Quote from: David Johansen;1025213Yeah, there's not much to be done for people who just aren't really into it.

Well, you could just let them keep playing that way and not bother anyone. The question is if those players drag the game down for everyone else.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1025520Well, you could just let them keep playing that way and not bother anyone. The question is if those players drag the game down for everyone else.

I believe they sap enthusiasm. For me GMing is rewarding when players are having fun. That energy is what encourages me to create, prep and run a game. When people just show up to use me, sap my energy and don't contribute, I tend to feel less enthusiasm for that game. I poke at the dead-beats until they either escape my attentions or step-up. :-D

My main concern is that the party is functionally self-directing.  I don't care if that is due to 1 driving force or if everyone is lending their voice and opinions to what the group chooses to do.  So long as:

1. Everyone is having fun
2. The players own the party's objectives

That can be with any leader/follower structure the party is happy with.

It's pretty rare to find 4-8 opinionated people that play well together; most of the time it's going to be 1-2 people driving and 3-6 people willing to follow.  For the same reasons not everyone is capable of top-rank GMing, not everyone is capable of leadership play style.

Quote from: EOTB;1025768It's pretty rare to find 4-8 opinionated people that play well together; most of the time it's going to be 1-2 people driving and 3-6 people willing to follow.  For the same reasons not everyone is capable of top-rank GMing, not everyone is capable of leadership play style.

I'm not sure either of these is true:).

Quote from: AsenRG;1025832I'm not sure either of these is true:).

Other than a possible quibble over the choice of "capable" to describe the limitation, I'm sure it is true.  I might more charitably put it at, "not everyone is willing to develop a leadership play style."  At some point, though it becomes moot.  If they aren't going to do it, does it really matter exactly why?

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1026123Other than a possible quibble over the choice of "capable" to describe the limitation, I'm sure it is true.  I might more charitably put it at, "not everyone is willing to develop a leadership play style."  At some point, though it becomes moot.  If they aren't going to do it, does it really matter exactly why?

Yes.
If people can't do it, you can't do anything.
If they aren't willing, you can work with them and at least try to persuade them to try.

I think pretty much anyone can GM, and with effort and experience they can get better and better. Whether someone is a good GM or not, half of that is the work and effort put into it, some of it is raw talent, and a lot of it comes down to the preferences of the players (i.e. one man's good GM is another man's bad GM).

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1026210I think pretty much anyone can GM, and with effort and experience they can get better and better. Whether someone is a good GM or not, half of that is the work and effort put into it, some of it is raw talent, and a lot of it comes down to the preferences of the players (i.e. one man's good GM is another man's bad GM).

I used to believe this. I don't anymore.

People that *want* to GM will continue to do it because it's something that, dare I get too 'woo-woo', calls to them. Sure a lot of people get dragged kicking and screaming to the GM's chair due to necessity. Most do it reluctantly and fall out or rotate. Some, if they stick it out, become somewhat comfortable and become "decent" or even "good" GM's.

Then there are those that do it and eventually something "clicks". They're not doing it because they're forced to do it, it becomes like this 'itch' that needs to be scratched. It's not even really a question of whether they're going to GM - they're *going* to GM, it's a question of what campaign and system they're going to run. OR the off the chance they're going to let someone else who may have had such a good time playing they're feeling "the call" as well, and let them have a shot.

The Great GM's are the ones that have helped conduct games that produce an experience that everyone remembers for years and chases that experience for every game from that point forward like a crack-head. They wont' succeed every time (in fact they'll fail more often than not) but the goal will always to bring their games to "that level of play" where everyone is in "the zone". As you chase it, it gets harder and harder to reproduce, this tends to bring those GM's to this point of constantly trying to up their game while balancing not blowing themselves out by losing sight of what the real point is and not taking it to places the game was never meant to go.

I would never say "one man's good GM is another man's bad GM" simply because that's like saying all opinions are equal. They aren't. Because a player's needs are different than a GM's needs. GM's look at other GM's with an often more critical eye that players who don't GM can't really fundamentally understand (which brings up a good idea for another thread!). So while I'm not saying I don't value the opinion of players, surely I do. When it comes to GMing - I'll value the opinion of another GM or players that I know GM's over one that doesn't.

I think the idea of "one man's good GM" and some people being "called" to be a GM are not exclusive.  It calls to me, but I'm certainly not a good GM for everyone.  If I sometimes flirt with greatness in the GM chair, it's because I'm specialized at a particular style of game valued by a subset of players.  For them, sometimes it all clicks.  I've tried to run for others where I could tell they were bored silly--not buying what I was selling.

Quote from: tenbones;1026220I used to believe this. I don't anymore.

People that *want* to GM will continue to do it because it's something that, dare I get too 'woo-woo', calls to them. Sure a lot of people get dragged kicking and screaming to the GM's chair due to necessity. Most do it reluctantly and fall out or rotate. Some, if they stick it out, become somewhat comfortable and become "decent" or even "good" GM's.

Then there are those that do it and eventually something "clicks". They're not doing it because they're forced to do it, it becomes like this 'itch' that needs to be scratched. It's not even really a question of whether they're going to GM - they're *going* to GM, it's a question of what campaign and system they're going to run. OR the off the chance they're going to let someone else who may have had such a good time playing they're feeling "the call" as well, and let them have a shot.



I would never say "one man's good GM is another man's bad GM" simply because that's like saying all opinions are equal. They aren't. Because a player's needs are different than a GM's needs. GM's look at other GM's with an often more critical eye that players who don't GM can't really fundamentally understand (which brings up a good idea for another thread!). So while I'm not saying I don't value the opinion of players, surely I do. When it comes to GMing - I'll value the opinion of another GM or players that I know GM's over one that doesn't.

I wasn't saying every person can be a great GM, I was saying everyone can GM. And I think that is pretty obviously true. So far, I've met exactly zero people who were incapable of running a game or a small campaign.

I wasn't saying all opinions are equal or that all GMs are equally subjectively good/bad. I was saying often whether one likes a particular GM does come down to taste and chemistry (Too many times, I've someone I may think of as a great GM, be viewed as a terrible one by someone else and it is usually because the GM does something I love, but that person strongly dislikes).

QuoteThe Great GM's are the ones that have helped conduct games that produce an experience that everyone remembers for years and chases that experience for every game from that point forward like a crack-head. They wont' succeed every time (in fact they'll fail more often than not) but the goal will always to bring their games to "that level of play" where everyone is in "the zone". As you chase it, it gets harder and harder to reproduce, this tends to bring those GM's to this point of constantly trying to up their game while balancing not blowing themselves out by losing sight of what the real point is and not taking it to places the game was never meant to go.

Absolutely there are stellar GMs out there who stand above the average GM (and I honestly would count myself as an average GM). But this sounds like an awful ideal GM to me (and I think this ideal is why so many people are afraid of GMing or find the experience torturous). There is also nothing more annoying than players who ruin perfectly functional games because they are pining for some experience they had with a GM 10 years ago. And equally annoying, at least from my point of view, is the self tortured GM who is pining for a session he once ran 10 years ago, and constantly engaged in some weird self improvement program. My experience is the great GMs are relaxed, self confident, don't worry too much about things not working out, and generally are just good at the social aspect of making the game work well regardless of who they have in front of them.

It isn't rocket science or fine art. It is a game. Most people can do it fine with enough patience. Some people can do it great. And with enough time and effort pretty much anyone can get better at it (and like anything else, you can get worse if you start pursuing a program that doesn't fit you well).

Well I do make certain distinctions because I think they matter.

I don't count shitty GM's as actually "GMing" just because they drew the short-straw and are playing the part of the monster out of some reason other than them wanting to do it. I'm generous to those wanting to learn, but I wouldn't be a long-term player in a game that wasn't going anywhere either - or the GM just liked to run on-the-rails modules, or whatever.

I disagree that people are "fine enough with patience [as GMs]" since I rarely see people with that kind of patience go the distance. I attribute this fact to most things outside of GMing as well. No, it's not rocket-science or a fine-art... until you find that GM that can elevate it (or descend it) to that level. Like all good things: GMing is a skill that gives back what you put into it. Can anyone do it? Sure. Can they be good at it? Depends on time and effort sunk in. Most people don't do that in this hobby, they "dabble".

The question is "Who is capable of GMing?" that's easy to answer. But I would also say that not everyone that thinks they're GM's are actually GMing. Hell they have games now designed to have no GM's... (blasphemy!)

Quote from: tenbones;1026220I used to believe this. I don't anymore.

People that *want* to GM will continue to do it because it's something that, dare I get too 'woo-woo', calls to them. Sure a lot of people get dragged kicking and screaming to the GM's chair due to necessity. Most do it reluctantly and fall out or rotate. Some, if they stick it out, become somewhat comfortable and become "decent" or even "good" GM's.

Then there are those that do it and eventually something "clicks". They're not doing it because they're forced to do it, it becomes like this 'itch' that needs to be scratched. It's not even really a question of whether they're going to GM - they're *going* to GM, it's a question of what campaign and system they're going to run. OR the off the chance they're going to let someone else who may have had such a good time playing they're feeling "the call" as well, and let them have a shot.

The Great GM's are the ones that have helped conduct games that produce an experience that everyone remembers for years and chases that experience for every game from that point forward like a crack-head. They wont' succeed every time (in fact they'll fail more often than not) but the goal will always to bring their games to "that level of play" where everyone is in "the zone". As you chase it, it gets harder and harder to reproduce, this tends to bring those GM's to this point of constantly trying to up their game while balancing not blowing themselves out by losing sight of what the real point is and not taking it to places the game was never meant to go.

I would never say "one man's good GM is another man's bad GM" simply because that's like saying all opinions are equal. They aren't. Because a player's needs are different than a GM's needs. GM's look at other GM's with an often more critical eye that players who don't GM can't really fundamentally understand (which brings up a good idea for another thread!). So while I'm not saying I don't value the opinion of players, surely I do. When it comes to GMing - I'll value the opinion of another GM or players that I know GM's over one that doesn't.

It is true that some people feel GMing calls to them.
I don't find those people are always the best at the job, though:).
In fact, some of the best GMs I've played with were running their games without considering it anything special. And most of those also like playing...
Then again, some of the best GMs are exactly as you describe them;).

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1026229I think the idea of "one man's good GM" and some people being "called" to be a GM are not exclusive.  It calls to me, but I'm certainly not a good GM for everyone.  If I sometimes flirt with greatness in the GM chair, it's because I'm specialized at a particular style of game valued by a subset of players.  For them, sometimes it all clicks.  I've tried to run for others where I could tell they were bored silly--not buying what I was selling.

Well, yeah, it happens. And that's why I subscribe to the idea of "one man's good GM is another's bad GM".
As an example, some people I've run games for have considered me a good GM because of giving the players maximum freedom of choice. (Some were even ore enthusiastic, but that doesn't matter).
Other players have felt disappointed there isn't a story planned out. And we're talking about players who had just participated at the same session:D!
There's no pleasing everybody.

Clearly if we are being literal there are people who cannot be GM's. Around 10% of the population has an IQ under 85, and would likely be unable to do the basic things needed to be a GM. Most military's don't consider these individuals capable of reliably performing a useful function no matter how much training they are given. People in this group have a great deal of difficulty using a computer and holding any job in the modern economy. This may be running into some social/political commentary so . . .

Looking at it another way, there are certainly people who are barely literate, or have a great deal of difficulty with basic math. Unless that dramatically changes they cannot be GMs.

The vast majority of the population, and almost certainly anyone reading this is indeed capable of refereeing or GMing a game.

I'd say the key competencies of GM are something like:
Ability to explain the rules*
Ability to make rulings
Ability to manage a group of people (getting people together regularly in a spirit of co-operation is a non-trivial task that we too often take for granted)
Ability to describe the world/politics/environment/context etc clearly enough for the players to engage with it
Ability to appear fair

I'm sure there are things that could be added to the above list. Some may be about a specific playstyle or system. The importance of some can vary as well. But if you can do the above, you can GM.

Some might say certain personality types are better suited, and that may be true. However many things can be overcome. I was painfully shy to the point of selective mutism when I was very young. This still rears it's head in some context. But I can walk into a con and run a game for complete strangers because I know what I am doing from experience.

Can anyone GM? No. Can the vast majority of people GM? Yes. Is it in fact much easier than most people think? Yes. It can be an intimidating proposition for some to tackle. Do you learn as you GM? Yes. I also think you can learn bad habits and stagnate.

The main quality of being a good GM seems to me to be communicating clearly to players what to expect so they can be all be onboard.

*As a weird addendum, you don't need to correctly explain the rules, or be doing it "right" but if you can explain what you will be doing; that's all you need.
Doing things "right" is another thing that keeps people from GMing, and it shouldn't because you learn by playing.

And of course as some old geezer here keeps saying.

"No gaming is better than bad gaming."

And some players should NEVER DM. EVER. And some just shouldnt DM for your group. Styles vary as we see here on this forum alone.

And for that matter some players should never play D&D, or board games, or anything. People who are just there to fuck with the DM or players, people who just hate games.

You are never going to get a dice-o-phobe to play D&D or most other traditional RPGs. Some of them have what borders on a pathological hatred of dice or anything random in some cases. They might to storytelling. But some cant do that even for other reasons.

So Yes, some people are really not capable of being a DM. Mercifully rare. Least I hope so. :eek:

Quote from: Omega;1026467And of course as some old geezer here keeps saying.

"No gaming is better than bad gaming."

And some players should NEVER DM. EVER. And some just shouldnt DM for your group. Styles vary as we see here on this forum alone.

And for that matter some players should never play D&D, or board games, or anything. People who are just there to fuck with the DM or players, people who just hate games.

You are never going to get a dice-o-phobe to play D&D or most other traditional RPGs. Some of them have what borders on a pathological hatred of dice or anything random in some cases. They might to storytelling. But some cant do that even for other reasons.

So Yes, some people are really not capable of being a DM. Mercifully rare. Least I hope so. :eek:

That's where I stand.  Not everyone can do everything.