The Forge Archives

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

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

I'm quite comfortable with this idea.  In fact I might go so far as to say that given the differences between the rules bounding acceptable behaviour, how decisions are made etc, the GM is indeed playing a different game, and always has been.  This would be an "asymmetric" game, unlike those in which all playewrs have the same powers.

I think more work could be invested in making the GM's-game more fun and more 'live' as a game.  Too much of GMing is shrouded with paens to the public service ethos and the GM'[s generosity in undergoing all the preperation etc.  Possibly, if we stopped seeing RPG as one game, but instead as two interacting games, more instersting constructions might result.  The GM's game is a bit like solitaire, but that is not inadmassible as a game subject.

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

Hmmm, yes, that's his challege. But what is his explicit reward from the rules for doing it?

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.

Now, if the book doesn't have any rules saying (for example) 'For every point of damage you do to PC's you get a widget point which you can use latter for blah de blah' then he might go on to think 'Ah, my reward from this is to imagine grand scenes and interpersonal conflicts played out'. He might drift from gamist for that (if such a rule exists), but he doesn't have to in order to get any reward at all.

I'm certain the 'happy players are the GM's reward' will come up. Well, happy players aren't provided by the rules, that's something players might bring to the table. If the rules don't provide a reward, the GM may end up expecting it impractically from other sources (expecting players will always smile to reward his GM'ing work, or that grand scenes will happen or interpersonal conflicts get roleplayed out). I'm not sure I can articulate just now the effects of this, so I'll leave it incase it doesn't cause a stir anyway.

Quote from: NoonFor 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.

Then you picked up the wrong book, take it back to the book store and get a refund. A Gamist game would facilitate 'Gamist GMing' if it was properly designed. It might seem that there is no reward for the GM, and there I would argue that is very wrong.

Let's take the 'gamist' model, say D&D. If you play games of big treasure and killing dragons and complex dungeon tromps, 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.

*Because your perception of a difficult challenge is based on nothing concrete there aren't any books that explain the rules for this.

On the other hand, assuming we have a compatible group playing in a 'narativist' manner, once again the GM has the reward of acheiving their goals, telling an awesome story. Here, the GM and the player are both getting the same reward, without a doubt. A good story. There isn't a strong argument for a difference in rewards here (It's not like gamist where winning simply isn't applicable to the GM).

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.

Quote from: Johnas 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.

Quote from: Ronbut 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.

Okay, so it's established the GM can get a social reward from this. What does that have to do with the book?

To clarify and contrast what I mean, imagine a gamist game where the players reward was supposed to be purely social. Nope, no XP, no bonus or boost for using rules in a particular way and not even from cool move descriptions. Especially not anything funky like extra narative control. All those book rewards/designs you apply to facilitate a certain 'strategy and guts' play are gone. The only bonus is in social terms, as the system doesn't support any reward for gamist play.
Quite frankly that sounds more like a sim game, since to attack for example, you might just roll your dice...not much to do except enjoy the image it conjurs (which is good sim fun, unless I'm mistaken).

The social bonus can make it feel like gamist, ie you describe a smart move...absolutely no bonus for you from the rules, but everyone cheers you for doing it. But what has that got to do with the actual rule book you bought? How did that faciltate gamist play? By saying its up to the other players to reward the CA goal of the book? WTF?

And now back to the GM and the gamist game. Where it's quite easy to think of the GM as just another player and if you take a moment, see how he fits in the above example.

I think what's happening here is that two different social feedbacks are being confused for each other. One is where people cheer you for your description. The other is where people cheer you not only for your description, but in combination with that they admire how you wrung a bonus out of the rules by using your wits and/or guts. This feedback is underpinned by admiration for beneficial negotiation of the rule set.

Basically when I'm told the GM get's admiration from players, it's like being told system doesn't matter. Because if the admiration is not in any way connected with how the GM worked the ruleset to get himself a benefit, system did not matter in terms of that admiration.

I think it's too easy to link up any admiration that happens at a game as something to do with the game itself.

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.

Quote from: NoonYeah, 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.

This is true of some play styles, but personaly I get the biggest kick out of GM ing when I don't know exactly what will happen, because I've given the players enough latitude for action that I'm constantly trying to keep up, figuring out how the NPCs will respond to the players actions and how events will unfold.

Simon Hibbs

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