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.

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! :)

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

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.

Ron wrote:
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.

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.

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?

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

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

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."

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?

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

(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

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."

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...

psrgchx wrote:
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...

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...

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

   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.

contracycle wrote:
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. 

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.