Quote from: Gene Weigel;277309Not necessarily those types though. The classic ball break for me is the big mouth who doesn't know when to can it. They're usually quite reserved and well spoken and they have a lot to say. Thats the difference between a true GM and a clod with a screen. That is, if you can get that guy to shut up and play then you've earned some kind of chops. If he returns to play and you don't have to "go there" again then thats a "game master".

But it does not necessarily have to be the GM who tells the person to shut up. I mean, the couple of times I came across disruptive players, the whole group played a part in telling the disruptive person to get with the programme or take a hike.

Regards,
David R

I insist on having public games every blue moon with unknown players so I get a good crop of random personalities.

Side topic: Gene reminds me:
I think one of the most screwed up trends of the 2000s is the advocacy of closed gaming, where you only game with people you know intimately, and you go out of your way to vigorously pre-screen people. I agree with Gene here, I think a public game now and then to refresh the gene pool is very important. I try to invite at least one new player or remix the group up (a different assortment of friends) every time I run a new campaign.

Not inviting crazy people to a game is absolutely sensible, but I think people really took this too far, and got to the point where the default assumption is that people are crazy, dangerous, or obnoxious. That just isn't the case. A couple of emails is usually enough to figure out if someone is insane or obnoxious, and you can always just kick people out of a group (nicely, even) where they aren't working out.

Ironically, the loudest advocates of only-gaming-with-people-you-know-intimately are often a mix of

A) The people you would least like in your game (they are themselves pretty fucking obnoxious)
and
B) the most aggressive with strangers at conventions, usually in a promotional or advocacy sense.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;276965In essence, players play for four reasons:

1) Friends: the social group of the players and GM
2) Wonder: to explore stories and worlds of imagination
3) Heroism: to have the experience of being more brave and capable than you are, and/or to be a deciding factor in important events.
4) Acting: to get into the mind and behaviour of another, imaginary person.

The purpose of the GM is to make easier those four things, and to do a bit of it themselves. GMs run game for the same reasons players play, but with the extra element that it's nice to see other people enjoy themselves, and know that you made it possible.

That is actually a pretty good summary.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;277348I think one of the most screwed up trends of the 2000s is the advocacy of closed gaming, where you only game with people you know intimately, and you go out of your way to vigorously pre-screen people.

I don't think I "vigorously pre-screen" anyone, I just want to meet them at least once before we game. Or have them introduced by a player I already know. But then, most of my gaming is at my home.

At a con I don't care, I just game with whoever, and if I go as a player to someone else's group I expect to only know whoever introduced me.

I think much more common than actual advocacy of closed gaming is its practice. You get a little group of three or so gamers who over the course of a couple of years of gaming become very good friends. Lots of other people come to their group, but never feel quite comfortable because of the three amigos. Other player's inputs aren't welcome, they're given the message, "shut up n00b." No-one stays long.

But really that's human. We form little groups and do our best to stick to them. It's much easier than always getting to know new people.

Bringing it back to on-topic, I think part of the role of the GM is to make sure everyone, new or old, feels welcome and gets a fair go. That's one reason I run those short, closed-ended campaigns where I rotate at least one player out and a new one in. I remember one player saying, "I didn't realise we were such a tight group until X came." I want to keep shaking things up, making sure lots of people get a chance to game and meet new people.

Kyle,
  My answer is not really related to anything I read. It is just a melange of my own experiences.

  To me a GM is more like an Editor of a movie or book. Meaning they don't control the production like a director or producer. And they don't generate content like an actor, author or screenwriter.

  But, they bring it all together, they overlook or ignore the meaningless stuff or bad takes. They put the various contributions together and give it all context. And they find a theme for all the content combined.

  In other words, they don't write the story. They take everything from the game book, players and die rolls and some how make it make sense.

My own group, fortunately, has never had a problem with bringing new people in.  We regularly have players coming and going from the group with a few players being very consistent. Of the 5 games I'm running right now, only one player is in all 5 games.

I think that one of the most idiotic statements ever uttered in the context of RPGs is "You should only game with your friends!!"; I have a ton of friends I would never want to game with, and there's nothing about the condition of close friendship that would make it particularly suitable for gaming with, or make the game better.  Some of the people in my gaming group I consider close friends, but most of them are acquaintances (albeit close acquaintances based on seeing each other regularly).
And if "friend" is a prerequisite to joining someone's gaming group you've pretty much created a closed, incestuous, bound-to-die-out gaming group right there.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Gene Weigel;277309If he returns to play and you don't have to "go there" again then thats a "game master".

Uuuh-Uuuhh. That would be a baby-sitter.

I think the first time I saw this in gaming was around 1985 or so. Before then we had a few episodes of TPK's and such, but it was never really a big deal, since it didn't take that much time to generate up new characters. Up till then I don't think anyone had really conducted a campaign where the players felt vested in their characters and were so reluctant to lose them that they felt the need to challenge the authority of the GM in arbitrating a game. I take that back. In 1983 I had one guy playing a Necromancer, and another playing an Elven Lord split the party and declared war on each other. This created quite a few GMing problems.

It's kind of interesting how this evolved. With 1e it took quite a bit more time to generate characters, especially higher level ones and some players wanted to keep on playing their favorite character no matter what.

I'm not sure how long they wanted to keep on playing them, but judging by the nature of the game itself, the social contract that had previously existed in the D&D and AD&D games changed between 1980 and I'd say around 1985 or so that took the game from a game being hosted and arbitrated by the GM to a game being hosted by the GM with the players challenging. Often...

Rules proliferation was a major escalating factor here as their were so many new rules, variants, and add-ons that the GM really couldn't keep up anymore.

Thus the authority in the GM passed on to become the authority of the group and true munchkinism was born.

Quote from: GameDaddy;277493Thus the authority in the GM passed on to become the authority of the group and true munchkinism was born.

I think there have always been munchkins, However, in the early days of RPGs everyone gave the GM the authority to overrule and, when necessary, smack down a belligerent and overreaching player. But as some point in the mid-80s, a lot of players stopped putting trust in the GM.

Part of it was because players got younger, and it's harder for a 12-year-old to trust his buddy's older brother than it is for a 19-year-old to trust a fellow gamer. Part of it was no doubt due to asshat GMs abusing their authority. In any case, that's when we started to see comprehensive rules sets that took as much discretion as possible away from the DM.

Utlimately, the GM is the only person at the table who is responsible for helping everyone have fun. In my opinion, that greater responsibility naturally comes with greater authority.

(double-post)

Quote from: Hackmastergeneral;277180There is no gm, only zuul!

Are you the Key Master?

I don't go to cons; the only gaming I do is GMing a group of five or six players; most of us have been together as a group for years, playing long-term low-power campaigns.

I screen new players mainly to insure that they have a clear understanding of what we expect (show up on time every week, don't be an ass), and what to expect (we use the same system tailored for the setting, we change settings about every 50-70 sessions, they're always low-power).

I look upon GM'ing as representing the laws of nature, and the NPCs. You rule on whether something is possible, or if it is, how difficult it is. And you depict the NPCs, planned and improv'd.

As a general rule, I begin a campaign with about 12-20 sessions' worth of scenarios. By the time the players have worked through those, the cause & effect of their choices and actions have written the rest of the campaign. Frequently up to half of those scenarios are abandoned or re-written because of PC choices.

I like the editor comparison; IMO a GM's job is also to insure, as discreetly as possible, that the PCs remain faithful to the roles they have chosen.

Quote from: RPGPundit;277466I think that one of the most idiotic statements ever uttered in the context of RPGs is "You should only game with your friends!!"; I have a ton of friends I would never want to game with, and there's nothing about the condition of close friendship that would make it particularly suitable for gaming with, or make the game better.  Some of the people in my gaming group I consider close friends, but most of them are acquaintances (albeit close acquaintances based on seeing each other regularly).

And if "friend" is a prerequisite to joining someone's gaming group you've pretty much created a closed, incestuous, bound-to-die-out gaming group right there.

Yes yes yes!

Quote from: Haffrung;277518Ultimately, the GM is the only person at the table who is responsible for helping everyone have fun.

Ultimately, it is everybody at the gaming table who is responsible for everyone having fun. It is a group effort.

QuoteUuuh-Uuuhh. That would be a baby-sitter.

Maybe its just a different experience. I can't speak for all GMs because heck they can be talking about different approaches that I don't comprehend.

For example, when you said "munchkin", that appellation doesn't exist to me. That usually crops up in a branch of D&D that I don't understand. They exist in what I call "minimalist" campaigns where, as I see it, the game master pushes for a state of low level fantasy malaise and the players overreact in all sorts of ways sometimes immaturely, sometimes irreverently, and sometimes pedantically. I sometimes feel like I'm running a D&D rehab!

So this is a pretty big pond we're dealing with here especially in regards to one game (D&D) and its game master role (which isn't specifically what this thread is about).

Actually, I can't even speak for the vast majority as I don't play much beyond classic TSR these days. I certainly don't play 4E D&D but I've tried many games before 4e D&D like Late 1e, 2e, & 3e D&D, GURPS, Rifts/Palladium, 4e Gamma World, and many others some made from whole cloth.