(Made redudant by following post. Didn't think this post uploaded. Weird things going on with this board.)

Quote from: Darran;277598Ultimately, it is everybody at the gaming table who is responsible for everyone having fun. It is a group effort.

That sounds nice in theory. I doubt it's the case in practice in more than a fraction of RPG groups. Most players have far less invested in the game than the GM. They just show up and run their characters. That's it. They don't necessarily feel they're responsible for making sure the other players know the rules, have lots of fun things to do, and get along well. That doesn't mean they can be cocksmocks. They just have to play well with others.

But there's a lot more to a smooth running game than playing well with others. Someone has to organize, communicate, assess, adjust, and basically make sure the whole machine runs smoothly. If you can manage that with each participant taking an equal responsibility for the RPG session, then good on you. I doubt it's common.

I am not saying that everybody at the table has the same amount of responsibility for everyone to be having fun. Some have more responsibility than others.
Mostly that is the Games Master but it could also be the host for the game venue, the most hobby-active player, or even the coolest player in the group.

Sometimes when the game has turned into 'non-fun' it is usually not the GM's fault but another player or two that are out of order.

The main difference is that every player is clearly responsible for them, personally, having fun. Their fun depends on it.
The GMs fun, on the other hand, is the only one that explicitly depends on EVERYONE having fun.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;277995The GMs fun, on the other hand, is the only one that explicitly depends on EVERYONE having fun.

That is true.

However some players are considerate to include everybody else having fun also.
Sometimes at the cost of some of their own fun times.
They are not good players but GREAT players. They help out everyone in the group.

While this isn't always true, I would say that one thing I like best in a GM is someone who comes up with the "creative vision" for the game.

Creative Vision is left somewhat intentionally vague, but it encompasses obvious and traditional things like setting, initial situation, key NPCs, and so-on (in other words, the GM provides the creative input for a large percentage of the elements in-play).

Equally important, the GM-with-a-creative-vision would come to the table with a set of ideas that he wants to explorer (e.g. ones relevant to the setting and initial situation) and a perspective.

The Pundit's question about "what would a space-faring society that had been at war for generations be like?" is a great example of what I'm talking about: were I playing in that game I'd get a lot of thought and interesting speculation beyond the primary action in the adventure.

Btw: I would compare this to the role during the execution of the game of a Director in a movie (I'm not entirely sure there's a great analog in a book; author works for a good deal of it, but it's not a perfect fit: even if the GM is the author of the story in many ways, the players still control the protagonists). A movie director is responsible for things like tone, framing, pacing, and so-on that fit the execution responsibilities nicely. Of course in an RPG, the GM doesn't enforce the plot or direct the players so it's by no means a perfect analogy.

During the execution of the game, the GM is partially, but significantly responsible for things like pacing and tone -- and particularly supporting a tone that's aligned with the themes and elements the characters are interested in exploring. Part of this would be facilitating immersion (to the extent that it's a player goal).

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: Darran;278025That is true.

However some players are considerate to include everybody else having fun also.
Sometimes at the cost of some of their own fun times.
They are not good players but GREAT players. They help out everyone in the group.

I agree, at that point they are acting out of charity, over and above self-interest, however.

RPGPundit

Quote from: droog;277146There is no GM. There are only tasks performed by somebody in the group (eg providing antagonism, resolving disputes, detailing backstory etc). These are tasks that must be performed for the game to proceed. Many games centralise many of these tasks in one person, commonly called 'GM'.

If you meet the GM along the road you must kill the GM. Preferably with a sniping weapon with full surprise.

-clash

Or, you know... meditate for several days in the mountains until one realizes one has the spirit of the wolves, that the path of the assassin is as important and valid a means of acheiving enlightenment, and then kill the GM anyway, despite the fact that at that point no one expects you to, because it is necessary for elightenment for the GM to die...

Quote from: Spike;278131Or, you know... meditate for several days in the mountains until one realizes one has the spirit of the wolves, that the path of the assassin is as important and valid a means of acheiving enlightenment, and then kill the GM anyway, despite the fact that at that point no one expects you to, because it is necessary for elightenment for the GM to die...

Eating the GM's heart is optional, but if you don't, you won't gain his courage.
His rich, tasty courage!

-clash

Doing anything else is a waste of perfectly good, usually fatty and (therefore...) delicious meat...

But remember, since this is all about following your chosen path to enlightenment, the GM should be EXPECTING you to kill him on the path. That's the POINT...

Quote from: Spike;278159Doing anything else is a waste of perfectly good, usually fatty and (therefore...) delicious meat...

But remember, since this is all about following your chosen path to enlightenment, the GM should be EXPECTING you to kill him on the path. That's the POINT...

Which is why Vegans make lousy GMs. Q.E.D.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;278124If you meet the GM along the road you must kill the GM. Preferably with a sniping weapon with full surprise.

Kill the GM, become the GM.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;277348Side 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.

Some of us have had gaming groups for years - we're all friends, and we game in our homes.  I don't want complete random strangers gaming in my house.  I am very open to new players (though saturday games are becoming very packed now).  Some of us only have one group of friends who game, so its not like theres some limitless pool of players to choose from.
I enjoy who I play with.  That said, the group composition has changed over time - people move, new players were brought in, my two groups merged.  

QuoteNot 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.

I don't advocate it per se, but for me, where we game in my house, I'm not inviting random stranger in to game here.  If someone knows someone and wants to bring them in, thats fine.  But I've got a good group, and I like gaming with them.

Things aren't always as cut and dried as you would make them out to be.

I boardgame with all sorts of people. I'm involved with the local wargaming club, I play Euros with several groups of gamers, and I run events at the local convention.

I play RPGs only with my close friends who I've played RPGs with for almost 30 years. Why? Because we share the same likes and approaches to gaming. And I would find it far more difficult to play RPGs with people I didn't know well than boardgames. I can't really say why. Maybe it's because I don't see RPGs as a tactical boardgame, but rather as an immersive experience. I can move pieces around a board with strangers and casual acquaintences. I can't play-act the role of Mygran the Mystic with strangers.

And besides, I have no interest in the crunch-fest that counts for mainstream RPGing, and nor do have much interest in hanging around with a bunch of 17-year-olds in my spare time. So even if I wanted to play with a bunch of strangers, I doubt I'd find a group that suited by preferences - both social and gamewise.