Fun play for the GM?

[David C]

I don't think I'm alone in this when I say, I just don't find being the GM as entertaining (or entertaining at all) as being a player. Part of this has to do with motivation, I think. GMs run for several reasons...
-They want power/control (they want the game played their way)
-They want to tell their story
-They like making the story
-They have the most experience
I'm sure somebody has thought motivations out a lot better then I have, but to move onto my point. Playing seems to be far more entertaining then GMing, which unfortunately kind of puts a cap on how many people play rpgs. I know dozens and dozens of players, but only a couple GMs. If we could figure out how to either remove GMs or make it easier on them, I think we'd see the rpg market expand.

So my questions are:
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?

I've identified the following barriers:
It's a lot of work.
You directly control the enjoyment of the players. (Pressure)
It's difficult to come up with an interesting conflict.
You always lose (pulling punches/built to lose)

The only things I've been able to come up with that reduce the difficulty of GMing is...
Give players control so that they help move along the story. This is what I do, but unfortunately it requires a certain player experience and personality.
Find out what books/games/movies the players have read. Find one none has any experience with and modify the story to use as the campaign.  (I've known 2 GMs that do this almost exclusively, although I prefer making my own.) Or run a premade campaign (which few GMs even realize is an option.)
Keys xp system.

[Callan S.]

In one of our longest running D&D campaigns, about half way through we introduced the rule that the GM's PC (GM changed throughout the game) got XP equal to 10% of what a PC earns (PC's don't lose any XP for this though).

GM's looked forward to this at the end of play and interestingly, it encourages system use very well, because the more XP related stuff the GM puts in and the players engage, the more XP he gets.

It was rather simplistic to just give 10% and probably not enough, but it was good in play - a good start! :)

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

David, this is a classic Actual Play thread topic, and I'd like to move it there. I can do that if you provide an example - any example - of some particular play-experience that illustrates any one of the points you made.

I also think you will be surprised at the extent of solutions that have been generated here at the Forge. I'd like to discuss them with you, but it is 100% crucial that you provide those exampes. Once you do that, I'll move the thread over, and we can start.

Best, Ron

[nystul]

It has always seemed to me that there are folks who gravitate to playing and those who gravitate to running games. In traditional RP structure they are very different endeavors with different rewards. I'm a GM through and through. I will play from time to time but I don't have as much fun as when I'm at the head of the table. There are a lot of reasons for this. I'm an architect and storyteller by nature. Creating things for others to enjoy has always been my nasty and has shaped every aspect of my career. I ended up directing indie film projects because it scratches the same itch that GMing does. I'm also easily bored so if I have to play the same character more than a couple of times I lose interest. Not a problem when you are playing one shots but my usual crew has a strong preference for ongoing campaigns so it has always been a problem for me. In most cases this has worked out fine. I run most of the games our group plays. Despite my strong attraction to being the gamemaster this has not always proven ideal either. I dig the whole GM thing but it is an awful lot of work and can be frustrating and thankless. For a while we shared GMing duties and rewarded the GM by giving his character extra XP like you mentioned but I would have preferred to have more practical tools to lighten my load or involve me as a player who simply has different duties. I tried playing games where there was no GM but it always felt too freeform without a consistent hand at the tiller. I have strong Gameist tendencies that require a structure these systems never provided. We always joked about giving the GM experience but maybe there is something to that. It seems like you have identified an underserved segment of the gaming community. I'm eager to hear the solutions Ron alluded to.

[David C]

I also think you will be surprised at the extent of solutions that have been generated here at the Forge. I'd like to discuss them with you, but it is 100% crucial that you provide those exampes. Once you do that, I'll move the thread over, and we can start.

Good :)

Currently, I'm running a campaign. Before we play, I need to have an idea of the area. I drew a map of an underground temple. Then, I needed an idea of what conflicts they would encounter, and possible solutions to them. For example, I have a gate guarded by a goblin type character, who can't be killed otherwise he won't open the gate. But he won't let the players through, but gives the hint "I don't let anyone through, except for that tricksy wizard.. mumbling" I have to come up with between 6-15 conflicts per session. On top of that, I need to know the personalities, appearance, and identifying apparel of any NPCs they encounter. This amounts to between 5 to 15 hours of work for a 6 hour session.
I am very good at spontaneous campaign creation, but if I have an off day, the campaign does too, so prefer to have campaign materials handy.

Also, I am drawn to being a player. Saying that, though, I also prefer to the power the GM has to make the game better, and better, and to teach the players to be better players - and GMs consquently. That's what brought me to the forge I think. When I GM, I gain satisfaction from a successful campaign. However, it is not quite the same form of reward of a player. One reward is like the feeling of earning a pay check, the other is like the feeling of spending the pay check...

I'd also like to say I'm very mechanics oriented. My personal view is that there exists a way to present the mechanics (you guys would call the presentation + mechanics "System" I think) and to have mechanics that would promote much better GMing, and lower GMing barriers then we see in all the top dog games (WW, D&D, GURPs) Ideally, I think players should transistion to GMing and back again naturally.

Also, I think of "conflict resolution" as a mechanic, as well as the obvious 'rolling.' Am I on the same page as you guys?

[David C]

Thinking about my post, I'm not sure that qualifies as "actual play." So here's another.

During my game, the players were introduced to the world, and then I had them have a dialogue. The important guy charged them with a mission to sneak into hostile territory to retrieve an important book that is buried in a ruin. As they move forward, I've been increasing the stakes, increasing the danger, and increasing their brushes with death. However, despite a relatively sound plan, I haven't conveyed the message very well. For example, at one point, a townsman sold them out to the enemy, and they started getting chased. I don't think it quite clicked with them that they are being chased by the enemy when in hostile territory - they felt no urgency or pressure. As the GM, somehowI failed to accurately get the point across.

[Thor Olavsrud]

Hi David,

Ok, you've given us an idea of the prep you do (5 to 15 hours? I'm amazed you've lasted this long!).

Now, tell us about a specific session. You made all these plans, drew out the temple, etc. What happened when you actually ran the thing? What did your players do? How did you respond? How did you all feel about what happened?

[baron samedi]

David C. and everyone,

Sorry for answering to the beginning of the thread... I'd like to share a bit of my experience as the "sempiternal GM" and the reasons why I don't play RPGs all that much nowadays, for both relate.

1. MOURNINGS OF A TIRED GM
My players, for the last 17 or so years, have been mostly of the "Simulationnist agenda" (cf. jargon) variety and letting the GM bear a lot of the setting description and colour on his shoulders. My players have come to expect and demand strong "Illusionism". They want to "live the dream" and become alien beings in alien cultures.

This style is exhausting for the GM when you get in the 30s with kids and a job.  For this reason, we don't play much simply because I'm too tired to GM, let alone the challenge of finding time for continuous free times of many sucessive hours. I just couldn't manage the imagination after 21h00 to devise complex social rituals and interpret odd characters through complex storylines to feed my players' requests.

2. WHAT DID MY PLAYERS WANT?
My experience is that most of my players over circa 15 years (with very few exceptions), and I included the hundreds I managed as a LARP organizer, enjoy the passivity of letting all the pressure of storytelling on the GM, and simply react and see the show. I have been the GM 95% of the time during this period, almost always with the same few games (Call of Cthulhu, GURPS) and mostly my own game setting (The Last Chronicles of Erdor, published in French only so far) which features a "high learning curve" universe like the games Talislanta, Tekumel or Skyrealms of Jorune.

I'm trying with the 3rd edition of my game to use a Narration-based system that returns the focus onto my players, leaving the GM as an answerer of questions and scene-painted instead of a plot driver. This might work, though my players during playtest told me they'd have appreciated "deeper immersion".

3. ARE GM-LESS GAMES FOR NARRATIVISTS ONLY?
Now, some of the games listed on the Forge, notably Capes and Polaris, are playable without GMs - but that means much more player involvement than in most other RPGs. Rune alternates GMs with bonuses in XP. I've ordered but not received Burning Empires yet, but the adversarial role of the GM seems an interesting compromise to explore.

Is GM-less Simulation-style roleplaying possible? (Even LARPS need GMs less they fall apart to inaction, from my experience as long-time animator). It seems that, so far, most (but not all) Forge-influenced games feature rather vague setting and focus conversely on strong mechanics rather than a predefined setting to evoke ambience and demand much involvement from players during play. I would go so far as to add that many games presented on the Forge, such as My Life With Master, are to a large degree board games without boards. Some might better find a market with a board or at least cards, like Kill Doctor Lucky from Cheapass games.

In other words, because Forge-inspired GM-less games focus on "low Simulation, high Narration" agenda for the most, I'm not sure there are statistically many players of a Gamist or Simulationnist ready to take such a strong role by sharing the GM's burden, because *someone* must take the GM's role, even if it is shared among many people. I am not sure a strong Simulation-oriented style of play is possible GM-less, if only because of the need to arbitrate reality with minimal negotiation.

4. GM-LESS GAMES FOR GAMISTS ?
Therefore, augmententing the number of RPG players through the artifice of "GM-lessness" seems unlikely to my humble opinion. To fill the need to play without a GM, for Gamist-types, there are some interesting boardgames that fill a comparable niche (e.g. Descent, by Fantasy Flight Games, or Heroquest). Oddly, Witch Trial by Cheapass games (you play lawyers building and pleading cases) was a good substitute with rich roleplay opportunities. This is what my group has been doing, but we still have not found boardgames with interesting settings or possibilities for roleplaying.

5. GM-LESS GAMES FOR SIMULATIONISTS ?
For Simulationnists, presumably there are video game substitutes for GM-less play... a friend told me he used Grand Auto Theft (or something like that) to that effect. I wouldn't know. Perhaps video games are the future of simulation for the Tired GM (tm).

My 2 cents.

Regards,

Erick

[TroyLovesRPG]

Hello David,

I don't entirely understand the question and it could be taken as:
Do you have fun play as the GM?
Can there be fun play for the GM?
What is fun play for the GM?

My actual play experiences as a GM vary with the game and I'll look at what sessions and elements were fun when I was a GM.

Dark Sun for AD&D
That was the most fun I had playing a GM. The reasons are many:
I like the setting of a cruel world where the inhabitants must survive. Nothing is arbitrary or taken for granted. It forced me think about the players' actions and I gave them more opportunities to roleplay.
I was the only GM (I knew of) who ran Dark Sun in our area. I felt very proud and a bit possessive.
I put a lot of effort into the maps, NPCs, handouts and props. I like crafting things and the players expressed their appreciation.
The group and I developed a psionic dreamscape to make the game more interesting. Our creation was strange and fun allowing us to have psychic battles using miniatures.

Talisman
Its not an RPG but a very good board game that made me smile.
I had the main game plus all the expansions. I laminated the paper pieces and had all the lead figures.
I was very knowledgable about the game pieces, rules and strategies.
I loved the simplicity and kept the game in my car. I could start a pickup game immediately.

Beyond the Supernatural
A Palladium game about contemporary horror.
I liked the setting and the rules; however, the players were actually more experienced than I was with the mechanics. That was great.
I created some great stories that shook the players. I used headlines and real Atlanta locations.
We often played at night and the mood could be intense. At that time, I had a penchant for psychological jokes and often used that to enhance the game. One time I made a recording of creepy natural sounds on a 90 min tape. I timed it with lots of silence and remembered certain clues so I knew what the next sounds would be. I turned it on and put it outside the dining room window. The four players didn't know what I did. In game, certain sounds would play and some of the players would ask "did you hear that?". I said "No". At one point I knew what was coming up and said "I heard something." I got up and opened up the door and looked around. The sounds were more distinct and I suggested we look around "It could be a lost cat or dog". Ten seconds later the tape played some little mewing noises. "Awwww. Its a kitten." Ray walked to it and suddenly it turned to crunching sounds and a blood curdling scream. I thought Ray was going to jump on the roof. Those were the days.

The fun parts were:
Creativity: making props and handouts.
Confidence: feeling good about my game knowledge.
Uniqueness: being the only GM running a certain setting in the area.
Ownership: having the only complete game.
Extension: taking the game beyond the table.
Heroism: setting up a quick game to "save the day."
Collaboration: building something with the players.
Rest: let the players do the work.
Friendship: not getting pounded after scaring the crap out of someone.

Troy

[David C]

Thank you Troy, you've helped a lot more then you might realize. I've identified some things in your experience I think are lacking in many cases.

Positive feedback from your players. Our society is rather thankless. I think most players think that showing up is enough to "support their GM." This isn't true at all, just as paying your employees isn't enough to have good morale.
You really loved the setting, and viscerally the players did too.
You were empowered. You had "the campaign" to be in.
With the positive feedback loop you've become all that much more attuned to what your players love, and fed off that. Also, you were more motivated to work on it, because you were rewarded.
You had an experience that was uniquely yours.

With Talisman, clearly it's a case of function. The game performed it's function perfectly to your needs, and filled a void (like when you just want to immediately and spontaneously play a game - which an RPG can't really ever fill.)

You are a master of ambience. Something I think even video games and movies fail at time and time again (the ones that don't stand out as epics in our mind.)

Creativity: making props and handouts.
Confidence: feeling good about my game knowledge.
Uniqueness: being the only GM running a certain setting in the area.
Ownership: having the only complete game.
Extension: taking the game beyond the table.
Heroism: setting up a quick game to "save the day."
Collaboration: building something with the players.
Rest: let the players do the work.
Friendship: not getting pounded after scaring the crap out of someone.

I'd still *love* more feedback from people. I don't think I can really remember enjoying a session I GMed, except for two or three about a year ago or longer. I'm really trying to work out the dysfunctional aspects of GMing, so I can pass on the knowledge, and enjoy it for myself.

I'm going to start turning these into theories and practices, I already have a great jumping off point. My personal opinion is "Positive play should come naturally from the game, not with effort."

[Alan]

Hi David,

Thor picked up on the heavy prep ratio 15 hours prep to 6 of play. Is that the main source of your dissatisfaction, or is it something also happening in play?

If so, can you give us an example of play where you had a moment where you realized you were not enjoying GMing? What was happening? What were you doing? How were the players responding?

[TroyLovesRPG]

Hello David,

Thanks for the acknowledgment. In addition to the good times, I've had some bad times, too. Luckily for me, those were few.

I can see that you strive to be a GM and its unfortunate that you're not getting the satisfaction from it. A lot of that may be from your expectations. I don't know exactly what they are, but I know that players who become GMs have them. There may be something missing during the player experience and a solution to gain that is through GMing. I did that this year with D&D 3.5 and failed.

From my experience, there are two factors that produce the best gaming sessions for me, whether I'm a player or a GM.

The first is socialization beyond the game. I was fortunate to meet gamers who wanted friendship. We looked past the game and saw people we liked. I don't see this happening often and am not sure why. People meet at game stores, homes, colleges halls, etc. and play the games they want. Afterwards, they only contact each other because of the game. I can understand focusing on a common interest that brings people together, but to completely ignore a variety of other social interactions seems sad. Interestingly enough, some gamers alot more time within their gaming community, yet don't participate often with their friends. This information comes from me asking other gamers, and not just from speculation.

The second is consideration. For me this is the utmost important factor to make gaming smooth and fun. Considering the expectations and positions of the other participants puts me in sync with what's going on.

I'm cutting this short. My friend just arrived and this forum can wait.

Troy

[TroyLovesRPG]

(continued from previous post)

Consideration is the most important factor for me in determining how fun GMing will be. The people who game want something from themselves, others and the game. Knowing what that is makes the process smoother and more satisfying. It matters what they want and that they are willing to express it. No one can read minds and it is important to communicate what you want and consider what the others want. I don't pretend to understand why someone games or judge that motive; however, it is important to accept it and consider it when you play. Consideration extends to making sure the expectations are in the right place. Sometimes, crossing the boundaries between personal and game agendas can be fun. It can also create a lot of tension and the game as well as the social interaction can fizzle.

My recent failure as a GM hinged upon my lack of consideration. I've played D&D since the blue box and just returned to D&D after a 10 year hiatus. That in itself should have made me consider that the gamer mindset, the game and I have changed. I played in a few games and just wasn't satisfied. I tried D&D 3.5, Star Wars and Vampire:The Requiem. I truly thought the lack of roleplaying, lack of character collaboration and poor preparation was the cause of this. I remembered the games I played, how other GMs functioned and my success as a GM would somehow change all this. I found the Eberron setting to be great, although I don't like D&D 3.5. Compromise works. I bought the books, announced a new campaign, prepared and gave an introduction to the setting to make sure the players were truly interested. I got four responses and we made characters who worked great with the setting. I was excited. The first adventure was a little slow but picked up quickly. I was ready for some high adventure.

Then it happened. At the first sign of crisis the players ignored the goals of their characters, grabbed everything in sight, tried to be secret about every action and made every effort to turn it into four separate campaigns. This wasn't going the way I had planned it. I let the players know about the setting, the style of play and what seem to work in game groups I participated. I worked with the players to get their characters tuned, provided balance and asked them to come up with some great backgrounds. Perfect! What went wrong? I didn't consider what the players wanted from the game. I assumed it was the same thing that I thought most people want from a game: to have fun and enjoy the company of others. I never considered that the current style of gaming within the groups at that location were very different from what I expected. Of course, nothing is wrong, nothing is bad, nothing was out of order. Its weird in that they were having fun and couldn't understand why I was frustrated.

Troy

[cydmab]

A couple times I've taken over GMing because I thought the current GM was doing it "wrong" - at least from my perspective. I guess this is a subcategory of "control."

[psrgchx]

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...