Why would anybody want to GM?

[Kat Miller]

I’m beginning to understand why different people game, that each person approaches the gaming hobby looking to satisfy different desires.  

But why do we run games?  

I understand that GMs will still approach the hobby looking to satisfy a particular desire.  Is there more than that?  What makes a particular gamer the GM?  What Does the GM get out of being a GM?

I lack the words or terms to explain why, but I feel there is a difference between the steady player and the steady GM.  I believe it goes beyond control issues.   I had thought that this idea would have been over discussed but I have been having trouble locating previous discussions on this matter.

So, I’d like to know, when you choose to run a game, what influences your decision?  Why do you run what you run?  When your looking at a new game what are you looking for as a gm?

[TonyLB]

I used to think (foolishly) that I, personally, could more robustly pursue my Creative Agenda as GM than as player:  "Sure, they just want to show how cool their characters are, but if I had the power of the GM I could show them how much better it is to address internal conflicts.  They'll be so grateful!"  Incoherence in sharp relief.

Nowadays I do it for variety, like playing catcher even though I'm best at shortstop.  And, of course, I do it for logistics:  to leverage the offer of GMing in order to form a game that would not otherwise have happened.

I evaluate new games no differently as a GM than as a player.  The value of a game is to the group, no matter what position I personally hold.

[Clinton R. Nixon]

I'm beginning to understand why different people game, that each person approaches the gaming hobby looking to satisfy different desires.  

But why do we run games?

Interesting question - one I'm approaching myself in an essay I'm writing.

My current thought: why do people become proctologists? Seriously - doctors specializing in the general poop area? Or, to be more serious, why do people become psychologists, camp counselors, or sports coaches?

To ask why you'd be a GM, you need to first know what a GM is. My working definition of GM duties:

a) Facilitation. No matter the Creative Agenda, all need a facilitator to happen, someone who will approach hot-button issues, or coach and referee competition, or guide towards a particular aesthetic.
b) Separation of conflict and resolution.

To GM, you need to want to facilitate. This requires a certain mindset, a willingness to accept leadership positions. My current quandry is this: do people GM because they have gotten what they want out of role-playing, and want to share? Or do they GM because they are not getting what they want and seek it through a different role?

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

One thing I'm really happy about from all our babbling in these forums over the last few years is distinguishing between necessary GM-tasks vs. the artificial construct of "the GM" as a person.

Kat, I'm not sure if you've checked out any of that, but the basic idea is that there are (for lack of a better word) "organizing and management tasks" at all levels of play which get distributed among the people who are playing. I think they're listed in the Glossary under "GM-tasks."

Those tasks are absolutely necessary, but the distribution of them (and which ones, and when) varies all over the map. One such distribution is to shovel all or almost all of them onto one person, and for some screwy historical reason, this rather untenable option is often considered the default.

As far as I can tell, putting all the GM-tasks onto one person is a horrible idea, suited only for relatively messed-up or at least highly limited Social Contracts in the first place. At the very least, such a distribution is really tiring for the centralized person, and includes many unique self-moderating requirements for everyone else, some of which aren't typically fun in most activities.

Even "the GM" as usually assumed by most RPG designs and texts doesn't usually go that far.

I think a key element of any good RPG design is finding a set or distribution of these tasks which is fun for everyone, regardless of who's carrying which tasks at any given moment.

If a given approach to distributing them isn't fun for (say) me, then the answer to your question, for that game, for me, is "Never." That's why I can't fathom GMing Continuum, for example - the range of tasks which I woul be uniquely expected to carry is just out of my range of fun. Exalted also comes to mind (speaking only of the core book); I can see what I'm expected to do, and I recoil from it.

I hope that idea helps, or is interesting. If so, could you further describe what you had in mind with the phrase "the GM" in terms of the tasks?

Best,
Ron

[xenopulse]

I think Clinton's on to something. I used to be the GM for the longest time in our group. As a TA as well as my first job after grad school, my Facilitator duties were my favorite aspects of those jobs.

Of course, I also think that being a writer has something to do with it.

[pete_darby]

to pick up on the twin threads seeming to develop here ("Why I GM" and "What do you mean GM?")...

I drifted into the GM role because it was, under the assumed modus  operandi of the local gaming culture, the only way to gain substantive input into the direction of the game. As a player, my tasks were to create a character with hooks for the GM to use, and then use tactical skill to "win" adventures.

And yes, once in the GM role, I continued this MO. Hey, that's The Way to play, right?

I'd happily go back to non-gm play if I could be sure I wouldn't be "colour" for the GM's plot... deprogramming of locals continues...

[Rob Carriere]

I also think that Clinton has an unfairly large share of the truth :-)

For me personally, there are a couple of reasons in addition to the facilitation and logistics stuff already mentioned:

- Surprise. When they think of something that wouldn't have occured to me in a million years, that's wonderful.
- Taste. There are games that I enjoy GMing, but wouldn't be particularly eager to character-play.

SR
--

[Sean]

I GMed (DMed, in those days) the first game I ever played, with my family, because I wanted to play more than anyone else and that was the way I could do it. (Also, I suppose, because it gave me power over my parents, which I used to kill my father's character over and over until they wouldn't play with me any more.)

Then I played at the local library club and had a blast. Then summer ended and I ran at my school because I was one of two kids who knew how to play.

Then I started GMing all the time because everyone else was terrible at it. I was so overjoyed when I finally got to high school and got to play again, because there were lots of people in our club who were really good GMs.

Now I mostly GM because even though I know some good GMs, almost none of them can reliably give the kind of play experiences I like except in one-on-one games, which are kind of a thing unto themselves (though not completely different).

I'm more comfortable with the GM's role because it's a giving role, EVEN in functional adversarial gamist play, and more obviously so everywhere else. You're providing stuff for other people. John Barth's story "Lost in the Funhouse" has a line about being the kind of person who makes funhouses for other people rather than getting lost in them yourself, and that always struck me as being exactly what being a GM is about.

I hate the GMs role currently because I'm in serious need of certain kinds of wish fulfillment right now that it doesn't provide me.

The observation that 'the GM' is something of a fallacy and that there are several roles there that can be apportioned in lots of different ways seems a rather liberating one, though one I've just barely really started to explore in practice.

Clinton, I agree with you that facilitation is extremely important. Let me ask a question though: there's social facilitation for both in-game and out-of-game issues, and then facilitation of playing that game with respect to system things and the communication of imaginative content (keeping everyone on the same page). These things seem like they could get subdivided, as long as you have multiple cooperating leaders, an agreed-upon distribution of authority for different tasks.

An example I remember from the old days were games with different 'teams' of adventurers in the same setting, sometimes adversarial, sometimes just separate, with the GM-team moving back and forth between the separate rooms to 'referee' (here in a more literal sense than normal) the separate groups.

I guess what I'm wondering is what breakdowns of the different kinds of authority (and kinds of facilitation that go with them) are functional relative to (a) traditional and (b) nontraditional apportionments of the cluster of duties that were once thought to go with 'being GM'.

[lumpley]

This is in support of Clinton's "separation of conflict and resolution."

There's something pretty interesting my co-GMed Ars Magica group has been noticing. I don't know whether my fellow players would say it this way, but:

The GM wants to know your character in a very particular way.

I articulated it on my blog kind of like this: there are three ways of knowing a character.

First, as the character's player/creator/owner/author. I want to know my characters inside and out so that I can do them justice.

Second, as the character's audience/fan. I want to know my fellow players' characters because they are SO COOL and I catch my breath every time they come on screen. I can't wait to see what they do and I can't wait to see who it shows them to be.

Third, as the character's GM. I want to know your characters inside and out, but not so that I can do them justice - so that I can inflict upon them the exact right, very worst grief.

The player and the GM have the same goal wrt the character, which is to make the character shine. The player approaches it by learning what makes the character tick and playing it fully; the GM approaches it by learning what makes the character tick and playing fully against it. Between the two of us, the character comes to life.

--So, for Narrativist play at least, I'd add "providing the right adversity" to the list of GMing tasks.

Furthermore, I think that there are probably very good reasons to give the person responsible for providing adversity some serious rights when it comes to arranging the world around the characters.

I find it personally odd to be coming to this position, after arguing for my entire career here that the GM and the players are the same kind of thing.

-Vincent

[Clinton R. Nixon]

Holy crap. Did I just convince Vincent of my wacky GM-central theories?

So, here's where I think we are on this. (By the way, we're thread-crapping all over Kat's topic here. Should we split? Maybe. We're figuring out what a GM is, which will tell us why you'd want to be one. If you're enjoying this - or not enjoying this - speak up, Kat.)

So, there's three - I'm adding a new one - different types of things we're talking about with the GM.

a) Traditional GM duties: making up the world, playing NPCs, introducing conflict.
b) Traffic cop duties: Apportioning the above duties out and refereeing.
c) The facilitator: the central social and authoritative focus for the game.

None of these have to be the same person. In fact, one person doing all this is weird and hard. This is evidenced as being recognized from the beginning by Gygax himself. D&D introduced the idea of a "caller," a party lead and co-GM who announced the actions of the members of the party to the GM. This "caller" had serious facilitator duties, while the GM was more of an input-output device, taking the traffic cop duties and the input-output duties (which is what I'm going to call the first item above.)

I'm seeing a schematic here, much like a computer. There's the "bus," which is part of your motherboard. It decides what data goes where. It's the traffic cop. There's peripherals - your modems, printers, scanners, and stuff. You put input into them and output comes out. In this case, though, it's your landscape designer, NPCs, and wondering monster generator. You put info into these, even if it's as simple as "I go around the corner" and out comes info, "Two stirges attack."

Finally, there's the guy who points at the computer and says, "Here's something neat. You guys are going to sit down and use this with me. What's the first input you want to put in?" He's the typist, but he's the reason everyone's there.

Using this, what do some games turn out looking like:

Early D&D
Traffic cop: "GM"
Input: "player"
Output: "GM"
Facilitator: "caller"

White Wolf Storytelling
Traffic cop: "GM"
Input: "Player"
Output: "GM"
Facilitator: "GM"
(see how one person does everything? see how it doesn't work?)

Dogs in the Vineyard
Traffic cop: "GM"
Input: player or "GM"
Output: shared, generally conflict winner or opposite of input
Facilitator: "GM"
(pretty traditional, but apportions out input and output. this game is where my ideas are all coming from, by the way.)

Elfs
Traffic cop: "GM"
Input: players
Output: "GM" or player (in the case of Dumb Luck)
Facilitator: "GM"

Universalis
Traffic cop: shared duty, everyone's responsibility
Input: one player
Output: another player, winner of conflict
Facilitator: guy who called for the game
(see! even the the GM-less game, there are people acting as the GM. we just don't call it that because it's spread out.)

[Paul Czege]

I think of four categories of narrativist motivation:

[list=1][*]I can play to express my particular vision for a particular protagonist. (And for this I'd want a GM like Tom, or Vincent: "I want to know your characters inside and out...so that I can inflict upon them the exact right, very worst grief.")

[*]I can GM responsively (like Tom and Vincent), to facilitate (via appropriate antagonism) the player's expression of their protagonist.

[*]I can GM to express a particular vision about a particular antagonist of my own design. (And for this I'd want players who author their characters responsively.)

[*]And I can play to author my character in response to a GM's vision for antagonism.[/list:o]I've done all four, at various times and with varying degrees of success. Right now I'm really itching for system-facilitated #3.

Paul

[Bankuei]

Hi guys,

I find myself GMing for several different reasons.

- Being a system monkey pushes me into being the Helmsman for a group very often.  
- Few people I have met have a good grasp of how to run Nar or Gamist games, so I'd rather at least run it and introduce it for others
- I enjoy some elements of world building/interpreting setting

The first point is something I wonder how often occurs in general- that the person who is quick to grasp rules ends up being the helmsman and GM by default?   If I had a choice about it, I'd probably get to be a player 50% of the time and GM 50% of the time.

Chris

[Lance D. Allen]

Quick aside, then on to the main topic:

White Wolf Storytelling
Traffic cop: "GM"
Input: "Player"
Output: "GM"
Facilitator: "GM"
(see how one person does everything? see how it doesn't work?)

See how it doesn't work.. for you. It worked for me for years, and if I pick it back up, I imagine it will work even better for my knowing more about my play preferences. This is an entirely workable paradigm of play, if the play group, and the individual in the role of GM. Even so, facilitator is hardly a formalized role in most traditional games, and as such, it can very easily be a strong player. In one of my White Wolf games, and in my Shadowrun game, I had a player who very much acted as facilitator (different people even) by helping to drive the plot in a given direction, giving me something to work with, and catching and using what I threw back. In both games (again, entirely separate groups) the facilitator player was the "central social and authoritative focus for the game", but in earlier games, I fulfilled that role, as well as the Traffic Cop and Output duties.

And I don't consider myself that shit-hot of a GM. (as I segue from my not-so-brief aside into the main topic) I GM 'cause I've always GM'd. At first, with the free-form one on one games I used to do with my friends, I GM'd because I was the one with the imaginative drive to invent whole fantasy or sci-fi worlds and bring them to life for my friends to explore. As it progressed, I found more imaginative "players" who took on slightly more active roles, feeding me with what they wanted to happen in play.

Then I discovered dice, and created my first roleplaying game, before ever seeing one, out of a Battletech Technical Manual. At the time, I didn't know the numbers in the book were intended for a roleplaying or tactical miniatures game. I thought it was just a resource for enthusiasts of the fiction. I was the GM because, still, I had the creative drive to create the game, the universe. The rules were pretty much in my head for the most part, though I generally stayed consistent.

Then I was introduced to real RPGs, and for the first time, *I* was the player. My friend knew the games, and so he ran them. But then I moved away, and I ended up creating a D&D knockoff called Dragon's Legend (Grade A Heartbreaker material..). I didn't create it so much because I had problems with D&D, (though I did) as because I couldn't get my hands on D&D (parental prejudice added to lack of money), and because of the oft-mentioned drive to create. As I later came to be introduced to "real" RPGs (my first was V:tM, and I was asked to guest GM within the first month of playing) if I wasn't the expert, I soon came to be. Frequently, I turned non-gaming friends into gamers, because I was the only one around. My longest running and most-successful White Wolf game had only one player with previous RPG experience, and he wasn't even close to being the driving player.

Eventually I got into a group which included more experienced gamers, in which we had a rotating GM policy. Most every player ran something. I ran Shadowrun. Eric ran Star Wars D6. Josh ran D&D3E. The other players were peripheral, but did eventually get into running games, right around the time I got out of the service.

My current gaming group has two GMs.. Lxndr and myself. I'm running TRoS at current, and he's running DitV. I have a deep-seated, long-repressed yearning to PLAY, but I still enjoy running. Part of the reason I still enjoy GMing is, I believe, habit. I've always GM'd. Another part is the same sort of thing others have mentioned.. I have my favorites, and I know the only way I'll get to play them is to run, which is a pity.. Because most of the games I run are games I'd really, really, REALLY love to play.

Another part, possibly the main one, is that GMs have other points of contact for exploration than players.. More of them, in general. Players in most types of RPGs have their character as their point of contact in the setting, and that is their sole, or at least very primary, means of interaction and exploration. I enjoy the limitations inherent in one character because it forces you to explore in more detail, which is why I generally prefer the traditional GM/Player setup. But on the other side, the GM has multiple NPCs, some of which are entirely 1D, but others of which can, over the course of a campaign, take on almost as much dimension as a player character. This is usually more difficult to do, because the GM has other responsibilities, but the number of NPCs helps keep it interesting, fresh. Additionally, the GM usually has ownership over most aspects of setting, which can be used as points of contact for exploration. It's the exploration aspects that I really enjoy, I think, and as GM, there are a lot of ways to explore.


Note: I use the term "points of contact" several times during the last paragraph. I believe there is a Forge term called the same, but I do not know it's meaning. As such, please note that my meaning may be different (or may be the same, for all of me). I use the term because it comes to mind easily, and describes best, for me, what I'm talking about. What I mean when I say "point of contact" is a point within the Shared Imaginative Space with which the player can interact to explore and affect the SIS.

[Clinton R. Nixon]

The first point is something I wonder how often occurs in general- that the person who is quick to grasp rules ends up being the helmsman and GM by default?   If I had a choice about it, I'd probably get to be a player 50% of the time and GM 50% of the time.

And I'd bet that "GM-by-default" equals an unhappy GM.

After going all out to define GM, I'll talk about why I GM. See, I don't get to play often at all. I GM almost every game I play in. And I like it.

Trying to explain why, I come up short. I'm not certain why I like it. I'll try to check off reasons.

1) Control
Ok, it's a little of this. I like pushing the game towards different roads. The way I said that, though, I realize I don't do all the GMing. I work as the traffic cop, directing things, but turning final decisions over to players.

2) Story-telling
I get to play new characters every week and still be in the same story. I get to make outlandish characters I couldn't play for weeks straight. I get to break the rules in terms of who and what I can play.

3) The chaplain
This is a specific form of the "facilitator" I mentioned. I get to ask questions, not answer them. I am the psychiatrist, the counselor, the chaplain of the group, as I get to ask "In this situation, what would you do?" I don't ever have to answer that.

What might that say about me? It's an interesting question.

[CPXB]

All of this is in my experience not particularly reflective of anything.  But as to why people GM . . . .

1.a.  The feeling of power.  I put this one first because I'm thinking very particularly about a player I know who likes to GM and is hyper-controlling about it.  He wants the players to do things HIS WAY and will use a great many social strategies -- pouting, cajoling, bribery leap to mind -- to have the players do things "his way".  Which is the "right way".  It is reasonably obvious to me that he GMs largely to feel in control of his life.  And while this particular player is amongst the worst I've ever met, he is pretty far from the only person I've met who is a GM largely to be in charge of things.

1.b.  Social accolades.  This sorta goes with the previous one.  The GM GMs because they want the social recognition of the group; they want to be the center of attention.

I consider both 1.a. and 1.b. to be really dysfunctional, but I think they're pretty common.

2.  Someone has to do it.  This was particularly true in the early days of gaming for me.  Playing RPGs generally requires a GM and to play that game, someone had to do it.  Usually the person who introduced the game to the group.  Which put us in the common situation of the GM running a game he wanted to play in.

Also dysfunctional, but to a far lesser extent than 1, hehe, and if the person happens to want to do number 3 it isn't even so bad, most of the time.

3.  Wanting to tell a cool story.  Regardless of their CA, they have this thing they want to do in game.  Under this catagory I'd largely place the other things people have been saying about why GMs GM, so I won't repeat them.