TheRPGSite

Over on my blog, there was a comment by Thanuir on an article (http://thevikinghatgm.blogspot.com/2008/10/impossible-thing-is-trust.html) I wrote where he pointed me to an old Treasure Tables article on "How different rpgs define the GM's role (http://www.treasuretables.org/2005/12/how-different-rpgs-define-the-gms-role)." He looked at first 30 and eventually 97 different rpgs, and he concluded (I quote in a summarising way),

• There is no "perfect" definition of the GM's role — but there are plenty of lousy ones.
• A lot of these definitions, especially the older ones, don't make being the GM sound like fun.
• Putting something this important at (or near) the end of a core book is a big no-no. Why should someone who is new to the hobby, or new to that game, have to wade through the whole book to find out something so crucial to the game?

This made me curious about stuff I'd written. The only currently-published rpg I've written for sale is d4-d4 (http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?currency=USD&products_id=3197&it=1&filters=0_2400_10112) (others not published and not for sale obviously have less detail in them), and I put in it a whole GMing chapter - really it needs some tightening up with the Game Play Styles chapter, though I do expand on all the things said here. Anyway for what it's worth, I said,   In 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.
What are some other GMing definitions you've seen - preferably other than the 97 listed in that article - or your own?

PS: come discuss this at #therpgsite!

"The role of a superior DM is NOT to tell a story to his or her players. The DM need only provide an interesting and challenging environment for the players to explore and then administer that environment totally impartially. Superior players will be able to create a character-driven, interactive story from these raw materials, and neither the players nor the DM can tell where the story is headed."

Stuart Marshall (the main OSRIC guy).

I don't think that's a superior GM, AoF. I just think it's one way to play (or run games).

Regards,
David R

A game master is something rarely achieved in role-playing games thats for sure...

;)

Seriously, I would have to say a GM always has to be a ball-breaking referee first and an indifferent participant second no matter what the game. Otherwise you're going to eat a shit sandwich for a few hours...

Well, ball-breaking if you have a rowdy or power-gamey group.

Ours is pretty good - we all GM at one point or another, so in D&D, this works well, because we all know the ridiculous exploits a system like 3.5 has, so we are loathe to really push the game-breaking envelope because if we do, we'll all try it in eachothers games.  Well, and we're all friends having fun, not jerks in a dick-waving contest.

So, we often never have the problems others seem to have had with CoDzilla, or Diplomacy trumping every written rule in the game, or someone trying to break something stupid like Pun-Pun out.

I tend to be a relatively lenient GM - not a Monty Haul or anything, but I like my groups having fun.  I'm not overtly out to stomp all over them, though I do enjoy handing them their asses from time to time.  The most recent decision of mine is to allow players to chose the items in the 4ed parcels.  I could spend time trying to figure out what they want most - that +1 Flameburst Sword or the +1 Deathcut armor, or since 4ed has all the magic items balanced by level, I just get them to dice off for the particular magic item in said parcel, and tell the winner what level item or lower he can pick.  Theres no chance of them picking something too powerful, cause its all pre-balanced.  Saves me work, makes them happy, and I don't have the worries of rolling up a Frostbrand sword MANY levels too early because we rolled insanely well on the random treasure tables like I did in another campaign.  Forgot to roll one item, so I let the player who would be recieving said item roll (in front of me), and he proceeded to rattle off the most ridiculous array of consecutive rolls I've ever seen.  Also saves me from the situation we ran into with a dragon horde, where the DM apologized because he rolled up an assortment of potions, scrolls, wands and handful of really weak and useless magic items.  Man alive, we were pissed.  And this was 2nd Ed, where you didn't get to sell your magic shit.  You just dumped it on your henchmen and hirelings and followers.

There 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'.

There are no players, there is no GM, there is no game.

Done.

My thoughts...

"Some GMs become aggressive dictators over games. This is actively discouraged when playing API. Yes, GM generally stands for “Game Master”, a title worthy of someone who creates a world. But try thinking about it as the “Game Motivator” or “Game Mentor” instead. These terms are actually more correct. It’s your job to direct the action, plots, and stories, but players have the real control of the game’s direction. The GM controls the world, but you do not control the characters."

-Oni

I'm with Age of Fable (or Stuart Marshall as the case may be) on this one.

I have a hard time not bringing the rails a little bit in one-shots or at the very beginning of a game (just to get things going), but my favorite parts of any game are the surprises... shit I just plain couldn't have planned for, but which absolutely work given everything that's happened so far.

I wouldn't play in a game without a GM. Closest I'd come is a rotating GM game or one where the GM has one player help with this and that (I routinely have someone else keep track of initiative for me).

There is no gm, only zuul!

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;276965

• A lot of these definitions, especially the older ones, don't make being the GM sound like fun.

Interesting, since earlier this year I took to using the term "referee" for this sort of thing.

I like to think of the role of the Games Master as like that of a Ring Master of a circus crossed with a Toast Master at a formal function.

A few thoughts in no real order:

• Being the GM, or whatever, isn't always fun for everyone. That's why the players generally out number the DM.
• I'm not sure we need aperfect deinition of GM. My game is no worse for wear with out it.

Quote from: Hackmastergeneral;277006Well, ball-breaking if you have a rowdy or power-gamey group.

Not 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".

Yeah, I guess I'm lucky. I don't have to game with those kind of assholes.

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.

(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.

Quote from: droog;278340Kill the GM, become the GM.

There is a type of universal GM that is too frequent: the "player who is only playing with a mind to steal your players". They don't even care what you're saying and just wait for a lull to promote their game. I usually will just go with "the shanghaied" to see what all this promotion was about and it usually turns out that the entire world will crunch down on my head just for showing up it always seems. But I'd never resort to insinuating "my game" at a game no matter what (even in "retaliation") but I must confess that I do enjoy it when they come back all paranoid to the table (bathroom, cigarette, etc.) after I've told a few potent but irrelevant jokes...

I'm such a bastard!

Sorry. ;)

GM is a motor company.  

Seriously, GMs are the people who run the simulation.  Assistant GMs are people who might help the main GM, in role playing the Director, to put the Players/Protagonists into particular situations.  These Asst. GMs are called Auxiliaries (or auxiliary egos).  the rules are there to assist them.

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.

Personally, I occupy the middle ground here; I won't outright refuse to play with someone simply because they're not my friend, but at the same time I won't game for very long with someone if it's clear that there isn't at least the potential to be friends there. If all you have in common with someone is an interest in RPGs that's not really a strong basis for a long-term association.

This doesn't mean that I won't be civil to such a person over the course of a session or two, but if it's clear to me that I'm only going to be "Warthur, the guy who GMs" or "Warthur, the guy who plays the mage" and nothing more than that to this person - or, worse, if our personalities actually just plain clash - then I'm not going to be taking part in long-term campaigns with them.

For what it's worth, I find that an actual personality clash is far more common than flat-out neutrality: generally people like to shoot the shit before sessions in my part of the world, and generally in the course of that people get better-acquainted and friendships rapidly form. I suspect most of the time when people say "only game with friends!" if you interrogated them their position would end up looking more like "only game with people who do not have entirely incompatible personalities!", which is so obvious it should go without saying.

Quote from: Gene Weigel;278462There is a type of universal GM that is too frequent: the "player who is only playing with a mind to steal your players". They don't even care what you're saying and just wait for a lull to promote their game.

That's never worried me. I believe in a game group free market. Competition is good for GMs and players both. If you know your place is not assured, it makes you try to bring something worthwhile to the table - snacks, if nothing else.

Knowing the players have a few other campaigns they could be playing, but chose mine, or knowing nobody showed up because other stuff was better, this makes me a better GM. Knowing I was invited to a game group to play when they could have invited a dozen others, or knowing I was set aside in someone else's favour, this makes me a better player. Competition drives excellence. Monopolies lead to stagnation and general shittiness.

It's best when everyone feels free to come and go as they wish. That way, nobody who would rather be somewhere else hangs around to make things dull and depressing, and nobody who wants to be in and contributing lots misses out.

Gaming is like sex, technical skills are nice but enthusiasm is most important. That's why Weigel's posted video of his game session was so awful, there was no gaming enthusiasm, just smoking and talking shit.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;281098That's never worried me. I believe in a game group free market. Competition is good for GMs and players both. If you know your place is not assured, it makes you try to bring something worthwhile to the table - snacks, if nothing else.

Knowing the players have a few other campaigns they could be playing, but chose mine, or knowing nobody showed up because other stuff was better, this makes me a better GM. Knowing I was invited to a game group to play when they could have invited a dozen others, or knowing I was set aside in someone else's favour, this makes me a better player. Competition drives excellence. Monopolies lead to stagnation and general shittiness.

It's best when everyone feels free to come and go as they wish. That way, nobody who would rather be somewhere else hangs around to make things dull and depressing, and nobody who wants to be in and contributing lots misses out.

Gaming is like sex, technical skills are nice but enthusiasm is most important. That's why Weigel's posted video of his game session was so awful, there was no gaming enthusiasm, just smoking and talking shit.

If you think that I'm a tyrant who needs to be taken down a notch then I think its a misread. I take care of referees and players. I actually listen to what an unforgivably screwed player and referee is saying and I'm most exhuberant as a player and referee.

As far as come and go, I'm all for it.

As far as the video, the only player there who is fit enough for public consumption is the guy in the back who isn't saying anything when the camera was rolling. These are players from the early 80's with the same characters from the early 80's playing in a continuing campaign from the early 80's. Not exactly pop in guys. And I don't cuss or smoke when I run the public campaign and I certainly wouldn't put strangers on film! That video was a video of old players still playing the same game with their last surviving or most well off characters. So you can take it as your personal nightmare game but theres no reason to not take it for what it is: screwing around with a camera when people weren't playing. Thats all it is. Next time, I'm going to film I guarantee it.

I've certainly never had a problem with player-poaching stealth-GMs.  Possibly because my games have a reputation for being extremely awesome and no one would bother to join for such a dumb reason.
Possibly too, because in Uruguay the gaming community is more like a big pool of players where people come and go from campaigns however they like and there's relatively little feeling of scarcity here.
And of course possibly because the gaming community here knows I'm a Freemason, and it has already been hinted at them that they shouldn't "remember" having ever seen the last guy who tried something like this, who obviously ain't around anymore...

RPGPundit

I don't believe that i ever had a bad reputation as game referee, in addition to constant new people I get the same people back all the time when running a public game.  Pick 15 people out of 30 for a date and you end up with less than 4 people showing up so you have to be real flexible. There is a lot of slummers here in the city who just want a game to play in but would rather be playing something "current" or "different". Thats the type that generates the subclass of "pseudo-player" when they see your cool enough to attract cool people all the time but instead of participating they just want to carve out their own piece that frankly doesn't exist without you. It cracks me up seeing them go to work with the "interrupting press gang BS" but I do feel sorry for them at the same time thats really why I cater to them. I get a kick out of it sure but I do feel sympathetic towards their plight (It was hard finding players out of nowhere before the internet in upstate NY but in the city its a different story.). Its just when I get there to their self-proclaimed "superior games" and its just what I expected: "bad execution with lots of rules and nerdy cliches" that I get a little feisty... I'M NOT A TOTAL BASTARD!!! ;)