Heya,

To bribe my friends to help me playtest my Ronny games, I'm agreeing to take part in one of their D&D campaigns.  I was discussing the kinds of characters we would be playing and I showed him Sorcerer.  I told him about bangs and how they present the player with a brutal choice that has consiquences and so on.  He really took to it and agreed that it would make the game a lot more fun for the players.  I started making m charactger.  He's an elf/celestial half bred who spurned his father who was forcing him to become a paladin. He ran away from home, lived off the land for a while, and then joined the elvish regulars in one of their crusades against some other nation.  He fell in with a Cult of the Bladesinger and has progressed through the ranks there at the expense of a lot of veterans.  Lots of good stuff for bangs in there and I really had fun thinking about all the possibilities of the character.  "Yeah," I thought to myself, "he'll be fun to play."

That got me thinking.  When I look over my newer designs and over the old theory threads, I see a lot of emphasis put on making the game fun for the players.  We've invented Bangs, Reward Cycles, Stakes, Character Advancement, Chargen, Life Paths, Plot Points, and all sorts of other things to make the game more fun for players.  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?

Peace,

-Peace

That's a good question, Troy.  I sort of ran up against this in a recent Dogs game, where I found myself in a situation where I had to do what was right for the game at the expense of what I, as a person and participant, really wanted.  Here's the thread:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=17861.0

That trade-off is explicit.  So there's an element of sacrifice there, to assure an excellent experience for the players.  I think that sacrifice is bigger in games that mechanically delimit GM authority - but so are the rewards, because these sorts of games tend to rock.

I know that I find GMing very rewarding as a creative exercise and actually prefer it to playing.  I've never really considered the structures in place that make it so, or what could be done to make it even more fun.  In my own designs, I tend to obviate this question by distributing the GM role among the participants - maybe I'm avoiding the issue!

--Jason

Traditionally, GMing is a big, fat ego-stroke and a giant dose of editorial authority.  The incentive there is plain.

In more recent games, I think a large portion of the GMing incentive lies in providing fun for your friends and being the guy who pushes.  "Guy who pushes" is a little different than the editorial authority that the mainstream games provide -- GM as prime mover but not necessarily as creator and maintainer of the world.

The kind of fun I got out of running D&D was twofold:

1) Giving players a fun experience - suspense, evocative description, challenging people intellectually, enabling their wish-fulfillment. This shouldn't be underestimated as a motive all by itself. It gave me a lot of joy to be able to make other people happy.

2) Creating a fantastic environment and sharing it with others - the fun of partly sovereign, partly shared world creation. It's a real rush to have people marvel at your creative powers.

Sean,

Assuming that what you're talking about isn't lost in the mists of long-ago, could you give some concrete, actual play examples of "giving players a fun experience" with D&D? And some actual play examples of #2, too?

Josh,

I've been trying to type a meaningful response but I fear I'm going to have to come back another time - class prep beckons.

For #2, it's a matter of making up fantasy worlds and sharing them, and then taking player input, to build up something interesting together over time. I've got dozens of these lying around and am gradually putting stuff about them up on my fora, though I'm currently thick in system design instead. Follow the link in my sig if you want to see some bits about a few. One of them, the least interesting in some ways in terms of fantastic material but the one with the most history, is Advent - we've got 25+ years of history there with at least five different GMs and dozens of play groups, all of whom have contributed to its changing topography and history. There is essentially no system stuff out there for formalizing this kind of 'bricolage' in the RPGs I know, and getting out some mechanics for doing it is part of what's motivating my current game design work actually.

With #1, no way is this stuff lost in the mists of long ago. I was playing a lot of D&D as recently as 2003 and am still involved with a lot of the same worlds and players in a variety of different systems (homebrews, Heroquest, Tunnels & Trolls, 3.0 most commonly) as I try to figure this all out).

However, if you're looking for a 'Forge answer' to the question, I'm likely to disappoint you. The only thing that (pre-3e now, not the new material) D&D does at all system-wise to enable that stuff is, essentially, give no mechanics for resolving social conflict or puzzle-solving, etc. So I ask you a riddle and then you have to solve it: challenge the player. Or again, I run this series of adventures where you and this paladin are trying to recover the Spear of Longinus, and he's so noble and pure-hearted, and gradually you fall in love, and he offers to make you his queen, but then wham! your old husband shows up, what do you do?

(I broke the paladin's heart and then my marriage fell apart a few months later anyway, when DB sprang that on me, FWIW.)

'GM fiat' means you can go straight to the player to give him or her a challenge or a choice: no weaseling out. Of course you can also go straight to the player and say 'ALL ABOARD! NEXT STOP: KRYNN!' (or whatever) and then that, um, isn't a playstyle I personally like that much. And there has to be a shared sense of what the fun and interesting challenges and choices are, which varies from group to group and person to person.

So if you were looking for how system creates any of this shit, there really ain't much to say, except that: part of the Charge of D&D (in the early days) was to do this, to make a world and explore and create it together. The game then left you high and dry to do that (GM as auteur model), of course. But then not many other games really kept this Charge alive, and in fact most of the good games deliberately blew it off and just gave you a setting and mechanics that worked together (compare Paranoia and James Bond 007 to the other stuff being released at the same time as it in terms of play experience, frex). The Forge-connected designs mostly follow this second pattern too - as well they should, it's a better way to go for any number of things.

Sean,

I think the "Forge answer" to "how does playing D&D and the GM having fun coincide" is this:

* Forget about what the written rules for D&D/AD&D/AD&D2/D&D3.x say. The real system is what's going on at the table when everyone is playing.

* So, when everyone is sitting around the table, playing D&D, what's fun for the GM? The problem I have with statements like "giving players a fun experience" is that it's too abstract. I'd prefer to see some actual examples of this, like your examples of the riddle and the paladin. As you point out, D&D didn't originally give any mechanics for a lot of this, so the system was all negotiated by the players or dictated by the GM (or most likely a mix of both of those). House rules were developed, written rules were tweaked or ignored, and fortune resolution was ignored in favor of karma and drama. At least, that's how I remember it.

But, looking back at Troy's initial post, he didn't just pose the question about D&D, but about other games, too, like Sorcerer and Dogs in the Vineyard. I'm at work right now, so I don't have the time to commit to a real answer, but I'll try to think of some actual play that answers the question: what makes these games fun for the GM?

Whoo I'm going to be late - yeah, that was vague. But there was a point to my post as a direct answer to Troy's question. Part of the fun of D&D, for the DM, was supposed to be making up your own world and sharing it in play. Even as late in the game as the AD&D1 DMG Gygax lays this on pretty thick, for instance: not just the 'referee' or 'God' (ugh) role, but the demiurge role, giving people fantastic material to work with. That was part of the real 'system' of the game in the early days, though mechanically unsupported.

Now in the best games I think there was a real willingness of GMs to share this stuff - open worlds (see my post at http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=181356&page=1&pp=10), collaborative GMing of the same world, and lots of other stuff, so that there was a shared process of negotiating the imaginary material.

The theory questions that were hardly ever broached and almost never answered systematically were about how to tie all this tremendous imaginative energy into play in a reliable way. But the idea that you were doing this was there, for a lot of us.

So that was my #2. My #1 was that these mechanics, because of their sparseness, made it easier than in virtually all pre-Forge games (this is where the Forge has really transformed gaming IMO, at least in principle) to go straight to the player, to cut out the bullshit and say: how do YOU solve this problem? What do YOU think about this situation? (You've been playing this character like this, do you really believe that, does she really believe in that, or what?)

My point was that this is not actually breaking the rules at all in old versions of OD&D. The game has NO resolution mechanics for this stuff (as opposed to, 'roll your oratory skill to convince the Paladin that he'll be better off going back to his vows and forgetting all about you' kind of stuff). That means you're in the system when you use Drama to resolve this stuff.

I don't want to push this too hard of course, for a variety of reasons, but I wasn't meaning to be vague - there was a specific answer to Troy's question there. Of course he's playing 3.5 and I'm really talking about the brown and blue books and maybe the first AD&D books, Arduin and Alarums & Excursions, so one could question the relevance I suppose.

Heya,

Yeah, I'm playing D&D 3.5.  The thing I find interesting is that mechanics to support your #1 and #2 goals as a GM are sparcely supported in D&D with actual mechanics.  Compare "world building" mechanics in the D&D DMG with the "character building" mechanics in the palyer's guide.  Wow, what a disparity!  Now I think Dogs goes very far in helping GMs design worlds (in this case towns), but what about some other games- both Forge and non-Forge games?  Where are the mechanics that support the GM's fun?

Peace,

-Troy

The problem I have with statements like "giving players a fun experience" is that it's too abstract.

Good stuff, Mike. That's spot on.

Troy, I consider this to actually be a sort of big gaping hole in some (not all) current design. Chalk up Dogs as a big exception to the rule, of course. I will say two things about the setting and situation-generating system stuff, though:

1) In games with a traditional GM setup, less is actually more. D&D 3 broke me on this when I picked it up, which is why I sometimes say intemperate things about what's basically a pretty well-designed system for its design goals. I'll never have those hours back I put into choosing skills for some weird monster I dreamed up. If you can, go pick up an old-time 3rd party D&D product (The Arduin Grimoires, Booty and the Beasts, Dark Tower come to mind as three good examples). What's striking about this stuff is that people are just basically making things up endlessly, some good and some bad, but there's a very low barrier to putting your own imagination into the game. All kinds of interesting material in there, and all you need is hit points and armor class and a couple other things and you're good to go, so the barrier to introduction of these things is low. (But again, it's hard to make it relevant except when you fight it, so there's something missing too.) Whereas later systems with their mechanical innovations (many genuine, don't get me wrong) pile this work higher and higher. I could never make supervillains for Champions now that I'm out of high school, for instance. So if your goal is to make it easy for one or more players to introduce new imaginative material into the game, prep-light, low-emulation mechanics (or focused high-emulation mechanics that let you leave out a lot of stuff you'd have to specify in other systems - try writing up your Trollbabe and running similar adventures for GURPS e.g.) are a big boon to the GM here.

2) In my nascent design the spell, location, and adversity decks, together with the Connections rules (which feed into the adversity deck in certain ways) which all players can introduce material to, are directly designed to let everyone introduce the world and adventure stuff that they want to deal with. There's not too much stuff on that up on my website yet, but the idea I had was that if you have a pool of elements that everyone contributes to within certain parameters, and those elements then get put into play in a regular way, that's a way for the setting to inform and be informed by play (the loop is important) that I hope will be a tool both for players (I get to decide what things I'm going to explore, we're going to that part of the map, I have a shot at that sword, etc.) and for GMs (gotta put together an adventure, here's the elements I make it out of) even in a relatively traditional playstyle.

I'll just chip in with my experience. I much prefer the position of GM to player. I think the reason is twofold; most of the games I have been a player in have not allowed much player-created-content (Vampire, D&D, etc.) and most of the games I run do (Dogs, PTA, etc.) but I don't know of anyone else who actually runs indie games. So I think some of it could be just getting to create stuff that's only permitted by the GM in traditional games could be some of it.

But also,  found I just like watching the town/episode unfold and acting as an audience to the player contributions gives me my fun. When they come up with a cool narration or struggle with a tough decision; that's what I find entertaining. I guess it's a similar response to watching a good TV or stage drama (which in itself is entertainment for a large proportion of the planet, and even then finding good drama is hard enough), but with the added bonus that you get additional social reinforcement - I get to say "cool" to thier contributions and the players ask me when I can run a game again, for example.

Calithena, your point #1 really really resonates with me. What has absolutely killed my fun with D20 when characters start hitting about 10th level is the amount of effort it takes to write up creatures. Contrast this to Cold Iron (which I've been sharing details of on my blog) where a creature requires a small number of stats (more than AD&D 1e, though it's also easy to write up the creature at several levels so I think it balances out). Sure, mostly the creative image of the creature boils down to those numbers, but because the effort is small, it's fun. What compounds the unfunness for me in D20 is how quickly those creatures are killed, and how easy it is to forget to use one of their abilities.

Frank

Heya,

Troy, I consider this to actually be a sort of big gaping hole in some (not all) current design. Chalk up Dogs as a big exception to the rule, of course. I will say two things about the setting and situation-generating system stuff, though:

1) In games with a traditional GM setup, less is actually more. D&D 3 broke me on this when I picked it up, which is why I sometimes say intemperate things about what's basically a pretty well-designed system for its design goals. I'll never have those hours back I put into choosing skills for some weird monster I dreamed up.

Now, take the "duties" of GMing. Worldbuilding, NPC portrayal, play facilitation, leadership, etc. Of course, which a person has in an actual game group may vary according to how people see the GM's duties. But if you look at any one of these it's pretty easy to see where the fun is.

Hi all

This thread is a red herring isn't it? GM fun is the elephant in the room isn't it? We never speak about it, but we all know its there yes? When did you last sit in a game and hear the GM grumble 'I don't get enough screen time' or I'd rather be playing 'x'? The GM gets all the fun the players get and more, however you like to say or define it. And of course, when it goes wrong then nobody suffers more than the GM.

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

Regards
Rob

Lamorak33 wrote:
What I would like to know is a suggestion to what you could possibly give a GM that he dosen't already get?

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.

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

Rob wrote:
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
--

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. 

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.

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?

Troy_Costisick wrote:
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 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

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"....