Something Walt said in the Rapid Deployment thread reminded me of a thought I heard a long time ago. The thought is that in the typical rpg setup, the GM is playing one kind of game (overview) while the Players are playing another (momentary.)

Walt's comments involved using treasure lists (etc) more during play than only in preparation (thus avoiding choice paralysis and helping to keep the style of play within certain bounds.) Moreover, this sort of thing would also allow for a very different kind of GM play, a more active and in-the-moment.

I realize that Universalis, the Pool and a number of other rpg variants would provide slightly different variations on play as well, but they aren't quite what I'm after. If I'm using the terms correctly, I would say I'm looking for specific techniques that allow the GM to acting in the moment than in the overview.

One I employ now is to set up situations (npcs and events) and let it all mix with what the players are doing.

Any thoughts?

Chris

Yeah, I think the GM traditionally does end up playing a very different game. Just one example, he knows everything that's going on. This means unlike players he get's no reward for uncovering mystery, or the thrill of finding out what a choice made will result in and many other things which are somewhat assisted by lack of knowledge.

Without rewards of these types I really think GM's change over to another game. For example, since they're waiting there as the players figure out what he already knows, many GM's start expecting RP...they feel a lack of reward from sitting around, see the players busy and thus not at an RP peak and conclude 'those players aren't RP'ing enough!'. What the GM really wants is a reward of some kind from this play, but it's an idle time for the GM and idle minds start expecting all sorts of things.

There is an unknown factor for the GM to be surprised by in trad play. The player groups actions. But they are a small factor and can't be surprising all the time without playing a group of psychos.

Now to address your question. I was thinking of taking NPCs and places that are part of the more exciting session material and adding a random element to them. For example, the mob boss's wife may or may not fool around on him. As a GM I wont know until I get there and roll the dice. You can tie this in with other random factors...ie, determine if the boss's head man is ugly or handsome, randomly. By making sure each randomly determined effects potential field of influence touches other random effects, they will interact and produce something you just wont be able to predict in advance. It's sort of like a 'potentiality' relationship map.

I'd recommend (and not just for communication purposes), that you tell the players your doing this before hand and will roll them when the knowledge must be learnt (ie, you meet the boss's head man or ask about his appearance...you need to know then). This way your players will realise that everyone at the table will not quite know what will happen at the end of the night. The benefit of this group knowledge should't be underestimated.

Pretty interesting points.

The GM doesn't play the same game nor get the same payoff that the players do.

Just yesterday I was discussing with our group's other usual GM about how in a book/movie/etc the action builds to climax. But the way I run games, I'm more interested in all the possibility about what MIGHT happen than about how it gets resolved. As the game progresses, it can get less and less interesting to me because more things are eliminated as options through play.

"since they're waiting there as the players figure out what he already knows, many GM's start expecting RP...they feel a lack of reward from sitting around, see the players busy and thus not at an RP peak and conclude 'those players aren't RP'ing enough!'."

LOL. I am SO that GM who thinks he wants to see more rp. Thanks for helping me see that so it can be corrected.

"can't be surprising all the time without playing a group of psychos."

Actually, we just had a game like that which I was enjoying but did not meet the group's expectation. Well, it was really just 1.5 psychos but that was enough to do the trick.

Hmmm...adding a random factor to the elements within the setting might help quite a bit. Have to chew on that a bit.

Thanks!

Chris

Your not wrong to want to see more RP. It's just that your looking for a reward for GM'ing, which is very valid. It's just that you might need to look for some other reward. I think that's why many GM's start to report a good game by players focusing tightly on the game, or smiles on the players faces...they've started focusing on this as their reward (which is quite valid). Of course, the players smiling ment they had a rewarding game...its the fact that the GM's mention this in their posts/talk that shows they find this to make a rewarding game for them.

Really, looking at it now it's a bit of a traditional CA clash. Usually a nar/gamist clash. The GM gets absolutely nothing out of the thrills of the players as they devise great strategy...what reward does the GM get from that, he doesn't get to advance any character or such like.

So the GM starts thinking of the nar potential of the moment, or the sim (be like the movies!) potential. He's got nothing better to do than start thinking about this (since theirs no reward for gamist thought on his part), while the players are just busy as beavers thinking of the gamist potentials.

I mean, really, where is the reward (in the rules) in D&D for example, for the GM to be thinking all gamist as well? Indeed, GM's who play to win are often admonished.

Any other forgites like to take up this idea of the GM and players going in different directions because of the one rule set?

Hmm, I think there is room for a Gamist GM to fulfill their CA. The challenge for the GM is not quite so obvious. There isn't a scorecard, or at least there isn't supposed to be one (though I think the GMs who keep score of their kills are in fact satisfying their inner Gamer - and maybe there is a place for the scorecard). The Gamist GM's challenge is to provide good challenges to the players, to make them feel like they had to work for their win.

But no doubt, the GM (in a traditional GM/player dichotomy setup) is playing a different game, and thus needs to get different rewards from the game.

Personally, I love the times when the players get going interracting amongst themselves working out some issue (that doesn't have too much tension). I can just sit back and relax and enjoy the show. I also do get something out of providing challenging encounters (though I am definitely more of a Simulationist than a Gamist). I love watching the players come together as a team.

Frank

Noon wrote:
Any other forgites like to take up this idea of the GM and players going in different directions because of the one rule set?

The Gamist GM's challenge is to provide good challenges to the players, to make them feel like they had to work for their win.

Noon wrote: For example, lets say I pick up a gamist game with dreams of running a LOTR clone, images of the film fresh in my mind and the interpersonal conflicts still stiring me.

Hi guys,

I was under the impression that I'd made some points in my essays that laid all this "what does the GM get out of Gamist play" question forever.

1. "The GM" is a meaningless term. When you ask questions like this, you have to specify what particular combination of GM-tasks are being centralized for one person in this game.

2. We do not speak, typically, of the referee in a football game as a "player." However, he is definitely a player if one thinks about it clearly. He's participating in what's going on, and his actions have a permanent input on it.

Can you play football without a referee? Sure. But certain degrees of intensity are limited from their full scope, and a certain potential for dysfunctional play is opened up. A referee brings a distinctive role and a distinctive set of opportunities for everyone else to a game.

If you are considering a game in which "the GM" refers to someone who sets the stage of Challenge and who interprets "legal" uses of the System, then his or her role may be considered just as Gamist as everyone else's. He or she cannot "win" in the same sense that a player can, but his strategy and guts are in the public eye just the same, in the form of the quality of the Challenge. Hence he or she wins by GMing well, specifically in providing a Challenge that is worth everyone's time and making judgment calls that facilitate the CA and its current application.

That's why the common argument that "the GM can't play Gamist because he can always win" is bullshit. Overcharging the Challenge isn't winning; it's plain-and-simply lame. Lameness is failure in Gamist play.

Best,
Ron

Going along with Ron's comments, I would like to point out this post from awhile ago. In it, Walt Freitag discusses GM vs player 'competition,' and how the players & GM receive different amounts of social esteem based on how the situation plays out. I think the post is relevent to the discussion at hand.

Hi Timothy,

Not sure if you noticed but I started that thread. About a week after that I realised I could encapsulate the point of gamist by treating it as sparing, people bringing just enough resources to bare against each other so as to challenge each other and learn from such.


And to Ron and John,

I'll do some quotes to show what I'm looking at.

John wrote: as a GM your reward is either when something funny happens that the party gets to laugh about, or when something difficult happens that the party gets to sweat about. Giving your players what you perceive* as a good challenge is the reward.

Ron wrote: but his strategy and guts are in the public eye just the same, in the form of the quality of the Challenge. Hence he or she wins by GMing well, specifically in providing a Challenge that is worth everyone's time and making judgment calls that facilitate the CA and its current application.

I agree. System does not affect the quality of a GM. System instead affects the quality of play that goes on between players and GM (and I don't quite see the GM as a technical player like Ron does), obviously with 'fun', 'fast' or 'exciting' play being more enjoyable for all participants.

Now what you have raised is an interesting point. That a gamist game requires rewards. I would disagree about that. I've always thought it would be very interesting to play an RPG (or cRPG) where you start with a level five character and play through the whole plot without gaining a single level. Enemies might get harder (a little), but the PC doesn't get any new firepower to deal with that, instead he has to rely more on wit. It seems that if the point of this game is still to 'win', but there is 0 advancement (maybe instead of using treasure for new gear you just donate it to help people). You still get the bad guy, or he still gets away.

The core of gamist play seems to be this: "Playing to win". Now if win is then defined as "thinking of the biggest challenge you can create with four standard goblins and ambushes", why can't the GM 'win'?

So really, yes, it is a different game in the Gamist model (not so in Sim. or Nar.) That doesn't mean that the GM doesn't have rewards, that's like saying Sim. and Nar. gaming has no rewards. There is more rewards (such as the social rewards you mentioned) than XP. I'd argue that XP without the social rewards makes for boring and unfulfilled gaming.

Noon wrote: Yeah, I think the GM traditionally does end up playing a very different game. Just one example, he knows everything that's going on. This means unlike players he get's no reward for uncovering mystery, or the thrill of finding out what a choice made will result in and many other things which are somewhat assisted by lack of knowledge.

Hi John,

Quick clarification: Actually I think you do agree gamist requires rewards. You need to remember XP isn't the only reward available. Cover, for example. Instead of standing out in the open if my PC stands behind a crate it blocks some shots against him.

This cover bonus is a reward, for actually using the strategy of taking cover.

Now imagine a system which represents combat by just some rolls with no modifiers for anything (not cover, that's for sure). You can describe your character jumping behind cover while doing so. People may cheer you for that idea. But they can not cheer you for that idea AND the cheer also being for getting an advantage through the system.

To get my point across it needs to be clear the former is not associated with the rules (in terms of gamist play), while the latter is. Then we can move on to see how it applies to a user in a GM type role.

I think we're confusing agenda clash with the active/passive modes of an agendum. As has been said, the referee gets his reward from the pleasure of the players--in a gamist game, he's not necessarily trying to beat them, but to provide them with opportunities to shine, and so playing passive (or supportive) gamism.

If the referee is playing with a different agendum from the players, you've got dysfunction; everyone has to be on the same page to avoid conflict, but most of the participants will be sometimes active sometimes passive.

Callan is looking for rules-based reward for gamist refereeing; but the real reward for gamist character play isn't what the reward system provides--the reward system only supports the real reward, which is the admiration of peers for a job well done. That reward applies equally to the referee. For the players, the in-game reward system is a way of identifying "job well done", and no, there's no comparable in-game measure for the referee. On the other hand, we all know when the referee did a good job, and his reward is usually that the players nag him to run another game (been there).

You can have gamist games with no mechanical reward systems for the players. What's the mechanical reward system for playing checkers? The reward is that you have the feeling of victory when you win. I have some players who are extremely gamist in Multiverser, which offers no incentive for gamism in its mechanics whatsoever. However, these players set their own goals, and work to achieve them, and then glory in their own self-defined success. That's perfectly coherent gamist play, with no reward from the system to support it other than making it possible.

As an aside, if a bonus for "cover" is a reward for using system effectively and thus for gamist play, then there's nothing in play that isn't a reward. If you say you're going to attack and the referee says you get to roll the dice to see if you hit, then rolling the dice (by that logic) is the reward. Apart from that, even if cover bonus is a reward, it is a reward because it moves the player closer to his desired reward, which is the victory, and the esteem that comes from it.

I hope this clarifies some of this.

--M. J. Young

For the players, the in-game reward system is a way of identifying "job well done", and no, there's no comparable in-game measure for the referee.

but the real reward for gamist character play isn't what the reward system provides--the reward system only supports the real reward, which is the admiration of peers for a job well done. That reward applies equally to the referee.

As an aside, if a bonus for "cover" is a reward for using system effectively and thus for gamist play, then there's nothing in play that isn't a reward. If you say you're going to attack and the referee says you get to roll the dice to see if you hit, then rolling the dice (by that logic) is the reward. Apart from that, even if cover bonus is a reward, it is a reward because it moves the player closer to his desired reward, which is the victory, and the esteem that comes from it.

Noon wrote:

Yup, just about everything in play is a reward of some strength for a gamist.

Now, if the crate cover is a reward, and the PC get's it for good tactics, don't NPCs get the same kinds of rewards. NPCs using strong strategy can be a reward in the victory (giving PCs a hard time) because those NPCs would not have been a sufficient challenge had they not used tactics. After all, in most systems, the NPC gets the cover bonus just like PCs do.

What I'm seeing is that every type of reward I can think of (in the moment fun, sim fulfillment, nar fulfillment, social rewards) with the exception of experience, and 'winning' can be rewarded to a GM just as easily as it can be rewarded to players. I'd go further to argue that 'winning' for a gamist GM is not killing the PCs, but nearly killing them. If you accept that argument then there is only one type of reward that GMs are not usually rewarded.

Noon wrote: Yup, just about everything in play is a reward of some strength for a gamist.

Ooops. DP.

John Uckele wrote: I'd go further to argue that 'winning' for a gamist GM is not killing the PCs, but nearly killing them. If you accept that argument then there is only one type of reward that GMs are not usually rewarded.

contracycle wrote: Furthermore it seems to me that the SIS can be so different that playing two, interlocking games is quite plausible IMO.

SIS = shared imaginary space. More info on it in the glossary (in the articles section, see top of screen)

Now, I'd strongly prefer to talk about my sports analogy. But I'll say this about NPC's, if someone risked nothing will you admire them for any success involved? The GM faces zero risk with NPC's, so there's no system feedback there. If the GM could only use a certain amount of NPC's, then your starting to get risk.

And in terms of Rune, yes, that's a strong example of the GM's behaviour being influenced by the rules. And I did not want to mention it because I'm pretty certain the idea would then get pushed to the side with 'Oh, you only do this if you want to do that sort of thing Rune did'.

I believe Hackmaster also has rules stipulating what a referee is permitted to use in terms of force, and expects the referee to play against the players; so in that sense, the referee could win.

However, to look at your sports analogy, I think it's a good one--because if we're trying to play by the new rules, but you're enforcing the old ones, we're going to find someone else to referee our games in the future. If you want to play with us, you do it right.

I am certain that a large part of the reward for every referee is the smiles on the faces of the players, the thanks for a game well run, the nagging for when we'll play again--the reassurance that whatever you did, they liked it.

Given that I think referees are frequently in the passive role (particularly in gamist and narrativist games), that means that the referee is rewarded for making it possible for players to pursue their agendum effectively. That means that the referee's reward for passive gamist play is that the players feel like they've done well, and that the referee offered them a good challenge.

I suspect there are ways to reward that mechanically; but remembering that reward systems are two-pronged, how would that work? If the points earned by the referee for good play are used to purchase the tools for the next adventure, then a referee who isn't doing well is going to be further hampered by not being able to buy what he needs for the next adventure. If the players control those points, then they effectively control the referee's ability to raise the stakes. This just ties the hands of the referee; you can't viably have the players control the number of points that the referee can spend to build the challenges they'll face next time. But what else can you do with a gamist reward for a referee? What benefit can the referee have from the reward? I don't see it, unless there's an adversarial relationship established (Hackmaster) and the points earned are able to be objectively calculated.

Oh, and regarding Multiverser, I did not mean to imply that I didn't want the gamist play in the game. The game drifts by design; the players who are gamists in my Multiverser games were all gamists in previous games. No one has any notion that they shouldn't be. The idea from the beginning was to let every player do what he wanted within the game, whatever that was, and it has been achieved rather successfully most of the time. I've played it gamist myself, quite a bit, when I was in the right world for it.

--M. J. Young

Okay, I want to step away from hackmaster and rules that pit GM against players. Plenty of GM's challenge players without resorting to a Vs mode, the idea is to reinforce this through rewards.

And I'd like to step away from the players being happy is the GM's reward. I don't understand how that's applicable when this doesn't apply to players...why have rules that give players bonuses and such when players could just enjoy the GM smiling at them and giving them a pat on the back?

I'll stipulate the problem I'm trying to address here: Without rewards that guide a GM toward a certain CA, they can easily start looking for rewards in all sorts of different places. By rewards I mean they may start looking for the group to enjoy the atmosphere of a town festival, or start roleplaying a treat. So the GM can enjoy himself because otherwise he's got nothing.

It's a little hard to illustrate except by giving examples in relation to players. Eg, removing spiritual attributes from TROS. What would a player do in TROS if there were no spiritual attributes? Perhaps really refine their sword play skills (as players)? Or really start examining the world in fine detail.

Lovely and drifty. But SA's are in there to really give the whole thing solid direction. Instead of expecting the GM to round them up into addressing premise, the system supports it.

Likewise, should players just be left to say 'play this way or we'll find another ref'? Why no system support? With the number of times I've heard 'player feedback shows them the way', it sounds like a design preference much like 'all RPG's need a combat section'.

But what else can you do with a gamist reward for a referee? What benefit can the referee have from the reward? I don't see it, unless there's an adversarial relationship established (Hackmaster) and the points earned are able to be objectively calculated.

Oh, and regarding Multiverser, I did not mean to imply that I didn't want the gamist play in the game.