Fun play for the GM?

[David C]

I ran a play-by-email game a few years ago. One of the best things about it was that the game was very open-ended; each player had his or her own agenda, and no one knew which characters were PCs or NPCs. The players plotted and acted in completely unpredictable ways, and my great joy as the GM was reading their reactions to in-game events. They naturally escalated conflicts, using social and political leverage as well as good old B&E and combat. Pure joy as GM, and for most of the players as well.

One of the worst things about it was that the game was very open-ended; each player had his or her own agenda, and no one knew which characters were PCs or NPCs. As GM, I played a half-dozen NPCs as if they were PCS, with a full cast of just over fifty NPCs. Just tracking the movements of the characters as they wandered city streets, gathered information, broke into buildings, spied on enemies, smuggled goods, explored subterranean passages, and fought each other, all took so much time!

Starting in January I'm trying again, but with some major changes aimed at reducing my workload so the game can remain fun and not so much like a job. First, I'm using a forum instead of email, so players and I will post updates to a web site. Second, there are fewer NPCs this time around, although players still don't know which characters are PCs or NPCs. Next, the game story is not nearly so opened ended -- at least not for now. Also, the first game ran in weekly cycles, and the new game will run in daily cycles; the idea here is that more frequent updates also mean smaller updates, so my time is spread across the week instead of roller-coastering.

Here's an idea: has anyone tried co-moderating a game with another GM? I realize that this presents extra challenges, but consider the potential benefits: not only do you share the workload, but the "two heads" principle could improve the game quality and give the GMs a new level of socialization with each other. Of course, the first challenge is finding someone who can share that kind of role...

I've had problems getting enough players, let alone enough for another GM. I think the issue is in our society, there are a bunch of instant access "addrenaline shots" of entertainment, and now they've aimed some at nerds, so people don't want to bother with trying for something that needs to be "Set-up."  Particularly since WoW came out, I've noticed more and more people going "Uhh, yeah, the wife needs me to repair my armor, I mean the sink" instead of showing up. Of course, this might just be the people I know, but I do know about 30 gamers *shrug.*

Even though I played that game till the end, I still don't get how people work at it like it is a career. (All I have to do is show up for 20 hours a week for 2 months, and I can get 'promoted' to showing up for 20 hours a week for a different set of 200' of the same dungeon.)

As far as more disconnects and play examples from my games, 1) I don't have anymore. 2) I was trying to come up with some general solutions, not some specific fixes for my issues.  Also, 15 hours was the top end of how much time I spend preparing, most weeks it is probably only 5 hours.

[contracycle]

Here's an idea: has anyone tried co-moderating a game with another GM? I realize that this presents extra challenges, but consider the potential benefits: not only do you share the workload, but the "two heads" principle could improve the game quality and give the GMs a new level of socialization with each other. Of course, the first challenge is finding someone who can share that kind of role...

I have tried this, it did not work for me.  Other reports I have seen have been more positive though.

I found that what this often meant was double prep, and ceratinly more prep time.  The co-GM had to be briefed, and materials prepared for that briefing.  Either that, or things diverged too much anyway, defeating the point.  Plus, this was also someone who was now not playing, and having less fun; plus, you can have creative differences over which direction to go in.  All in all it went belly up, and I don't have much enthusiasm for the idea any more.

[Christopher Kubasik]

This one is for Mike Nystul....

Hi Mike,

I came across this statement from another website. The author was speaking of the game Burning Empires: "The thing I realize now that I didn't know before is that this is not a 'GM reads up and creates a big thing and the players show up to be entertained.'"

For some reason that statement reminded me of this thread -- and in particular your post and a specific memory of a game with you.

I don't know if you remember it, but it was a fantasy game your were running, I believe during playtests for the Whispering Vault rules. I had a character -- Harrod Withersap -- that I was having a blast playing.

For those of you playing along at home, Harrod was one part Duvall's character from the movie the Godfather and one part Black Adder -- but actually on his game. He  cunning and out for himself -- but always put himself in the role of "advising" others.

One of the things I loved playing about him was the fact I was really trying to come up with agends for Harrod and driving that agenda forward.

Now, there was one session one night at your place -- with Joe, Brian, Dawn -- and I think Mitch.

And you kind of sighed during the wrap up and we had one of those post game discssions that were pretty prevelant in that whole gang. You basically said you weren't satisifed with the game that much. When pressed, you said (to my suprise and chagrin), "Well, Christopher's the only one bringing anything to the party."

Now, I was suprised and shocked because:

a) I had just been named as the teacher's pet (not a title I had been seeking), and I felt a certain  frusration reaching out to me from some of the players how had just essentially been told they weren't bringing anything to the party

b) I had already picked up the vibe from several players that they wished I'd just sit down, sit back, and let the GM do his thing so we could be "entertained."

I believe the campgain wrapped up shortly after that. (We moved on to Whispering Vault -- or the CoC campaign where I played Bill, the slow-witted dock worker and one of my favorite PCs ever...)

Now, my question is, I'd say that for many folk the quote above ("The thing I realize now that I didn't know before is that this is not a 'GM reads up and creates a big thing and the players show up to be entertained.'") is sort of what an RPG experience is supposed to be.

I'd also say, given your post in this thread that it's sort of what you expect it to be. But in the same post you suggest there's not always the pay-off you'd like.

And you also seemed to suggest (and this was years ago, and you might not even remember) in the incident I described above, that you liked the player input -- and didn't want to just "tell" a story, but create with the players.

So, I'd love to hear more about how your group plays now in light of the quote from the other thread and this memory I've pulled up from years ago.

Thanks,

Christopher

[Leviathan]

   This is actually the first time I have posted here, but the subject is one I felt I could actually offer insight into. The original questions of the post were:
1 Which games have you played which have a system that is far more condusive to fun GMing? Why is it that way?
2 What can be done to increase the reward (motivation) for being a GM?
3 What can be done to reduce the barriers to GMing?

   To the first I have to say that there are two things that are most helpful in setting up a game where the GMing is something that flows naturally and doesn't have to be a constant struggle. The first is the setting. A game that includes a strong feel of how the world of the game is will help greatly in focusing everyone onto the same path, player and GM alike. Everyone can read it and everyone can say "This game is going to be about <insert topic and theme here>" Details can be worked out by a GM, but the feel has to be there or you might as well just start the whole world from scratch and then go through the extra work of making sure you convey that feel to the players right away.
   The second portion of what makes a game easy to use as a GM is the Mechanics of the game itself. If the mechanics flow logically from the theme of the game and the usage, then it is easier to take the focus away from the dice and onto what is going on at the time. That is often a struggle in my experience when using a system where the system for resolution doesn't really fit the theme, players end up with more focus on that than is neccissary and it tends to detract from immersion.

    For me, the second question is one I have a hard time putting a finger on. I enjoy both playing and GMing. I GM often due to a need to be creative. I love to expand the details of a world and to create in any form. It is most satisfying for me when my players express how they enjoyed a game and felt like it really drew them in. I suspect the question is one that only each person can answer for themselves. What I want out of GMing is the sense of having created something beautiful together with the players.  Another person might find that only to be a side effect of why they GM. Regardless, I think that not getting so caught up in the detail work has been the best way to keep me satisfied with GMing. I will detail this a little later in the post.

   As for barriers, again it depends on your style and reasoning for GMing. For me, the biggest barrier is when people feel apathy towards playing or grow too focused on what the stats say to conscern themselves with story or theme. How to solve this will vary from one game to the next. I have found that not letting myself focus on the stats can help players to focus on them only when neccissary to progress the story. (A classic example was the old concept of rolling dice to see who gets drunk first in some of the D&D games I was a player in. I never understood why anyone would care so much about what the dice said over what was actually fun to play. Then again, some people find it fun to have the 'best at this' sort of characters.)

   When I prepare to GM, I have learned that working out the full details of every NPC may be interesting, but it really doesn't help draw the players in. Instead I only stat the NPCs who are going to be most actively using stats and just fall to a set of template stats for anything that needs it along the way. Also I often only put a few of the more important stats on side characters (A thief who likes to cook might have lockpicking stated, but cooking might be on the fly). I also try to just go with what seems to make the most sense to make the story fun. Rather than rolling for everything, I often make a show of rolling behind the screen, but just going with what will be most effective to build a story and draw the players into active participation. I don't see this as pulling punches, but rather focusing on what is important. Players who want to feel like everything is random still feel they have gotten that, yet players who would otherwise become aggitated at some random event damaging their story would not be upset.

   One of my personal favorite tactics only works when used very sparingly, but I have on rare occassion /added/ background to someone's character through roleplay. This can be accomplished by flashbacks, barely remembered things that start to come back thanks to what is occuring at the moment or other such things. The example of actual play is to follow:
   I ran a campaign for a friend for many years. It was a one player/one GM setup, but a lot of the setting took its cues from his character so that rather than the player just reacting to what I put out, we both reacted to one another and the story build as a cooperative effort. We played almost daily for two years (no joke, 3 hours 5 to 6 days a week) so noticably I didn't have the time or ability to do huge stat workups or anything of the sort, but instead relied heavily on generic stats for NPCs and improv for events.
   As one would expect, it became difficult after a time to work new ideas in without it becoming a reactive game where I just set everything up and the player just acted on what was happening. This was when I first struck upon the idea of introducing a new element from the character's past in a way that the player would be just as surprised with the outcome as if it were a story they were reading. I began to give the character vague nightmares every so often that didn't seem like they applied to the current situation. This itself made for some interesting RP, but was all building up to the main event. Each new nightmare built on the last and it became clear that what the character was seeing was from the perspective of a younger person. It didn't become clear that it was the character himself however until the In Game event occured to make it all come together. It was actually a supressed memory of an actual event from the character's own youth. Having played with the player that long, I knew what his PC would and wouldn't have done in that situation, but also knew that he had never really worked up much about his character's childhood, so it served as a perfect way to suddenly make the current events very personal. The NPC from the dream was the same NPC he was suddenly dealing with.
   I don't know that this exact method would work for every player, but it was one of the things the player listed as a highlight of the entire game. We both greatly enjoyed every single session, but that one was one of the top five events of the entire game and it really helped craft a whole new outlet for us both to explore the game world. It made it personal for the player, but also made it so that I could do less footwork before games to find ways of drawing the player in. Since then I have used similar things from time to time to help a struggling player to feel like a part of the story rather than just someone observing and reacting. Obviously the more common version of this is to take something the player says is in their PC's background and just expand it into a playable current event.

  Anyway, I have ranted long enough I think. More or less I would say that GMing can be work, or it can be play that you work on. The difference is how you go about it and what your group is wanting out of it.

[David Berg]

The co-GM had to be briefed, and materials prepared for that briefing.  Either that, or things diverged too much anyway, defeating the point.  Plus, this was also someone who was now not playing, and having less fun; plus, you can have creative differences over which direction to go in. 

Here's a rather different model that worked well for two friends of mine:

GM1 has plot and situation ideas, a good physical imagination, but isn't a good actor and doesn't get into his NPCs.

GM2 has tons of character ideas, likes portraying various badasses and insider-knowledge-holders, and hates arbitrating rules and spatial logistics.

Divide up prep and during-play tasks accordingly.

More generally: if co-GMs' skills and interests complement each other, it can be fun for the whole family.  David, if you have the time/energy/interest, you could try to figure out what parts of prep you find least fun, and then seek out someone who actually enjoys those tasks.

[David Berg]

A note about players seeking passive entertainment:

In my experience, players only settle into a "entertain me, GM" mode if they fail to find a way to successfully engage in play.  The first choice is always to do something, even if it's just to wander around within the setting and investigate the parts of it that most interest them.

Relating that to the GM experience:

I'm not trying to say, "GMing is never so much work if you have engaged players."  Erick's point about exhaustive prep for immersion-obsessed Sim players certainly rings true in my experience.  I'm just saying that the GM might need to do less work, and will likely derive more satisfcation from the results of that work in play, if you try to work with your players instead of writing them off as slackers.

David, I apologize if this is tangential to the cause of your dissatisfaction.  At the moment, I don't have a very good idea of what that is.

[David Berg]

Last post for now, I promise.

David, you mention wanting to play, and playing being more entertaining than GMing, and "darn the dearth of GMs."  If part of your problem with being a GM is that you don't get to be a player, have you tried making fun NPCs to run? 

Many GMs here at the Forge seem adept at deriving an immense amount of satisfaction from making and playing NPCs specifically tied to their plots, settings, situations, etc. 

Or, you can do what I used to do: make a character using the game's char-gen system, just like every other player, and have your character be a part of the Adventuring Party (if it's that kind of game).  It doesn't produce all the fun of being "just a player", but definitely some of it.

[cydmab]

Oh another approach comes to mind. One fo the GMs in the group switched to a zero-prep, zero-story approach, where he just let the characters wander around town and get into trouble on their own. "A bar fight every session" became a mantra. He was using GURPS with alot of optional combat rules. This allowed the inevitable bar fight to each up at least a third of the session, gave every character a sizable list of skills to fool around with, and every player took 40 points of social/mental disadvantages. Which they used to abuse themselves with. "My character is a lech, so he'll get himself in trouble in short order." He also had attendence-based exp system, which encouraged some players to show up, and a very large group of players, so if only 1/3 showed up any given week the game would go forward. Hardly anyone made any attemtp to drive a story forward. It would take 4 sessions just to move from one town to another sometimes.

I don't know if he found this approach very fun... he would complain about it alot... but he did keep it up for like a year, and some of the players liked it. It definitely solved most of the downside costs of GMing.

-William

[David C]

Ok, we seem to be having two conversations going, and mostly we're beating around the bush of what I intended.
1) GMs are a rare and discontent lot, what can we do to fix this? What have games out there done to fix this? (My intended question)
-Which games have you played which have a system that is far more condusive to fun GMing? Why is it that way?
-What can be done to increase the reward (motivation) for being a GM?
-What can be done to reduce the barriers to GMing?
2) What problems am I (David) having? (The one mostly being addressed)

To address #2, this is what issues I think I'm having.
My current group has 1 gamist, 1 simulationist, 1 narrativist, and 1 who I think is a gamist, but am not sure.  The assumed two gamists want combat and to become powerful. The simulationist wants things to be realistic, very deadly, and quite ordinary. He's the type that thinks that you should die 99 out of 100 times when fighting a dragon, because that's 'realistic.' The narrativist chats constantly unless there is an NPC, which he engages exclusively, or there is "flavor text." In other words, if it isn't about him, he's disruptive.
I've come to just ignore anybody who's being disruptive and to focus on those who aren't, there's often multiple conversations going on.  This seemed to help.
The other issue is they don't want to add anything to the imaginary space. They are purely reactionary players. There isn't much roleplaying, and when it is there, it is purely reactionary. Also, I've tried to encourage them to "speed things up." The simulationist is particularly against this idea. He wants an initiatve to be rolled every combat, a defense and attack roll every attack.... He's the type of guy who wants a roll to be made to see if he slept on a root and so he'll be sore in the morning.
Despite the above issues, I think what bothers me is that I don't recieve any feedback about my campaign. I don't hear about how cool a fight was, or how sinister an npc was. I don't even here if something was crappy.

The prep time isn't a problem for me, a lot of it has to do with the scratch built nature of the game I run. I've run with a lot of groups and am quite confident in my ability to react to changing situations. I know I don't need to spend an ounce of effort before the game, it's just my choice to.

To address #1. I don't know exactly what I'm doing with this information yet, but I'd like to compile a group of mechanics and system design theory that breaks down the barrier of GMs. I easily know 50 players. About 10 of those are also GMs. Of those 10 GMs, all but 1-2 are burned out, inexpierenced (and boring), or don't commit to games (low priority in their life, bad quality for a GM to have.) With numbers like that, I understand why people are drawn to games like WoW. The computer games figured out the GM problem - Now I want to solve the problem for p&p.

This post is getting long, I'll continue it next post.

[David C]

I'm a big proponent of mechanics. While system is also important, mechanics are rarely ignored, especially those that provide a boon to players - they want to utilize whatever will make their experience more rewarding. Here are the solutions I've come up with so far, please let me know what you think.

1. Active life paths. Pretty much, the players choose 1 event per 2 hours of play, write down a short description of what happened, and how it effected their character. If they slew a bunch of goblins, maybe they felt remorse, or hatred. They then categorize this under Anger, Hope (opposites) fear, or pride (also opposites.) This allows a GM to know what stuck out in a players mind, and creates more things for them to work off of. These emotional quanities will occassionally come into play. For example, if there is a sword stuck in the rock - each player might attempt to pull it out. Arthur, though, has a very high hope score, and manages to pull it out where the others failed. Another player might sense danger because of his high fear score.

2. The old XP trick. Essentially, players get some bonus XP if they tell the GM two things they liked and one thing they want to see added, changed, or not done in the future. This is done at the end of each session.

3. "Painting a scene." Forcing your players to tell the GM what they're doing instead of being reactionary. Unfortunately, lengthy explanations and play examples are the only way to convey this in writing, that I've figured out. The issue with this is it is very much a soft skill.

I've realized that character development and GMing seem to go hand and hand, so more techniques that force the players to develop their characters and make decisions, the better.

I have a play test coming up, I'll have some of the soft matter you guys love so much for you in a week or so. :)
Again, thanks for your help.

[Callan S.]

Hi David,

Instead of 'making GM'ing fun' how about we look at what you find fun to begin with? Like a session of diablo, or chess, or some other board game...whats an example of a game you enjoy?

Rather than looking to make GM'ing fun, perhaps you should look at a game that is already fun, then look at how that/something like it could be used to forfil GM'ing duties at the same time.

[David Berg]

Which games have you played which have a system that is far more condusive to fun GMing? Why is it that way?

I think the reason why many people are responding to your specific problems rather than this broader question is that "fun GMing" is so subjective.  A game that makes GMing fun for one guy might make it hell for another guy.  We kind of need to know where you're coming from and where you'd like to go in order to give useful advice.

I also think that the discussion of game selection has been muddied by social contract issues.  If you ask players for feedback and they don't give you any, they're dicks and that has nothing to do with the game you're using.  Dick players will always be a disincentive to GMing, just as players who appreciate the work the GM puts in and tell him so will always be an incentive to GMing.  The answer to your questions

-What can be done to increase the reward (motivation) for being a GM?
-What can be done to reduce the barriers to GMing?

becomes: find players who communicate, who know what they want to play, and want to play something the GM wants to run.  And, of course, find a game that everyone (GM included) wants to play.

I hope you're not getting too frustrated.  I suspect that when we have a better idea of your tastes and desires, game suggestions will start flooding in...

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi David C.

I'm with David B. on this one. Can you give more specific examples of actual play. What rules did you use? (And which parts of those rules did you use?) What moments of the game went great -- what excited you and made you happy you were playing? What parts bored you?

I have plenty of games to offer that provide easy GM prep, lots of fun for the GM, and are driven by players (Primetime Adventures leaps to mind)... But that doesn't mean it's a game that's going to work for you.

Christopher

[cydmab]

the barriers you identify can be solved by playing boardgames like (advanced) heroquest or space hulk. If the GM likes "gamey" games, they can also be more fun for the GM.

Or to put it more personally, when I burned out on GMing at one point I took a year and played alot of boardgames. Worked pretty well, until I got bored of tactitical play.

After that phase I started a highly structured campaign, with what I'll call a "branched railroad" - every session would have at least one major choice with at least two options that the characters/players would have to make, that would have important consequences on how the game progressed. What _I_ wanted was a story, with a touch of imput from the players, so that's what worked best _for me_. It got mixed reviews from players (some loved it, some were ambivalent, some quit), but what was essential was I enjoyed it.

[nystul]

In answer to Christopher -

Back in the bad old days most of the people I played with were spectators. They played but they liked that I had a story to tell that they could be a part of. Initially I dug having the audience - it was a big part of what I got out of GMing - but over time it started to become frustrating. When I realized what could be done with gaming I was eager to share the experience and try new things. My group wasn't really interested. They liked things the way they were and barely tolerated my experiments. That isn't meant to be a criticism. They had every right to their preferences. Eventually I found new ways to scratch my storytelling itch and lost interest in gaming entirely.

I have come back to gaming because of my kids. Kids as a species are far more open to exploring new ideas than their elder counterparts. I started having fun again.

As far as keeping things fun for the GM goes - what seems worthwhile is creating more viable options for different kinds of GMs. For years the cliches of the "Dungeon Master" and "Narrator" created expectations that were very difficult to step away from.