[D&D] GM's Fun

[Jason Morningstar]

What I would like to know is a suggestion to what you could possibly give a GM that he dosen't already get?

In a game like Dogs, that limits GM power, the GM doesn't get to be involved in decision-making.  As I mentioned earlier and in another recent thread, it's a curious and very interesting dichotomy - you cultivate a bunch of people in crisis, hopefully with passion and care, and then must stand mute as the players decide what to do with them.  So being able to share and express that emotional involvement in the moment is something the GM "doesn't get".  This isn't a bad thing, because it is what makes the game go, but it addresses your question.

[contracycle]

Also, even if you can indicate the source of the GM's pleasure, that doesn't necessarily mean its a good trade in terms of the effort required to get there.  With so much content creation relegated tonthe GM, it can be a bit more like having a second job than playing a game.  Having or expecting the GM to "sacrifce" for the game puts a lot of load on the social contract, I think.

[Rob Carriere]

And indeed, even if you know where the GM's fun lurks and it seems like the effort involved would be reasonable, that still doesn't help the poor guy do it well. That's where the system support comes in, to prevent the game from getting to the place where "when it goes wrong then nobody suffers more than the GM."

As an aside, I have heard GMs grumble about not getting to character-play; I've done so myself. So I suspect at least a part of the appearance of a red-herring is that Rob (Lamorak33) has hung out with different people than some of the others posting on this thread. So, Rob, that means that quite possibly you are seeing ways of GMs having fun that we aren't seeing or vice-versa. Could you describe the shape of this elephant in your room a little?

SR
--

[CSBone]

What I would like to know is a suggestion to what you could possibly give a GM that he dosen't already get?

Good concrete tools. Kudos for being a rocking GM are great, but a lot of the games I've run as a GM or played as a player bogged down because it is really hard to keep a Shaharazad tale running without being willing to invest a serious amount of time into the process.

Before I had a family, investing 8-12 hours a week to prep for a 4-6 hour a week game seemed no big deal. I loved the idea of designing a world and then showing it off. Now, I don't run because I don't have the time to do that level of prep. Now some would say a module has less prep but that has not really been my experience. Likewise campaign settings are fun but don't really reduce the time either. Actually, the only thing I've ever seen that does is the wandering monster tables, which were taken to the illogical extreme in the Diablo supplements, but they are WAY too random for a campaign of any length.

So...a good set of tools, more freeform than a module, less freeform than a campaign setting, and less random than a wandering monster chart, with really  low prep time that would make that process easier would be great. Then, as GM, the job would be pure fun...like it is for a player.

C. S. Bone

[Lamorak33]

And indeed, even if you know where the GM's fun lurks and it seems like the effort involved would be reasonable, that still doesn't help the poor guy do it well. That's where the system support comes in, to prevent the game from getting to the place where "when it goes wrong then nobody suffers more than the GM."

As an aside, I have heard GMs grumble about not getting to character-play; I've done so myself. So I suspect at least a part of the appearance of a red-herring is that Rob (Lamorak33) has hung out with different people than some of the others posting on this thread. So, Rob, that means that quite possibly you are seeing ways of GMs having fun that we aren't seeing or vice-versa. Could you describe the shape of this elephant in your room a little?

SR
--

What does the GM in terms of fun? Well it depends on the system, as yes different games require different input from the GM. As always, 'System Does Matter'. I GM a Heroquest set in Glorantha so I will talk about what I get from that game.

For nearly 25 years it has been a source of fiction and setting that I have been fascinated with. The background is written in a way that you can (IMO) weave your players characters into the wider narrative - that flicks my creative switch. I've never been much good at original material, but using someone elses to spring off, great! I love making up interesting new characters that I get to play in each game. Each player gets to play 1 person, I play everyone else, meaning I can be a dragon, a troll, a spirit bear or a fish!! Sure I don't get character development, but thats a small price to pay.

I like to be involved a lot of the time, and actually being hard at it all evening responding in character is where I get my kicks. I am on the other side of the conflict, and I love challenging the players by playing versus them.

I have altered my GM style to a more narratavist style of play, and I'm enjoying seeing what players do with the things that I present them with where they have to make meaningfull decision's.

Hows that for starters?

Regards
Rob

[Danny_K]

One of my favorite experiences as a GM is throwing out NPC's and places and having them come to life and take on unexpected new meaning in actual play.  Maybe it's my Sim roots, but I find it deeply satisfying when I mention that there's a tower in the town square and the players soon stage a running fight up the tower or climb the tower in the middle of the night or whatever. 

I think this is a very functional kind of GM's fun, because it sets up a virtuous cycle between GM and players: GM throws out a setting element -> players engage it -> GM gets stoked and expands on the stuff the players liked. 

A different kind of Simmish fun is creating and playing NPC's.  I used to be like a lot of GM's, trying to stick closely to my original conception of the NPC's and playing them out over the player's resistance, if necessary.  Reading and playing Forge-baked games, especially Dogs in the Vineyard, has helped me get past that.  Now I get a crazy kind of enjoyment from seeing how the players take an almost instant like or dislike to my NPC's, and see all their subsequent actions in light of that.  I think this was going on all along, but it wasn't until Dogs that I really started paying attention to it. 

[Adam Dray]

I look at the "what fun does the GM have?" question sorta the way I look at the question, "Why have a GM in your game design?"

Obviously, if the GM's role is necessary for the game, there are some essential functions the GM serves to make the game rock. A good game design gives the GM some responsibility for making the game rock. Making the game rock = fun for everyone.

If the GM isn't having fun, one or more things have occurred:

• breakdown of social contract, typical stuff (GM contribution is moot)
• the GM responsibilities are not backed with sufficient GM authority to fulfill the role (GM contribution is made impotent)
• fulfilling the GM responsibilities is not really essential for a rocking game (GM's contribution is trivialized)
• fulfilling the GM responsibilities do not generally make the game rock (GM's contribution is futile)
• fulfilling the GM responsibilities is hard or boring (GM's contribution outweighs the payoff)
• GM and players have different creative agenda (GM's contribution is lost in an incoherent game)

For example, I have had players just not pay attention during my D&D games, or even go to sleep. This is a breakdown of social contract and I was annoyed. Game wasn't fun for me as a result, though the remaining players seemed to have a good time.

Another example: Creating scenarios for high level D&D 3E characters is a lot of work. I was running games in my own setting and trying to customize every month's game session to the players. I got sick of making high level encounters that took me hours to write when they'd be zipped through in a half hour at the table. The work was hard and the payoff seemed not worth it to me. The players had a blast.

[ffilz]

So what I'd like to see in this thread is what in existing games people have played including but not limited to D&D or heck, even games over in Indie Design, are doing to enhance GM-fun.  How does a GM address Premise?  How does he Step on Up?  How does a game master emphasise Exploration?  Or does he do any of those things?

The answer for my Rune Quest game was that I got to share all this neat Glorantha information with my players. We shared the dream. For my enjoyable Traveller campaign which was also sim, I created much of the background, but we had several enjoyable sessions where the players and I brainstormed about how things worked, so again, we shared the dream.

In my just finished D20 Arcana Evolved campaign, my fun came from presenting challenges. I also tend to run an NPC with the party which gives me some ability to step on up myself (that's always touch and go, and a balancing act to avoid the NPCs overshadowing the PCs - but it still lets me have a cool idea and execute on it once in a while).

In my current Cold Iron campaign, I'm also having fun creating challenges. I'm also enjoying the prep work (which I came to hate with D20 for the same reasons Adam mentions).

Frank

[Wade L]

So what about GMs?  What mechanics in a game like D&D or say some other game like Sorcerer or Dogs in the Vineyard make the game more fun for the GM?  Players get Social Esteem, Adressing of Premise, or Exploration, so what does the GM get?

  I could answer those questions for a whole variety of games, and the answers would be different.  But I'm going to answer it for a campaign I'm currently running - D&D 3.5, Dragonlance.  As in running them through the original DL modules(Dragons of Despair, Dragons of Flame, etc), yeah, those ones, some of the most railroady adventure products to ever come out of TSR.  I'm doing conversion of stuff into 3.5 stats.

  The main thing I get, as others have expressed, is feedback and energy from the players.  Ie: they feed my ego.  "Man, that rocked!"  "Sweet, I can't wait to play again next week!"  Not just their praise for me, though...I, frankly, like to watch.  Like a fair number of geeks, I can be pretty introverted.  And when I'm GMing, I tell myself "The game is about the players, not me!" and thus often try to make myself invisible as much as possible at the gaming table.  Unless I'm needed, I want the players to forget I'm there.  Part of it is because I don't want to "skew" or "taint" what occurs between the players, and in character, with my presence.  Sound sim to you?  I enjoy sitting back and watching the players interact.

  It also helps that I get some variety in.  The game is, I guess, almost purposefully incoherent.  The game sort of occurs on three levels, and I get different satisfaction depending on what part of the game we're in at the moment:

A - Metaplot level.  These are the moments when big reveals happen, villians sit astride dragons and threaten the characters, mystic dreams guide them, goddesses speak to them, etc.  This is the rails that guide the Dragonlance train.  I enjoy saying "Look at this plot, is it not cool!", and I love it when the players respond "Yes, it is!  Let us rage!  Or cower!  Or weep!"  It helps that the players, I think, can tell when we're in metaplot scenes, and are cool with being along for the ride.  These scenes never last more than a few minutes though, which helps a lot, and a significant number of them include significant chances for the players to show of their characters and make choices - even though radically different choices A and B might both lead to the same result C.  I've vowed that if they express a desire to jump the rails and do something that'd pull them off track that I'd go off the track with them and try and forge a different metaplotty direction for them, but it frankly hasn't come up yet.  They like playing along.

B - Exploration level.  The metaplot phases of the game give them some goals, and then they spend time wandering around trying to figure out how to accomplish them.  Here is where the majority of my voyeuristic enjoyment comes from - I get to see what the players come up with, and get to watch them interact and debate in character.  This is where most of the roleplaying gets done as they alternate from "Lets explore this difficult landscape(dungeon, cavern, tower, forest, whatever) and figure out how to get what we want" to "Lets create scenes for sheer drama, showcasing the personal relationships between our characters".  This is also what the players get the biggest kick out of, and so where we spend the most time.

C - Tactical level.  Mostly, but not entirely combat.  This is where they have a definite tactical level goal(break through the enemy lines and reach the drawbridge, retrieve the object suspended in mid-air, hold off the enemy until reinforcements arrive).  We almost always break out the mini's and the battlemap - this almost provides a little ritual to say - exploration over, we're doing tactics now - you've got an objective, use your wits, guts, and resources to win the day.  Here my enjoyment isn't just voyeuristic - it's showing off the cool challenge I've crafted, and the crunchy satisfaction of having it react to the players.  Getting the adrenaline pumping, watching people sweat it - that's cool.  Getting to see what happens.  Usually once we hit tactical level, I lock in the situation behind the screen - for instance, I know how many draconians they are fighting, and that's how many they are fighting - if they players win handily, for instance, I don't have reinforcements come in, I just say "Good job, guys!  You managed to handle that very easily!"  If they're getting their asses handed to them, they know they have to think of a way to escape.  In short: No fudging once you hit this level.  All this and rolling dice and moving mini's too, which is pretty goddamn fun by itself, IMHO...  I've been thinking this is pretty Gamist, but after having written it up, I'm thinking maybe it's also Sim from some of how I've been describing it, just a different flavour?  I have no yet grokked the theory as well as hope. 

Plus, I guess there's a stage that I have but the players don't - D - Prep work.  I make little paper minis, convert stats to 3.5, etc.  For a 4 hour game, I'll generally do 2-3 hours prep work.  I enjoy it because I listen to music, my brain only half on, doing mindless little busy work that keeps me amused, but with a low engagement level that really helps to unstress me.  It's fun in and of itself, and I think it's a mistake to underestimate the fun level of prep for any GM who does enjoy running D&D 3.5, cause it'd better be fun for you or else you may be playing the wrong game.  I think I do game prep for the same reason my girlfriend enjoys knitting, overall - low intensity busy work to relax, with the bonus of having a byproduct you can share with others.

Anyway, that's my D&D example.  Figured I'd mention it, because, honestly, the DL modules are some of the stuff that I think gets the worst "unfun" tag in all of D&D play, and we're doing 3.5 on top of it.  Until recently I ran a lot more stuff like Vampire, In Nomine, Unknown Armies, and a Vampire LARP, but am really enjoying the break from that mode of play I'm getting with D&D.  Over 6 months now, and still having fun, which to be frank I didn't expect.  I didn't think I'd like running D&D...but there you go.

Hope that actually gave some insights on the question of "What does the GM get out of D&D" and wasn't just me rambling.  Identifying what the fun bits are is important, because it means you can focus on it, whatever CA pops up.  The rule of "Does anyone at the table find this bit interesting?  Nope?  Okay, we skip it." probably improves any game.

[Mike Holmes]

I would agree with a lot of what people are saying here. But I have one disagreement - GM's are not relagated to not addressing premise in narrativism. This is a misidentification. The notion is that since narrativism is allowing players to address premise that this means that the GM never can. This is simply untrue. It may be true for some systems (I haven't played DitV enough to know for sure), but for many that I have played it is not.

Often times the ability to address premise is asymetrical. For players it may be as the response to some sort of mechanics. And for the GM it may be in the "traditional" manner of simply creating plot.

Often you get to do narrativism as a GM in setting up a situation for other players, for instance. Playing the villains, for instance, you get to do much of the darker theme creation stuff - sometimes all of it. If I want to set up some dichotomy about how character A has to choose between the lives of two NPCs, I as GM first get to create the theme of "Just how bad can people be?" answering it with "Enough to threaten two people's lives!"

Note that, from a certain perspective, the "Illusionism" GM is playing at narrativism, and pretending that the other players are, too. Especially if he's being more IntCon-ish and making stuff up in play. These GMs are just not allowing the other players to play narrativism (and, hence, the overall agenda is sim). But you can get the same thrill as an Illusionism GM as you get as a narrativism player.

So this is a false dichotomy that all the power must always reside with the players for narrativism to occur. All the players at the table, including the GM can have a portion of the power. Consider a game in which the GM plays a PC, but still "protagonizes" the other characters (meaning allows their players their opportunities to create theme and plot). The only difference there is the asymetry, again, in that the GM provides his own adversity.

I think that may be what the GM may miss. Is somebody making up situation for him to respond to. Though, largely, narrativism players do this, in actuality. Not quite the same thing, but...

Generally I agree that what makes more fun for the GM is a lower "work to fun" ratio. Which can often mean distribution of some of the duties (which on a small scale can then become additional sources of fun for players).

Mike

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

Quotes from Everybody:

...I think that may be what the GM may miss. Is somebody making up situation for him to respond to.

Generally I agree that what makes more fun for the GM is a lower "work to fun" ratio...

...Obviously, if the GM's role is necessary for the game, there are some essential functions the GM serves to make the game rock. A good game design gives the GM some responsibility for making the game rock. Making the game rock = fun for everyone.

If the GM isn't having fun, one or more things have occurred:

breakdown of social contract, typical stuff (GM contribution is moot)
the GM responsibilities are not backed with sufficient GM authority to fulfill the role (GM contribution is made impotent)
fulfilling the GM responsibilities is not really essential for a rocking game (GM's contribution is trivialized)
fulfilling the GM responsibilities do not generally make the game rock (GM's contribution is futile)
fulfilling the GM responsibilities is hard or boring (GM's contribution outweighs the payoff)
GM and players have different creative agenda (GM's contribution is lost in an incoherent game)

For example, I have had players just not pay attention during my D&D games, or even go to sleep. This is a breakdown of social contract and I was annoyed. Game wasn't fun for me as a result, though the remaining players seemed to have a good time...

...Good concrete tools. Kudos for being a rocking GM are great, but a lot of the games I've run as a GM or played as a player bogged down because it is really hard to keep a Shaharazad tale running without being willing to invest a serious amount of time into the process....

...Before I had a family, investing 8-12 hours a week to prep for a 4-6 hour a week game seemed no big deal. I loved the idea of designing a world and then showing it off. Now, I don't run because I don't have the time to do that level of prep.

In a game like Dogs, that limits GM power, the GM doesn't get to be involved in decision-making.  As I mentioned earlier and in another recent thread, it's a curious and very interesting dichotomy - you cultivate a bunch of people in crisis, hopefully with passion and care, and then must stand mute as the players decide what to do with them.  So being able to share and express that emotional involvement in the moment is something the GM "doesn't get"....

-This is all great, and exactly what I was looking for.  The GM's fun comes from a lot of work, and he'd better love planning, scripting, creating people/places/things, drawing maps, etc. otherwise, he won't have much fun.  The thing is though, most games just tell the GM what types of things he needs to make, but then don't give him any tools to do so.  The GM needs tools. 

-Players have lots of tools.  We tend to call the resources or currency, but they are tools for telling their own stories.  Stuff like experience points, dice pools, plot points, character points, background options, feats, whatever else, these are tools for the player to create story, have fun, engage the game, exercise his creativity and so on.  The GM gets maybe a chapter (two if he's lucky) telling him things he probably already knows.  Where are his resource pools for creating NPCs and settings?  Typical games either assume or advice that NPCs must be made in the same or similar manner to the PCs.  Why?  Who wrote that in stone and made it law?  CRPGs don't follow that.  I played EverQuest for years and learned very early on that the orcs and goblins were made by very different rules than my character was.  Where are the instructions and resources for creating more engaging settings?  Dogs has it, but who else?  Imagine if while the players were participating in the Chargen process, the GM was participating in a Setting Generation process that was similar.  Think how he could manage a point system to create villains, allies, cities, towns, treasure troves, you name it!  How much easier on him would it be to create settings if he had tools and instructions to help him-  even if it's just creating a small setting within a larger one provided by the game text.  That would be so much fun!

-I think this is the next step of game design.  We've liberated the players from GM-centric, GM-driven campaigns. Now it's time to give the GMs tools and tips on how to enhance their own experience in the game and thereby provide an even greater experience for the players.  When the GM has fun, everybody has fun. 

Peace,

-Troy