Bingo.

The worst gamemaster you've ever met may well have a table full of players who think that game is the greatest ever.

That's why I say "anybody can run a game well enough to be fun."

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1023839Well, that raises the question of whether there is "objectively good GMing" with certain kinds of practices or games, or if all that matters is "are people having fun."

I don't see how that follows.  There can be objective standards (and for that matter, subjective standards).  Then there can be different levels of excellence related to different goals.  

I play piano.  I do some thing better than some people that have had formal lessons for several years.  I also have slight deficiencies in hearing and rhythm, coordination, and fingers that are too short to ever be a truly excellent player.  Also, my tastes and interests in musical pieces, and the time I'm willing to spend practicing is limited.  Measure by the usual standards, I'm a below average amateur with some skills, that with a lot of work could be an above average amateur.  There are technical proficiencies that you can measure and compare with other players to arrive at that conclusion.  Then there is my goal, which is that playing is a different, relaxing experience, where sometimes I play things deliberately "wrong" in ways that I find interesting.  That is, I play primarily for me, in private, as an experience.  By those goals, I'm fairly good.  If I'm practicing a lot, I can play in ways that most people can enjoy, if they aren't talented musicians themselves or the focus is on something else.  I could, for example, were I so inclined, play well enough to play at a bar.  

GMing skills are often of that nature.  Ability to referee is a skill that can be measured.  Some people are better at it than others.  How much do you need to be good?  That depends upon the demands of that game.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1023270Which, to me, is far more interesting than discussing if you have to be a "Chosen One" to be "born" a referee.

Both! One Born to be Chosen! :cool:

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1023359Except running a game isn't like being an architect, it's more like making a decent meatloaf or a fairly good fried egg sandwich.  Yeah, there are people who never will learn to do it, but they are DAMN few.

It is NOT that tough.

I have seen people burn water...
I have seen atrocities committed upon defenseless eggs.
I seen microwave beams glitter in the dark near the meatloaf.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;1023613I'd agree with that; I first ran into this kind of gaming in the summer of '75, and I still think that they are, as you say, "a waste of space" and the biggest single reason why I don't go to game conventions. One powergamer can totally ruin the best-planned and-built game, both for me and the other players.

Powergaming OD&D is pretty hysterical.

At cons, I weild two weapons (a) pre-gen characters and (b) house rules. I rarely find powerflunkies an issue, except for D&D which when I run, I always list the system as "My OD&D" or "4e Variant" or "AD&D/Gamma World hybrid" in the game description or something akin to scare them off. The powerflunkies rarely want to step into a situation where they can't wield their interpretation of the RAW against the GM.

Pre-gens go a long way too. "Can I bring my character?" is always answered with NO. I learned that pain as a teen.

If you do cons again (and I hope you do), make your online and book description VERY UPFRONT about your style and expectations. The effort will be appreciated by both the players who join your game and those who avoid it. Just saying "Rulings, not Rules" will freak out most powerflunkies.

Canon bitches have become more of a convention concern for me. In response, I mostly run "my setting" stuff or "alternate setting", aka "it's Star Wars, on the other side of the galaxy, 100 years after Darth's death" or Traveller "in a sector long forgotten by the Imperium"

And I know you have had FAR more issues with canon bitches than probably anyone else on this forum.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;1023613After forty years, I'm tired of this kind of thing, and I don;t want to waste any more of my life and energy on that kind of gaming.

Full agreed.

No gaming is better than bad gaming BUT it is worth the effort to find good players.

Quote from: Omega;1023767I can guarantee you that there are people who if they GMed or reffed a game would suck every atom of enjoyment from it somehow.

Sadly, most "Organized Play" groups (like Pathfinder Society, RPGA, etc) have achieved this.

Quote from: Sailing Scavenger;1023723Everyone does not like Apocalypse World but it's my firm belief that anyone who GMs it will become better at their craft. I believe it's possible to write a manual for completely fresh GMs that can take them step by step and teach them the ropes without having to spend hundreds of hours doing trial and error or watching someone else do it. There is an endless sea of bad GM practices that are often laid bare in various discussions but I believe there is a much smaller set of good GM practices could possibly be compiled into a manual that could help even people of mediocre intelligence, empathy and charisma to entertain a full table for hours.

Holy shit SS! That's an awesome post.

I have not seen anybody explain the strength of AW like that before.

I do not like narrative RPGs, but I think I have to get AW just to see how the GM advice is constructed.

Very cool!!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1023843The worst gamemaster you've ever met may well have a table full of players who think that game is the greatest ever.

Nope. We all thought he sucked.

Quote from: Omega;1023878I have seen people burn water...
I have seen atrocities committed upon defenseless eggs.
I seen microwave beams glitter in the dark near the meatloaf.

I have seen macaroni and cheese on fire off the Tannhauser Gate....

Quote from: Omega;1023878I have seen people burn water...
I have seen atrocities committed upon defenseless eggs.
I seen microwave beams glitter in the dark near the meatloaf.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1023894I have seen macaroni and cheese on fire off the Tannhauser Gate....

Wow, and I thought that Waffle House was bad...

Quote from: Spinachcat;1023884Sadly, most "Organized Play" groups (like Pathfinder Society, RPGA, etc) have achieved this.

Does the RPGA even still exist?

From Spinachcat:
Powergaming OD&D is pretty hysterical.

Yep. Like the guy who was introduced to me with the phrase "He cheats on the dice in D & D". Why?

At cons, I weild two weapons (a) pre-gen characters and (b) house rules. I rarely find powerflunkies an issue, except for D&D which when I run, I always list the system as "My OD&D" or "4e Variant" or "AD&D/Gamma World hybrid" in the game description or something akin to scare them off. The powerflunkies rarely want to step into a situation where they can't wield their interpretation of the RAW against the GM.

I always warn people that we're playing "Tekumel", with Phil's EPT rules, and that always seems to stop a lot of them dead in their tracks - mostly because, I think, that somebody else at the table whispers to them just who I am and what I'm about to do at the table. One we get going, I've never had an issue over who 'owns' the table, as Gronan saw and commented on at the Gary Con game. The issues are, as you point out, getting to that point - again, like Groan had in his most recent Gary Con game. Weeding out the idiots is what saps my energy and stamina...

Pre-gens go a long way too. "Can I bring my character?" is always answered with NO. I learned that pain as a teen.

Agreed. It saves a lot of screaming and shouting later on at the table.

If you do cons again (and I hope you do), make your online and book description VERY UPFRONT about your style and expectations. The effort will be appreciated by both the players who join your game and those who avoid it. Just saying "Rulings, not Rules" will freak out most powerflunkies.

Good advice. We're looking at our options, and making some very long-term decisions.

Canon bitches have become more of a convention concern for me. In response, I mostly run "my setting" stuff or "alternate setting", aka "it's Star Wars, on the other side of the galaxy, 100 years after Darth's death" or Traveller "in a sector long forgotten by the Imperium"

And I know you have had FAR more issues with canon bitches than probably anyone else on this forum.

Yep. I've had lots and lots of people try 'canon' on me, over the years, and it's why I carry so much stuff around with me. I had one guy try this, recently, and I pulled out the book and said "Let's look at that in context, and then look at the notes from the game session that inspired that article." Kills 'em stone dead, as right about then somebody else at the table lets them know who I am and what I've done over the years. It does get old, as all I want to do is get on with the dang game.

Full agreed. No gaming is better than bad gaming BUT it is worth the effort to find good players.

Truth. I'm working on it.

I think anyone can be a GM, even a Good GM or Great GM...they just need the right players.  Every GM has strengths and weaknesses, and we all learn to rely on the strengths and compensate for the weaknesses, and one way to compensate is to find players for whom your strengths are a big plus, and your weaknesses, eh whatever. Play with enough players and this will happen organically over time.  

Obviously we're all going to get better over time, but some GM's think they've "arrived" and are now Master GM's, but really, they just found their Forever Group.

Quote from: jeff37923;1023019Had a conversation a short while ago about people being Gamemasters. The guy I was talking to declared that not just anyone can be a GM. That it takes a special mix of intelligence, imagination, and organizational skills to even begin to learn the art of GMing.

My own thoughts are that his opinion is self-aggrandizing bullshit.

Anyone can be a GM, anyone can learn how if they apply themselves. In the beginning, you will suck at it - just like all of us did at the start. Given time and effort, anybody can become a good GM.

What are your thoughts? Am I wrong?

Anyone that can play an RPG can Referee it. You were right, including about the "self-aggrandizing bullshit"!

Quote from: Sailing Scavenger;1023723Now, I'd love to see if someone disagrees with anything I've said or if they can offer another game which accomplished the same thing earlier.

Dividing the actions and reactions of the world up into "moves" strikes me as annoyingly artificial and is not at all how I envision or even want to envision the game world. Only the players roll bores me nearly to tears as the GM, as does a reliance on the obvious. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that AW isn't really written for me.

Quote from: Bren;1024062Dividing the actions and reactions of the world up into "moves" strikes me as annoyingly artificial and is not at all how I envision or even want to envision the game world. Only the players roll bores me nearly to tears as the GM, as does a reliance on the obvious. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that AW isn't really written for me.

I'm pretty sure you don't need to. I mean, we have some disagreements, but I'm sure you already know how to Make (setting) Seem Real, Make the PCs Lives Not Boring and Play/Run To Find Out What Happens;).

Quote from: CRKrueger;1023926Every GM has strengths and weaknesses, and we all learn to rely on the strengths and compensate for the weaknesses...

I have only strength.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1023926Obviously we're all going to get better over time, but some GM's think they've "arrived" and are now Master GM's, but really, they just found their Forever Group.

I have never arrived. I am constantly in the arrival process, making me terminally late. That is the source of my strength. It is vast. It is known.

Quote from: Bren;1024062Dividing the actions and reactions of the world up into "moves" strikes me as annoyingly artificial and is not at all how I envision or even want to envision the game world. Only the players roll bores me nearly to tears as the GM, as does a reliance on the obvious. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that AW isn't really written for me.

I think you would still learn good techniques running it even if you didn't enjoy it. The effect of the moves is not to constrain GM actions but to expand it. How often have you been in the position where you felt like something should happen, but throwing a random encounter at the party would be lame? D&D varies the procedural actions by having a random encounter list, random encounter numbers and reaction rolls. The GM-moves list is 15 moves and provides more variety as most of them don't deal with creatures. Instead of having to search your brain to come up with something you have the moves list to guide and inspire you. Of course, AW is not as challenge based as D&D so many of the harder moves would be arbitrary and unfair in a D&D game.