So, on a pretty average gaming night where I'm GMing, I usually set a scene, maybe getting some input from the group on what that is - I might say "So, you're in your usual spot for talking; tell me about it." They toss around a few ideas, and a description emerges.

Occasionally, I'll drop them into a 'finished' scene - "You're in Scrapiron Square, and the funeral for Rosebud's friend Kelty has just ended.  Kelty nods a goodbye as he prepares to be melted down."

But whichever, we have a scene, the characters are in it - there's a fiction.  This is where I lean in, and drop a conflict on everyone.  A contact meets with them and tells them about something they need to do.  They arrive on the scene where something is wrong.  A dragon on the horizon.  You name it.

And this, I think, is where we hit the point where our playstyle starts to diverge from others in the most notable way.

Often, I see game advice that points towards the idea that "the GM plays the world" - yeah, I know that's a crappy way to put it, but you get the idea.  See, I don't do that.  We all throw stuff into the world, we all veto bits of it here and there, no big deal.  I throw in the most, by far, but I don't feel like I'm "taking ownership" of the world.

I play the conflicts.  The obstacles, the problems, the villians, the aid that comes to the characters, the resources they have that they want to call upon.  That stuff.  Players don't throw around ideas for those during play; they don't get creative input on that any more than I get to tell them what their characters think of stuff, or what their characters do.

The parts of the world outside of the conflict, those we share, because they're just the backdrop.  The characters and the conflict, that's the real game to us.

So, fellow GMs, what's your "character"?  What's the thing you focus on playing?

Repercussions are my main focus. The group can pretty much do what they want to who they want (within the realms of their in character limitations). It's my job to figure out what happens because of it.

I'm every damn thing the PCs aren't, including the weather and dramatic lighting.  I got no problems with players who want to dress up the game, I've just never gamed with any.

The GM plays the world is pretty much what I do. The greater part of this is playing the conflict - but honestly, my main focus is creating a tone or atmosphere which sustains the interest of the players.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: fonkaygarryI'm every damn thing the PCs aren't, including the weather and dramatic lighting.  I got no problems with players who want to dress up the game, I've just never gamed with any.

Yeah, that's about my stance on it. My players have described their ideal GM as a kind of 'living MMO server', running everything from local vermin to the gods on their thrones while they concentrate on their central goal of immersion. If they wanted to contribute materials to the world either between or in session, they know they're welcome to offer it up. Sometimes they do, but mostly, it doesn't interest them nearly as much as play does. I got no problems with that.

The NPCs, pretty much. I come up with the scenery, lighting, weather and all that other jazz as needed, but the players can (and do) throw in their own stuff here, which is all good.

I ensure that all my major NPCs want something from the PCs (information, them dead, their protection) and the other major NPCs, and that at least some are driven/desperate/mad/headstrong/etc. enough so they will to do whatever it takes to get it. Ensure that and a lot of those desires are incompatible and would interfere with each other, and try to make the NPCs , their wants, and the whole messed up situation matter to the players*, and I'm ready to roll.

Then, during the game, my job as GM -- as I see it -- is to play those NPCs hard, remembering that they are willing to anything in their power (violence, bribery, seduction, bargining, etc.) to get what they want from the PCs. Everything else pretty much falls out of that naturally. A part of that is also seeing who & what gets the players jazzed, and which things fall a bit flat, so I can adjust things as I need to in later sessions.

EDIT: So pretty much like Levi, really

I don't think there is anything incompatible about the GM playing the world and the GM playing conflicts, they have different goals.

Where used, the GM plays the world as it makes the world a more real place, an external thing the players interact with.

Where used, the GM plays conflicts to create a certain type of challenge and roleplaying opportunity.

To me these things are wholly orthogonal, neither supportive of each other nor conflicting.

This is actually a somewhat disingenious take on things, Levi.  Just about any GM, good or bad (not boring ones, maybe...) plays the Conflict in the game, it's part and parcel of playing the world.

Here is the thing, unless you have a group of driven, dedicated hive minded players, you are still going to have conflict that is outside of the world. Players will compete with each other, argue with each other, even, if things get out of hand, fight with each other. And as the GM you have little, to nothing, to do with that conflict.  

Thus, while saying conflict is part of the world is not the same as saying the world is part of conflict.

It doesn't seem that you do much differently than any other half decent GM out there, you have merely chosen to frame it differently. A cool differently, to be certain, perhaps even 'better'.  I'd rather play with a GM that had a firm grasp on conflict than one that had no grasp of conflict but an awesome, fully realized setting...

Quote from: Levi KornelsenOccasionally, I'll drop them into a 'finished' scene - "You're in Scrapiron Square, and the funeral for Rosebud's friend Kelty has just ended.  Kelty nods a goodbye as he prepares to be melted down."

That's a cool scene.  Kelty's funeral has just ended and then he gets melted down?  Cool.

Levi:  This is a tricky issue for me.  I used to play like this ... in my personal history, this style of GMing is a relic of my past, a stage that I have deliberately left behind.

Does that mean that the way I play now is universally better, or even personally better for me, than playing the conflict?  Aw hell no.  In ten years I may well have come full circle, be back to playing the conflict (with a better understanding now) and all that.  I'm sure that wherever I am in ten years, I'll look back at where I stand today as a relic of my past.  That's how you avoid stasis.

But, for me right now, I want to put forth a vision for the world, and often to play some characters I care about, when I'm GMing.  Because, otherwise, why am I getting into conflict with people?  If they want to kill Trudy and I don't actually give a damn about Trudy, but I jump into a huge conflict to say "No!  You can't kill Trudy!  NO!" then I feel awfully insincere.  Likewise if we get into a conflict about which way the kingdom's laws will be made, or who gets to wed the alien moon-princess or whatever.

I want to put some creative ideas of my own actually on the table ... things that I'd like to see happen, but which I totally understand may get trashed by the process of play.  Then I want to genuinely fight for them.

'course, I prefer games where the GM isn't given so much power that I can't have a fair fight with the players, with a sporting chance of them beating me down and taking away my toys.  Otherwise this whole "I want to put some of myself into the game and defend it" would just be bullying, right?

So that's where I am.  I see where you are.  We're cool, I hope.

Snip snip...

Quote from: TonyLBThen I want to genuinely fight for them.

'course, I prefer games where the GM isn't given so much power that I can't have a fair fight with the players, with a sporting chance of them beating me down and taking away my toys.  Otherwise this whole "I want to put some of myself into the game and defend it" would just be bullying, right?

I love seeing bits where "what I play" is operating totally in synch with something else.

In the mirror of this thread on RPGnet, there was a guy that talked about his traditional narration stuff, and then also mentioned that he played "the mystery" as GM.

For you, you want to fight for your stuff, but you want your game set up so that it's cool to fight for it.

That's totally neat!

Oh, absolutely!  If you get a kick out of performing the grand reveal then you need totally different techniques in a whole lot of situations, to facilitate that.  You can get away with mismatches, but over time you'll end up saying "Man, I have a better time when I do things in way B rather than way A."  There's a whole holistic thing going on.

Quote from: BalbinusI don't think there is anything incompatible about the GM playing the world and the GM playing conflicts, they have different goals.

Where used, the GM plays the world as it makes the world a more real place, an external thing the players interact with.

Where used, the GM plays conflicts to create a certain type of challenge and roleplaying opportunity.

To me these things are wholly orthogonal, neither supportive of each other nor conflicting.

Completely agree with this; I think the when someone says, "I play X" that gets read alternately as "I do the necessary housekeeping for X" and/or "I own and am passionate about X"

Those are two quite different meanings of "to play" -- and both can be appropriate.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.Completely agree with this; I think the when someone says, "I play X" that gets read alternately as "I do the necessary housekeeping for X" and/or "I own and am passionate about X"

Those are two quite different meanings of "to play" -- and both can be appropriate.

Fair enough.  I meant "I'll do the housekeeping for the setting" and "I own and am passionate about creating and escalating conflicts."

I'm sorry but... housekeeping? :confused: