Simple Questions: Why the GM?

[Mike Holmes]

In reference to the former reason, though - do you think GMing is an innate skill, or something that can be taught? (I vote for it can be taught.) If it can be, why aren't your players GMing? It seems selfish and irresponsible to me - much like that guy who always bums a ride with you or smokes your cigarettes, but never does anything in return.

I think it could be taught. But as most people see RPGs as a passive sort of passtime (more active than watching TV, but less active than, say baseball) I can't see many people attending the classes. In any case, not the "selfish" ones.

Outside of gaming, if we know this guy, we normally stop being friends with him. But in gaming, it seems perfectly acceptable that someone would be the GM every time "because no one else wants to."

I call bullshit on this.

That's not true. I don't leave such friends as this. In you're weekly basketball game, there's the guy who always has to be called to make sure he comes. In the local Theatre Group, most people just want to learn their lines and do nothing more. This is normal human nature. If I knew somebody who was always like that, and never added anything...well, I'd probably still accept them if they were nice. But usually, these people are just proactive elsewhere. The bit player in the Theatre group organizes the Soup Kitchen or something. GMing is just not their "thing".

And I'm somewhat passive in other areas outside of RPGs. RPGs ae just where I choose to contribute (and, FWIW, lots of people think that it's not much of a contribution).

One of the reasons I like my current group is that I know I could e-mail one of them and say "Hey - you want to run something this week?" and it would happen. If I thought otherwise, I'd have a real problem with them.

Well, then you have nothing to complain about. And you're lucky. Lots of players, unfamiliar with the duties, would balk. And I think that's their right.

Nobody is forcing you to play at all.

OTOH, for all you people out there who don't want to sacrifice playing for GMing, consider trying Collaborative or GMfull games. I suggest to you, Clinton, that this may be where your impetus to create Dunjon comes from? Trying to find a way to share the duties?

Mike

[C. Edwards]

Hey Clinton,

 I think that with any skill those that have a bit of natural ability can pick up the torch and run with it with much less effort than someone who has to rely mainly on training instead of talent.  So even if the desire might exist the large degree of effort required to attain a reasonable level of skill keeps most people from even trying.  Such is human nature I suppose.

 Inevitably in the groups I've GMd for one or more people get the itch and want to try their hand at GMing.  I think they see how much fun I have being the imagination catalyst and they want to be able to weave their own ideas and daydreams into the mix as a GM.  These players usually have the desire but not much in the way of natural talent.  This suits me just fine though as I consider the desire the most important aspect of doing anything.  With a little nudging and constructive criticism they do just fine.

 Many players don't have the desire to GM, regardless of if they might be naturals or not.  While I believe that everyone should give GMing a try if only to make sure they don't like it, I really don't want someone GMing for me that doesn't really want to.  I would be upset though if I was feeling burnt out or was under the weather and a player wasn't willing to take the reins for a while and give GMing their best shot.

 Wow, that was a ramble...

 -Chris

[Clinton R. Nixon]

Mike,

I'm not suggesting "classes." I mean, where did you learn to GM? Probably the same place I did - from playing. GMing is a sort of oral tradition - one thing I was glad to see mentioned in "Robin's Laws." If people are playing in a regular game and not learning to GM, then they're not paying attention.

But as most people see RPGs as a passive sort of passtime (more active than watching TV, but less active than, say baseball)

Um. I can't say anything to this except I'm in total disagreement, and completely baffled as to how you came up with this assertion. Playing RPGs is one of the most interactive pastimes I can imagine.

You're on the money as to why I created Donjon - I wanted a game I'd actually enjoy GMing instead of a game where I found GMing to be a complete burden.

Well, then you have nothing to complain about. And you're lucky. Lots of players, unfamiliar with the duties, would balk. And I think that's their right.

Nobody is forcing you to play at all.

You really are curmudgeonly today, Mike. I'm asking a simple question - why play with people who aren't willing to do their share of the duties? I'm not attacking the institution of GMing.

[Mike Holmes]

Forgive the tone of the post but I felt it was appropriate given your original post.

I'm not suggesting "classes." I mean, where did you learn to GM? Probably the same place I did - from playing. GMing is a sort of oral tradition - one thing I was glad to see mentioned in "Robin's Laws." If people are playing in a regular game and not learning to GM, then they're not paying attention.

I am suggesting classes. Learning by trial and error is a horrible way to go. I was a terrible GM for about a couple of decades, and am now probably only adequate (heck, I may be flattering myself, there). Because the only way to learn is to observe or by trial and error. My only real asset was that I was willing. That's too bad.

Um. I can't say anything to this except I'm in total disagreement, and completely baffled as to how you came up with this assertion. Playing RPGs is one of the most interactive pastimes I can imagine.

I said "most people", not Clinton Nixon. I've got players who go entire sessions without speaking, practically, and not for a lack of trying to get them to. Even the more "active" ones mostly are there expecting to be social and be entertained. IME, and I've played with lots of people, the majority of people who play RPGs (as players mind you) come to the table expecting to be entertained, and just roll the dice when they are told to. I say this is passive because, they are not looking to add anything. They are only there to take. And given that nobody (that I'm aware of) has told them that this is bad or anything, I can't blame them.

Of course there are exceptions. And if you're players are exceptions, then, again, you have no reason to complain.

You really are curmudgeonly today, Mike. I'm asking a simple question - why play with people who aren't willing to do their share of the duties? I'm not attacking the institution of GMing.

If you throw a party what are the guest's duties? Isn't it your responsibility as host to do all sorts of work to make it go, and the guests job just to enjoy it and be social? Would you say the guests were lazy if they didn't just jump up and start helping you cook the hors'douvres? Or that they were bad people for not throwing parties of their own? GMing a game does not in any way oblige the players to reciprocate. It's voluntary on your action. You might even be pleased that they come and participate. I am.

I'm not saying that players can't help if they want, just that I'm happy to be the host. And I don't think it's odd for players to expect to be entertained. One can always cut a deal, I suppose. I'll run this, if you run that. But you certainly can't be dissapointed if you bargain for a bad GM.

You know, if I didn't like GMing, I wouldn't do it. I'd go and find a GM. This is in keeping with the Ron Edwards notion that you should seek the sorts of players that you like to play with. If they don't happen to be your friends, that's not your friends fault.

Mike

P.S. I'm curmedgeonly all the time. I just don't communicate it well.

[Clinton R. Nixon]

Mike,

I'm not asking this because I'm saying you're wrong. I'm genuinely interested in this:

I've got players who go entire sessions without speaking, practically, and not for a lack of trying to get them to. Even the more "active" ones mostly are there expecting to be social and be entertained. IME, and I've played with lots of people, the majority of people who play RPGs (as players mind you) come to the table expecting to be entertained, and just roll the dice when they are told to. I say this is passive because, they are not looking to add anything. They are only there to take.

Why are you playing with these people? Again - I genuinely am interested in this phenomenon. It's why I started the entire thread. It doesn't seem like you get anything out of this arrangement.

--

On a different topic, I find your party analogy to be highly flawed. GMing a game is not like running a party - the game is there to provide entertainment to everyone, including the GM, and players are responsible for providing input and fun for everyone else.

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

Um, I recall that the last time we discussed this who-entertains-whom issue, at least one valued Forge member got so mad that he quit the site, and a lot of other people displayed evidence of hurt feelings as well. There's a lot of emotion invested about this.

So ... well, it's Clinton and Mike, so I'm not worried much, but here it is: play nice, you two. Check your own indignation-level before hitting the keys, just in case.

Best,
Ron

[Clinton R. Nixon]

Um, I recall that the last time we discussed this who-entertains-whom issue, at least one valued Forge member got so mad that he quit the site, and a lot of other people displayed evidence of hurt feelings as well. There's a lot of emotion invested about this.

I think that's all the more reason to discuss this. I think most of the frustration that comes in a gaming group comes from no one knowing who is supposed to entertain who, and it's a common reason gaming groups break up.

If someone quits the site because they can't have a reasoned discussion about this, they make a rash decision.

Ron - you're probably a better student of human nature than any of us. Do you have any thoughts on the subject?

[Mike Holmes]

Actually laughed out loud about the whole indignation level thing. Thanks, uncle Ronny.

Mike,

I'm not asking this because I'm saying you're wrong. I'm genuinely interested in this:
Why are you playing with these people? Again - I genuinely am interested in this phenomenon. It's why I started the entire thread. It doesn't seem like you get anything out of this arrangement.

Snarky resonse: because I am not you.

Sorry, I think I already broke the indignation thingie, already.

What I mean is just what I said in my initial post on why I GM. Remember, I'm the Simmie around here. I like to just make things up. Hell, I do it even when I don't have players. Not that I don't like Collaboration, I like that too. I just can operate in either environment. In a "Dramatist" or Sim game I get to make up all sorts of stuff, tell stories (of the non-Narrativist type), and generally entertain the players.

The last part is important. Though the players do not interact as much as you'd like them to, that doesn't mean it's not fun for them. They're Sim players! They love this stuff. And their appreciation shows. They thank me.

Entertaining people is not enough? Why do Community Theatre, then? It's not like they get paid. Lots of people enjoy just entertaining people. I'm just one.

On a different topic, I find your party analogy to be highly flawed. GMing a game is not like running a party - the game is there to provide entertainment to everyone, including the GM, and players are responsible for providing input and fun for everyone else.

Parties are not entertaining for the host? The entertainment for the GM, and host at a party, is entertaining others. Of course its fun for everyone.

What you don't seem to be able to get past is that this is a personal preference that you're expressing. Nothing wrong with that, but we all can't be expected to share your preferences. And I think that you are, unfortunately for you, in a vast minority. Made mostly of dissatisfied GMs.

Not that this isn't changing. I think that Ron's march into the narrative desert is an important movement in getting people to play more collaboratively. And new players can be introduced to playing this way. So, look forward to a brighter future.

Mike "advocate for old school gaming" Holmes

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi everybody,

These past few posts touch on one of the reasons I liked to GM: because I like to be surprised surprised by the players.  Somehow -- especially in my incipit-Narrativist AD&D games back in high school -- I set up situations where I could then sit back and let the players delight me.

Oddly, this had nothing to do with an expectation of being entertained.  And I never thought the players expectes me to entertain them.  I would just think: what situations or narrative elements or sets or character would offer the players the most "toy" value -- and then let them riff.  They always seemed to enjoy the opportunity.

You'll note that a lot of the energy behind the Interactive Toolkit was about bringing that energy back -- to let the players surprise the GM.  After all the work done in either recreating fictional styles (Pulps in Justice, Inc, Star Wars, DC Heroes, CoC) I really missed the fun of creating stories -- which hinge on the character's actions and goals.

But again, this almost depends on not loving, as a GM, making up all the background stuff.  I always saw my job as giving gifts to the players...

Okay, here it is:

I liked GMing because I liked giving the players opportunities to do unexpected things, and in turn, being engaged in plot, character and story opportunities I never expected.

That's it, right there.  That's why I like to GM.

Christopher

[Lance D. Allen]

Hope no one minds me bringing this back up, as it's a couple days old, but it seems like a really good topic.

Before discovering RPGs, I used to run "talking games" where I was the "GM" and usually one other person (sometimes two) was the player(s). I loved this stuff. I'd heard of D&D (the only RPG I'd heard of at that time) but I couldn't play it because my mom thought it was evil. So I did my own thing, no dice, no rules, just playing.
Then I got a Battletech Technical Readout, and used it to create my own RPG (with conversion charts to create my own mechs and everything). It was vastly different than the actual Battletech and Mechwarrior games, but it was fun, and it worked. Then I met a friend who introduced me (on the sly) to D&D and to Robotech. When I moved to Arizona, I created my own fantasy RPG based on D&D 1st. Ed, called Dragon's Legend (trite, no?)

Anyhow, to skip the rest of the history lecture, I've been making up the games as long as I've been GMing and doing RPGs in general. My very first RPG experience was on one I'd made up, with no previous gaming experience... and I ran it, because I knew the rules. Same thing for other games that I didn't create, for that matter.

I love to play (as opposed to GMing), and will do so whenever I get the chance. But at the same time, I like to GM. I'm probably not the best, because I haven't had the wide experiences of some, but I believe I manage to make passable stories, which people enjoy. I know I need work in the details, but in the end... So long as people enjoy my games, that's what really counts, isn't it? But my love of GMing probably stems from my creative nature. I live to create, whether it be works of fiction, detailing some facet of my FFRP forum setting, working on Mage Blade, the occasional piece of art, websites... The list goes on. I GM because it's an awesome, interactive creative outlet... But I like to play for the same reasons, too.

[Valamir]

Yeah, I have a similiar history, only in my case it wasn't because my folks thought they were evil (they bought me my first D&D Expert Set and later the First Edition books for Christmas and Birthday presents), they just thought it was a cute phase I'd eventually grow out of, like legos.

At any rate I had no money as a child (unlike the $50/week allowances I know some kids get today, I got maybe $2 if I was lucky and did all my chores).  So I was left creating everything.

I created my own version of the Dungeon boardgame, my own version of FASA's Star Trek Simulator, my own version of Conquistador, my own version of Star Frontiers, and on and on.  Now that I have a comfortable amount of money on my own, I find myself buying all the games I used to not be able to afford and collecting far more than I ever intend to play, simply because I can.

Being the designer of most of the games we played, and later the owner of the largest collection of games in the group, made me the default choice for GM.  I was always better at crafting amazing campaign settings and intricate plotlines than I was actually running the games though.  My initial efforts were pretty much as Railroad Engineer.  I remember my first gaming epiphany when I discovered the "All Roads Lead to Rome" Approach.  

I've gotten much better, but would still love to have a chance to actually play an extended campaign of something as a player (with a good GM).