanting to restart a character from zero?
Or just being invested in the character and not wanting to start a new one?
I think my players say they are on board with PC death, but they lose interest immediately when this happens. Some times in the very next session, despite creating a new PC.
I think people just like their PCs.
Once we canceled the campaign, I asked for feedback and they said "they are not engaged with their PCs", because we usually build PCs with detailed backstories, and these weren't.
I have friends with D&D and CoC campaigns that last for decades - literally - with not a single PC death. It is a matter of play-style, I think.
It happened to me once; I lost a PC I enjoyed in an awesome campaign, created a new one but only played a couple of sessions (it was an open table, however, so each session was independent and I was not attending every session with my favorite PC either, mostly becasue scheduling).
I suspect part of it might be a sort of "Cousin Oliver" effect. The first PC was there from the start of the campaign and so has had time to form a bunch of connections to that world and it's events.
When the PC dies, the new PC doesn't have those connections, but the other PCs who haven't died still have that connection and so the new PC feels like something of a tag along character rather than one of the stars.
I had this happen in a Tales of the Jedi campaign decades ago. All the PCs were intrinsically connected to the campaign and its progression. Then one of the PCs fell to the darkside (got two points in quick succession with a 1 on the second roll) and in the subsequent Dark Jedi rampage killed the PC that was his brother, and the pilot PC got blown into space trying to keep the Dark Jedi from stealing his ship.
My PC and a brand new player's PC (so not a part of the ongoing story) were the only survivors. But other than my PC being a Jedi and ergo duty bound to stop the now villainous ex-PC there was basically no hooks left so the whole campaign died right there and after a couple week break we started running a different system in a new campaign entirely.
Quote from: Chris24601 on August 01, 2023, 04:16:02 PM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 01, 2023, 02:45:09 PM
Quote from: Tod13 on August 01, 2023, 01:43:10 PM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 01, 2023, 11:23:01 AM
Some of my campaigns fizzle out when a PC dies. I didn't find a good solution for this.
Any idea about why?
Did the player lose interest in the story that was no longer about them?
Or, assuming what a lot of people do, not wanting to restart a character from zero?
Or just being invested in the character and not wanting to start a new one?
I think my players say they are on board with PC death, but they lose interest immediately when this happens. Some times in the very next session, despite creating a new PC.
I think people just like their PCs.
Once we canceled the campaign, I asked for feedback and they said "they are not engaged with their PCs", because we usually build PCs with detailed backstories, and these weren't.
I have friends with D&D and CoC campaigns that last for decades - literally - with not a single PC death. It is a matter of play-style, I think.
It happened to me once; I lost a PC I enjoyed in an awesome campaign, created a new one but only played a couple of sessions (it was an open table, however, so each session was independent and I was not attending every session with my favorite PC either, mostly becasue scheduling).
I suspect part of it might be a sort of "Cousin Oliver" effect. The first PC was there from the start of the campaign and so has had time to form a bunch of connections to that world and it's events.
When the PC dies, the new PC doesn't have those connections, but the other PCs who haven't died still have that connection and so the new PC feels like something of a tag along character rather than one of the stars.
I had this happen in a Tales of the Jedi campaign decades ago. All the PCs were intrinsically connected to the campaign and its progression. Then one of the PCs fell to the darkside (got two points in quick succession with a 1 on the second roll) and in the subsequent Dark Jedi rampage killed the PC that was his brother, and the pilot PC got blown into space trying to keep the Dark Jedi from stealing his ship.
My PC and a brand new player's PC (so not a part of the ongoing story) were the only survivors. But other than my PC being a Jedi and ergo duty bound to stop the now villainous ex-PC there was basically no hooks left so the whole campaign died right there and after a couple week break we started running a different system in a new campaign entirely.
Ah. We used MgT2 chargen to make relationships between PCs to link everyone's backstories. We have characters with shared backstories, where one of them doesn't know about it for "reasons". Everyone has links to 3-4 other characters at least. And we all share links to a big bad guy that hasn't really appeared much yet.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on August 01, 2023, 02:14:10 PM
Since I encouraged it, I'll take a stab at delineating stages:
- Rules and events: Beginning GMs tend to focus on rules (and when to ruling) and events (like set pieces). They spend most of their time on "cool" moments that they are trying to get to and what rules govern what actions the players or NPCs take
- Flow: Once comfortable, the GMs move to concentrating on how to get players from one "event" to the next. They start developing "worlds", "side-quests", "homebrew", and other extensions of the setting and rules
- Immersion: GMs discard most of the things they developed in the previous stage (or de-emphasize it).
They begin to focus on the setting as a "place", with it's own logic, life, events, and presence beyond just the actions of the players.
Have at it...
When you put it like that, it's not really all that different from how people learn to play either, or least it is analogous. They are focused at first on just understanding what is going on, how to role the funny dice, what it means when the GM asks "What do you do?" Then they start to get the rhythm of the game, riffing off of other characters and events. Then that becomes second nature and they can really begin to engage as the character.
That last one doesn't necessarily translate to Immersion, either, though it would seem to be a prerequisite to it. I've also seen it go where the group had mastered the rules and flow, which allows them to effortlessly play through the game--despite running gags, constantly breaking the fourth wall, and other such shenanigans. It's farce instead of immersion, but it is well-oiled farce.
I'm usually the GM, with fewer opportunities to just be a player. I was running four games simultaneously last year when I finally burned out, so I took a sabbatical from gaming and the net. I started to poke around a bit on the net again this year and just recently joined two games as a player, one online and one in person. I already feel burdened.
But my perspective is no doubt colored by my time with gaming (since the 70s), and my age (close to or at "senior" status).
I have been a GM since 1981 a d I enjoy the hell out of it. I also enjoy being a player.
In my gaming group, I am one out of 3 GM's. We take turns running. I so run D&D at my local game store and also run non-D&D games on the occasional Wednesday night.
I estimate that I am the GM 70% of the time. I will try to encourage more people to take up the GM mantle.
Greetings!
Yeah, I GM most of the time. I GM for three different campaigns, and I participate as a Player Character in two other campaigns.
I have been running game campaigns for many years. *Laughing*
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Historically over the last 43 years I have GM'ed quite a bit. At times I was the only one willing to run games so I did. At present, I am enjoying being a player in two different games. Our group has five GMs and we rotate running stuff which is pretty great. I am next up when a slot opens up and I plan to continue an AD&D campaign that has been on hiatus since 2018. After that I am starting a B/X campaign.
In highschool I GMed probably about a quarter of the time. In college, about 50% of the time. Now, as an adult, it's probably about 80-90% of the time.
The last year or so has been a complete dry spell of everything because of real life obligations on the part of pretty much everyone in the group, though. The fun of being middle aged adults with obligations.
I GM for the most part, currently i gm 1 irl game, 1 online, and 3 play by chat games.
I haven't GMed for a group in years, but I still GM a lot in the solo gamer capacity switching between GM and Player hats.
I'm a forever GM. I can count the number of times I've been a player of RPGs on one hand. I want to play more and I probably could but everything is just 5E which I just don't enjoy personally. Nor do I feel like forcing myself to enjoy it and thus drag the energy of everyone else down. So if I want to do anything else I have to GM it myself. No one else seems willing to put in an hour a day to just read a rulebook and get the basic idea of the rules. I can understand being intimidated by the 5E rulebook. But people insist that's "simple" and everything else is "too complicated" even if it's simpler and less bloated than DnD.
At least I have solo RPG stuff to do if I want to play. But I'm still GMing then too.
I was a GM before I was a player. I GMed near exclusively (maybe played a handful, none of them ongoing) until college. Hooked up with some other gamers who were finally willing to run stuff and my GMing dropped to maybe 20% of the time. After college things swung back toward GMing again, but with a respite now and then.
These days I've got 2 groups. The main one meets nearly every Saturday and we play for roughly 7-8 hours. Of the 5 of us, only 2 ever GM. We swap between campaigns which ends up being maybe every 10 - 14 months.
The other is a group of 4 (one of whom plays via Skype). We play 1 weeknight a week for about 3-4 hours at a time. Games typically last from 8 to 12 weeks and three of us rotate the GM spot whenever we switch games.
I used to love reading GM advice but it's all rehash by now. Instead, I look for things that make GMing simpler. Charts, tables, premade maps (that I can populate myself), software, etc.
I started as a GM because there was no Italian market for RPGs and, at 16, I was the only one in my group that could read English like a second language (*) (high-school English was enough for running your character sheet but not for reading BECMI manuals).This meant that I had to learn how to be a GM from the ground-up, as I had no references.
I also loved creating stories - something that, one day, would have become my job. I was against railroading since day one (there are many ways to run a saga with fixed story elements without resorting to railroading). Actually, I always found easier creating stories for RPGs than for comic books: both start with a bunch of ideas (what I call "the trailer"); however, in a script I also have to do everything from the start to the logical conclusion, in a RPG I say: "Here is the mess: now surprise me!" Big difference :D
Over the years I found myself being the GM about 90% of times, as, I see, it happened to others. However, IMHO, you cannot be a good GM if you don't play, and you cannot be a good player if you never was the GM.
The first rule is easy to explain: many a time I played with a GM who was making a lot of mistakes... the same mistakes I was doing, unaware, when I was the GM. I learned more about GMing by playing than from all those "How to be a good GM!" books put together.
The second rule leads to something that, IMHO, not only is much more interesting, but a lot of players seldom consider: "Start by being the GM of your character". This, of course, means "know the rules and don't ask 'where I can find this save roll on my sheet' after five years of playing". However, this also means "Have agency! Have fun!"
A lot of players want to "live" in a certain world/genre with a character they have created. Then, for some reason, they look at the GM waiting for him to have all of this happen. No. Within boundaries, "run" your character, tell what they do, use your fantasy - literally, have fun in creating and expressing your character.
A practical example (you may think: what this has to do with the topic? bear with me). We were invited to play Pathfinder and I could finally play. I created a young cleric whose family had been exterminated by goblins. Nothing original. One day he bought a book from a travelling merchant which turned out to be the "bible" of the cult of Sarenrae, and he found again the way he had lost. He started practicing, the Goddess answered, that was my backstory.
Problem was: the book was incomplete (this came from me); also, there was another church in town, devoted to a different god. This led to:
- Promotion! I had leaflets printed about the "new church in town!" (me) and "the wonders of worshipping Sarenrae!" I then looked at the map and specified where I was leaving the leaflets (the inn, the common house... even outside my house).
- More promotion! I stated that I was going around, talking with people, offering comfort and support (i.e. listen to gossip and learn about the most recent break-ups - or the death of a beloved cow for what matters). "You don't have to go to the church, it's the church that comes to you!" (if you wonder "isn't this a bit creepy?" you got the point).
- My character was a young handsome boy, so the GM decided that the usual pretty serving wench at the tavern started flirting with him. Hey! I SCORED!" True, but my bible was incomplete, remember? My character didn't know if he had to remain chaste, could have sex after a marriage or could have sex when he wanted. If I messed up I could lose what was giving meaning to my life. Meanwhile, hormones were roaring. This led to an ongoing PG-13 sitcom situation.
All the above was created and narrated by me, as a player, while the real adventure was ongoing. I never stepped on the GM shoes, I simply fleshed out the world my character was living in.
At the end of the evening the GM actually thanked me because I had given to her many ideas, and she felt that the world had just become richer. The other players (which were MY players) were astounded: "You can do that??" My answer was a polite version of "You are SUPPOSED to do that, you morons!"
Yet, my was of playing came from my multiyear experience as the GM and the feeling that something was missing. The players had characters with interesting personalities and back stories but then they looked at me like if I was the one who was supposed to develop them. True, I was the objective reality (I'm still amazed that my cleric was never chased away by a pack of dogs), but give me something! Being the GM of your own character means that you contribute to the world building - and all of sudden a whole new world of opportunities opens up.
First thing that happened after we finished Pathfinder was one of my players telling me that now she felt ready to be a GM. I had the basic introductory box, the main manual and the monster one - and I lent all of them to her (after one year I ended up gifting the books). She ran the basic box adventure, and I'm ashamed to say that we players weren't "supportive to a fellow beginner" but gave her hell. She survived and, afterwards, she actually wrote her first adventure - which was fine (she was a comic book artist who both wrote and draw her stories, so this helped).
I'm still mostly the GM. When we played "Mythos" during the lockdown ("Sherlock Holmes Consulting Detective" only in Arkham) we really liked the experience. So I proposed a series of adventures with CoC 7E called "Mythos: Origins" set before the Mythos storyline but with some of the characters, how other things came to be etc. I even created the soundtrack. Everyone agreed and this is what we are playing now.
This may sound bragging, but I often realise that I seldom met GMs capable of truly using the creative potential in a given RPG the way I do. I play, but at the same time I think "this could be much better..." This CoC campaign opened with a prologue, an adventure set in North Dakota with other characters, one year before the "official" start in 1920... and, if the investigators don't mess up, they will only delay the BIG MENACE... leading to the final showdown in 2015.
I do like the narrative structure: the best outcome for a CoC campaign leads to an unavoidable downer: the menace is only delayed - until I say "You know? What you left was not lost, and someone in 2015 is now ready to finish the job. You got another shot at this.
So, yes, I must admit that if at the end of the day I'm still the GM it is because I think that I can offer really good things. Now, if only the players could realise that, as players, they can do the same...
(*) Thank you, dad, for having been a PITA about learning English since I was 10. Best gift he ever gave me.
Another corollary -
Of all of you that are active GM's, how many of you do it, now, because *you actually love it*? I don't mean "It's okay, but I do it because no one else will".
You GM because you're actually passionate about it? Do you like talking with other GM's about techniques, methods etc. to improve your skillset? Or does it bore you to tears?
Quote from: tenbones on August 11, 2023, 10:11:21 AM
Another corollary -
Of all of you that are active GM's, how many of you do it, now, because *you actually love it*? I don't mean "It's okay, but I do it because no one else will".
You GM because you're actually passionate about it? Do you like talking with other GM's about techniques, methods etc. to improve your skillset? Or does it bore you to tears?
I enjoy GMing too. But since we're working on creating a writing career (co-writing with my wife), I just don't have time to prep. As part of that, I'll probably end up doing one-shots using our homebrew and settings from our writings. (For the record, I don't try to tell stories with the games. Definitely just setting up conditions and letting the players loose. In one of them, I told the players I never thought they'd choose the approach they took - my wife goes "how could we not pick that?")
Enjoying being a player too. After a year, still working on learning to let go at times. LOL
Quote from: tenbones on August 11, 2023, 10:11:21 AM
Another corollary -
Of all of you that are active GM's, how many of you do it, now, because *you actually love it*? I don't mean "It's okay, but I do it because no one else will".
You GM because you're actually passionate about it? Do you like talking with other GM's about techniques, methods etc. to improve your skillset? Or does it bore you to tears?
I'd rather GM than play, and quite enjoy it, as long as it's a system without too much "accounting" during the GM prep. Really enjoy putting together adventures. Do not enjoy fiddling with tons of stats.
I'm passionate about doing what works for me as a GM. That means that talking to other GM's about it is all over the place. I'm seldom bored, but a lot of the talk is not necessarily applicable to what I'm after. It's maybe "interesting" but not "relevant"?
For example, I'm going to use wandering monsters. Moreover, I'm going to use them in a certain way. If a GM has techniques for not using wandering monsters or an opinion about why a GM shouldn't use them, I'll read it--looking for ideas on how I can improve how I use wandering monsters. I'm not buying the premise that they shouldn't be used, as that's now a decided thing for me. Then there's techniques and ideas that are different than mine, also interesting, and more likely to be adaptable, but not something I can straight lift. For example, I nearly always use custom wandering monster tables for a given area. So straight tables with everything in an ecological niche are a source of ideas, but not something I'm going to use in play. Then there's how to arrange custom tables, what goes in them, etc. I'm much happier now with the way I do it than I was 5 or 10 years ago, but it's entirely possible that another GM has a different slant that I'd like even better.
Sometimes I'm very enthusiastic about GMing, sometimes it feels like a grind. I'm no longer interested in 'tips,' but I do like components that save me time.
Quote from: tenbones on August 11, 2023, 10:11:21 AM
Another corollary -
Of all of you that are active GM's, how many of you do it, now, because *you actually love it*? I don't mean "It's okay, but I do it because no one else will".
You GM because you're actually passionate about it? Do you like talking with other GM's about techniques, methods etc. to improve your skillset? Or does it bore you to tears?
I love GMing i like learning more techniques and methods and i do like talking about GMing when i can too. Unfortunately, most GM advice ive found on youtube is awful outside a select few.
I really love GMing, and I'm good at it, but recently I've had difficulty prepping, so I've been more of a player this last year.
I think there are really merits to this idea of tiers of GM, and I would be very interested in a "for GMs book" that would expound that.
My rpg time has probably been 95% in the DM seat. D&D was my primary hobby for about 12 years, and in that time I played pretty much every weekend and only got to be a player about twice when someone else wanted to try it. Since then I haven't had that kind of time to put into it, so I've been playing in other folks' games. None of these were long term, with the longest campaign going prolly 8 months. Atm I'm writing a game and will soon need to start testing it, which means back into the DM role.
Quote from: tenbones on August 11, 2023, 10:11:21 AM
Another corollary -
Of all of you that are active GM's, how many of you do it, now, because *you actually love it*? I don't mean "It's okay, but I do it because no one else will".
You GM because you're actually passionate about it? Do you like talking with other GM's about techniques, methods etc. to improve your skillset? Or does it bore you to tears?
I do love it. Worldbuilding, roleplaying the NPCs, writing adventures, running the game, and seeing the players enjoy the experience I provide are all deeply satisfying for me. I just wish it required less time
GMing concerns to be mastered? Are these interesting discussion points?
Time saving
Prep techniques
Staging - how to set the structure of your sandbox
Unlearning Linear GMing basics - Deconditioning railroading impulses, and giving maximal agency to players and their PC's.
Scaling and Pacing - letting your games go from zero to hero and not losing control of things.
System mastery - using the right system for the right setting.
Conflict creation - how to leverage all conflict as content in-game.
Immersion techniques
Thoughts?
I'm not the audience for that sort of thing, but I know there are interested folks out there. If you're thinking of publishing a book I think there's a market for it.
Quote from: tenbones on August 11, 2023, 03:19:58 PM
GMing concerns to be mastered? Are these interesting discussion points?
Time saving
Prep techniques
Staging - how to set the structure of your sandbox
Unlearning Linear GMing basics - Deconditioning railroading impulses, and giving maximal agency to players and their PC's.
Scaling and Pacing - letting your games go from zero to hero and not losing control of things.
System mastery - using the right system for the right setting.
Conflict creation - how to leverage all conflict as content in-game.
Immersion techniques
Thoughts?
#1 should be some variant of: setting/determining player expectations. Seems to be the biggest problem in general.
Quote from: tenbones on August 11, 2023, 03:19:58 PM
GMing concerns to be mastered? Are these interesting discussion points?
Time saving
Prep techniques
Staging - how to set the structure of your sandbox
Unlearning Linear GMing basics - Deconditioning railroading impulses, and giving maximal agency to players and their PC's.
Scaling and Pacing - letting your games go from zero to hero and not losing control of things.
System mastery - using the right system for the right setting.
Conflict creation - how to leverage all conflict as content in-game.
Immersion techniques
Thoughts?
I once played in a game where the GM was super-boring. No funny voices, no "chrome," no flowerly descriptions, no colorful NPCs with elaborate motives. He saw his role as a neutral arbiter of the rules, and only stepped in when things bogged down. It was like he was hardly even there, until he needed to be.
Years later, I think he was the best GM I've met.
Quote from: Tod13 on August 11, 2023, 04:28:52 PM
Quote from: tenbones on August 11, 2023, 03:19:58 PM
GMing concerns to be mastered? Are these interesting discussion points?
Time saving
Prep techniques
Staging - how to set the structure of your sandbox
Unlearning Linear GMing basics - Deconditioning railroading impulses, and giving maximal agency to players and their PC's.
Scaling and Pacing - letting your games go from zero to hero and not losing control of things.
System mastery - using the right system for the right setting.
Conflict creation - how to leverage all conflict as content in-game.
Immersion techniques
Thoughts?
#1 should be some variant of: setting/determining player expectations. Seems to be the biggest problem in general.
Thanks! Yeah I have my own private list and that's one of them. So we're on the right wavelength.
As for where this is going - yes, I'm going to be producing something for GMing. It's not just going to be a book, but I'm trying to synthesize something for everyone at every level of experience. I know there is a *tremendous* amount of ego involved in what we think of as "high-skill" GMing... including a lot of GM's that aren't as high-skilled as they believe, but are conditioned to believe so because they play with the same crew. This isn't a BAD thing, but the idea is to develop some developmental tools at different stages of development where GM's can sit comfortably there as long as they want, but have options to raise their own bar if they choose to.
The caveat here is *I* don't believe all games are equal, and not all GMs are equal - there is definitely a path of development that I'm very sure many of you that have been GMing passionately for years already intuitively understand - you guys are the ones I want to lean on for things I may have missed. I am equally sure that no one person has all the answers, but collectively there certainly are fundamental best practices for each "stage" of development.
I see that the direction of D&D as a brand is about to dry-gulch a *lot* of players that will probably be dissatisfied (or will become dissatisfied) with linear play in their digital environment. Consequently I also think D&D (WotC) has done a shit-poor job of advocating for GMing because ultimately they're trying to sell shitty products to people that simply don't know better because very few GM's run more expansive content because within D&D there is very little guidance or incentive to do so.
Outside of D&D there is a WEALTH of older and experienced GM's that have been pushed aside into our respective corners playing different systems (or even D&D in various forms) that can bring that experience to those younger folks that are hungry for higher quality gaming. That requires more people getting into the GM saddle. And collectively *we* should be the ones showing them what we've learned through our experiences.
I'm not interested in being system-specific - but understanding ones chosen system(s) does matter. I'm in the process of formulating everything now, and it will likely be a Rumble/YouTube channel at first. I'm working with a producer in getting all the details set up now. And yes this will culminate into much more, but the GMing stuff is going to be free, and something I intend to support deeply as a I think we need to get more GM's to step up without having to go through all the shit we did from the Holmes era... hehe.
So yeah, RPGsite is going to be part of the epicenter of my endeavours, there is a tremendous amount of experience here. And while we may not agree on everything - that experience definitely matters. We need GM's. They are the heart of our hobby. We need to expand the our *individual community* with standards we can agree on. I want to do my part to keep the hobby healthy and ready to blossom when WotC moves on off-planet with their digital endeavors. And of course there is no better group of bad ass mofos on the internet than you guys to help out. No more sitting around complaining about the damage that WotC has done to our hobby - we're gonna retake it teaching people how to GM with uncommon-sense quality.
At least that's the initial goal. What happens after will be announced in the proper time.
I love to GM.
Much more than playing actually.
Tenbones, what will your book have that other GM guides do not?
There have been 2 big KS campaigns for "How to" books that I know of, probably a bunch that I don't know about. No idea if any of those books are any good, but they certainly made a lot of money from backers so I expect they are "influencers" on social media.
I GM.
Quote from: tenbones on August 11, 2023, 10:11:21 AM
Another corollary -
Of all of you that are active GM's, how many of you do it, now, because *you actually love it*? I don't mean "It's okay, but I do it because no one else will".
You GM because you're actually passionate about it? Do you like talking with other GM's about techniques, methods etc. to improve your skillset? Or does it bore you to tears?
I want to say I only GM because I have to. But I have to be honest with myself. It's mostly down to me not liking the style of GMing I see from other people and not being able to enjoy their games in spite of this. I recently played 5E as a player. And I didn't like it. I was bored and frustrated by all the tedious bookkeeping you have to do with 5E compared to BECMI. I didn't like how there were rigid mechanical answers to every single problem that didn't require any roleplay whatsoever and completely removed any danger from any situation. And the DM was a nice enough guy but he just didn't run the kind of game I like. Which isn't his fault. I have a feeling I wouldn't like any other GM's style than my own at this point. I want things as a player that most GMs just don't want to provide. I want a kind of game with the right amount of challenge in a sandbox campaign where player choice is paramount and the rules are a harmony of mechanics serving roleplaying and vice versa. Along with the game being primarily theatre of the mind without a reliance on clients like Roll 20 or Foundry to make things more rigid and static. Without as much imagination. And I realize this is a failing of myself in being too picky. But I don't enjoy other games and don't want to force myself on other games that aren't my style. So I just have to run games myself. Which I do enjoy. And others in my group seem to enjoy enough to pay me to do it. But not enough that it inspires them to GM a game in a similar style to me. That's no one's fault either though. It is how it is. I'm making my own game that I intend to distribute and use to encourage the style of TTRPGs I like. So we shall see what happens in the future.
My hope is as Large Language Models get more advanced there is some kind of AI GM LLM that you can get to GM any game you want in whatever style you want. So I can play TTRPGs and have fun.
As a GM, there's something really important about the relationship you have with your players - and that is the expectations that you have towards your players: your demands towards them even.
I have seen my share of tables where the GM is attempting something which can be clear in his own eyes, but that he forgets to communicate clearly to his players, and then the play at the table is just passable - when it could be terrific if the players were hip to what the GM is proposing.
What I'm trying to say is that a book about GMing and progressing to become a better GM could benefit from exploring/discussing a GM's ambition relative to his table and his players.
Quote from: Lychee of the Exchequer on August 13, 2023, 05:47:23 PM
What I'm trying to say is that a book about GMing and progressing to become a better GM could benefit from exploring/discussing a GM's ambition relative to his table and his players.
https://www.amazon.com/Master-Game-Gary-Gygax-1989-07-24/dp/B019NELG5G (https://www.amazon.com/Master-Game-Gary-Gygax-1989-07-24/dp/B019NELG5G)
Quote from: Spinachcat on August 12, 2023, 06:50:10 PM
Tenbones, what will your book have that other GM guides do not?
There have been 2 big KS campaigns for "How to" books that I know of, probably a bunch that I don't know about. No idea if any of those books are any good, but they certainly made a lot of money from backers so I expect they are "influencers" on social media.
I'm not going to do a "How To GM" book. I'm going to create a platform for GMing development - for free. Its only one part of the platform, and there is a reason for it. Its not that I'm not interested in money - that comes later. It's that I believe what the hobby needs is to develop more GM's. And I'm intending on creating (with others) a developmental process about GMing fundamentals that leads from knowing nothing, to running one-shots, to creating plot-point driven games which leads to small sandbox play, which leads to large sandbox play. The idea is that there are skills that are nested within different modes of play that increase in complexity that simply are opaque to many GM's regardless of the level of skill they think they're at.
The GMing portion of the bigger plan is intended to be free to everyone that wants to learn or improve on their GMing skills. Very often people don't even know the right questions to ask - and inevitably it ends up with multiple people dickering about minutiae and missing the forest for the particular tree. While I agree it could be lucrative to make a "book" about GMing... my goals are much larger, but I believe the hobby has done a great disservice being led by a corporation that has largely absconded with nurturing the hobby for the purpose of milking a brand and marketing it to successive generations for short-term game. It *could* be bigger and better for everyone.
But the heart of the real hobby - are the GMs. In whatever stripe they may come in. I plan for some core principles to be discussed at length, system-neutral, that will form the heart of this GMing toolbox. It needs to guide noobs to level of GMing they want to have the most fun at - while giving them options for deeper play at their own discretion. It's not about *what* kind of game you run is *better*, I think that's a misrepresentation. It's about nested values - where running one-shots, and modules are fine, you *can* run those in Sandbox environments. But the skills for running a gigantic Sandbox require more attention and understanding to pull off successfully - there is NO point in trying to give a new GM that kind of advice right off the bat.
With WotC leaving the field... this is our chance to get those that fall out of the brand, or perhaps woo them over, to staying in our hobby, while offering a solid foundation for GM's of all experience levels to learn some best practices and standards from one another. And yes, there is a lot of stuff I have planned beyond just the GMing portion of this. But I don't want to speak about all that yet. ;)