TheRPGSite

Had 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?

Fundamentally, I agree with you. Logic tells me that being a DM is a skill that anyone can learn. Some are more natural at it than others.

Well, there are certain skills which are critical to being a DM that may not be so essential as a player. If a person has little imagination, it's hard for him to come up with ideas for adventures. If a person is really shy, it's hard for him to be assertive enough to run a table. If a person can't think quickly, it's hard for him to adapt to situations when running a game. If a person isn't very organized, it's hard for them to juggle the details needed to maintain a campaign. I know a lot of folks who totally freeze up when they try to DM a group.

Sometimes I'm a poor player because I keep thinking to myself "no, I would have run this encounter this way..." and I know that it's time to dust off the screen and DM again. I think I'm a better DM than I am a player.

Quote from: jeff37923;1023019. Given time and effort, anybody can become a good GM.

What are your thoughts? Am I wrong?

I think you are mostly but not entirely right. As you say, with time and effort most GMs can improve. Anyone who puts their mind to it and listens to advice can improve their GM skills. But not everyone is cut out to be a good GM, some people can't or won't listen to advice and remain "non-optimal" GMs. Then there are those people who you think would be natural GMs who just don't have the patience or confidence to do it.

Someone might be a great GM at one system that they know and love, but really suck at another. And the reason they're good at one system _is_ the reason they suck at the other. If I'm playing in middle Earth, I want my GM to know the difference between the Noldor and Sindar - if I'm playing in Lankhmar and the GM keeps mentioning how much cooler it would be if there were Silmarils ... not so much. Do they count as a Good GM?

Hell, if *I* can become a halfway decent DM, I figure pretty much anyone can.

I believe that some people just do not have the spark to be a DM. Or lack the urge. Or both. Some people just can not GM NPCs. Some utterly suck at strategy. Some just want to be players. No amount of teaching or trying will chance that for some. Others might improve a little. But its never going to be a good experience simply because its not in them.

I do though think that about anyone can GM a well set up module or a combat heavy adventure. And it is fairly easy to GM any RPG with a built in random gen system. The more robust the better.

I also believe that some people can at the very least improve or have a try at being a GM at all. But only if they want to. You can not force people into it. Ive seen a few tries at this and sooner or later someones going to resent it or the experience for the players is just plain bad.

And same applies to players. Some just do not click to playing a PC. But may excel at GMing. Or maybee they fail both?

I believe illiteracy is a major barrier to becoming a decent DM.  I'm not saying it's impossible but if you never read anything and never read the rules, you probably shouldn't be running games.

Anyone imo. Though not all should be running a rpg.

Anybody. Being a referee isn't difficult. Being a good referee isn't difficult. It just requires people to do it.

One of the things I hate about "modern" gaming is the emphasis on being a good GM. I put a lot of the blame on the movement away from the "dungeon" being a core part of the game.

Anyone can if they put in the amount of work necessary. It's largely a technical skill IMO. The biggest hurdle, I think, is that there are...less useful...bits of advice floating around that might lead people into GMing cul-de-sacs.

If anything it's harder to be a "good player." It sure as hell is for me, so I stick with what I enjoy, GMing.

And that tells me the two roles come at the game from fundamentally different angles. Anyone can be a GM but it means playing a different game essentially than being a player.

I think some people are more able to hit the ground running than others, from experience. With enough practice, I can imagine someone might get good eventually, but the trouble will be finding others who are willing to spend their time in a bad game.

In my limited experience, that hasn't been the case. For example, in college, one guy volunteered to GM for a group. He pretty much sucked, and people lost interest. Some of the "diaspora" ended up in a vampire game with a guy who was pretty good.

I really wanted to give the other dude a chance, but no one else did.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;1023058I think some people are more able to hit the ground running than others, from experience. With enough practice, I can imagine someone might get good eventually, but the trouble will be finding someone who is willing to spend their time in a bad game.

In my limited experience, that hasn't been the case. For example, in college, one guy volunteered to GM for a group. He pretty much sucked, and people lost interest. Some of the "diaspora" ended up in a vampire game with a guy who was pretty good.

I really wanted to give the other dude a chance, but no one else did.

This anecdote furthers my belief that one of the biggest impediments to getting new players is the RPG "community". Before I deleted my Twitter account and Facebook accounts I cannot count high enough the times I read a post from somebody that was terrified to GM a session based on stories like yours or what they see on Twitch.

And again, I think when I got started GMing, the game was very focused on the "dungeon" and buying a module that was focused on the dungeon or building a dungeon was a way for new players to all learn the game together. Now that we are focused on "story telling" and too many of the gaming intelligentsia believe that the dungeon is "outdated" it makes it a lot harder for new players both behind and in front of the GM shield.

I think the easiest way to learn and teach the game is with a dungeon crawl.

Anyone can, but (after having played with, talked with, and heard about many problematic GMs who don't improve their wacky behavior very quickly at all) I don't really want to play with just any GM, and not even with many experienced ones. There are many GM behaviors that I don't want to play under, and in recent decades some of them have become typical and supported.

It's not as hard as some people make it out to be. Most people who play RPGs can GM.

However, some people aren't cut out for it simply because of their temperament. They're the people who can't even speak up to suggest a restaurant for lunch. Who won't initiate or organize something as simple as going to a movie. Who play boardgames all the time but would never buy a new game, learn it, and teach it to others. Some people are just really, really passive - too passive to run a game session.

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?

Well, you are right.
But so is the guy you were talking to.

Technically, anyone can do it, and even if they are downright bad at it, they can learn.
However.
Doing it is not automatically the same as doing it well.
It is not even the same as doing it "ok" or "good enough".
And really, some may be so total crap at it, that they really shouldn't do it .... at least not with a huge amount of help and/or preparation.
And many really don't have that help nor preparation!

There is also the simple difference in claiming:
"Everyone can do it"
and
"Everyone can learn how to do it".

If i say it like this:
Can anyone build a house?
The situation becomes so much clearer(at least to some).
A lot also depends on how you define a "house", but the same holds true for "GM".

Anyone is capable of doing it. Not everyone is going to push themselves enough to pull it off. It's not a matter of potential, but of doing - if you care about it enough, you will eventually be able to, and well. Some people have other priorities is all.

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?

I would rather say that it takes a certain kind of nut to want to take on the task of GMing in the first place. I agree that anyone can learn to do it, but the question is can they learn to do it well?

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1023071I would rather say that it takes a certain kind of nut to want to take on the task of GMing in the first place. I agree that anyone can learn to do it, but the question is can they learn to do it well?

You have seen the truth. Asked the right question. From this point forward there is only... The D.O.N.G.

Any one can be a GM. Just look at the ones out there. They're as good/bad as the players are.

Anybody can, with practice, learn to be a "pretty good" referee.

Maybe to be "great" you need a certain inborn talent, or a lot more work, or whatever.  But anybody can learn to run a fun game.  Period.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1023071I would rather say that it takes a certain kind of nut to want to take on the task of GMing in the first place. I agree that anyone can learn to do it, but the question is can they learn to do it well?

They can learn to do it "pretty good."  Enough to be fun.

Why they would WANT to is indeed the pivot.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1023104Anybody can, with practice, learn to be a "pretty good" referee.

Maybe to be "great" you need a certain inborn talent, or a lot more work, or whatever.  But anybody can learn to run a fun game.  Period.

Bingo. And that's all most really want

In theory, how much of a chance to grow would you guys give a new GM before you would decide to bail out? I think I can put up with a lot, as long as it's not abusive.

This is all hogwash and you're all fools. Every sane person knows that only those who dare climb to the summit of mount dragon's eyes and wrest the secrets of Gamemastery from the clutches of the twin demons Xagyg and Nosenra have the mettle and magic to become true, capitol-G Gamemasters. The rest of you weaklings are soft-bellied imposters, guzzling cheetos and pontificating about elfgames in your dank basements.

Shame on you, you sham GMs you. Stop insulting the true Masters.

Jack Chic was right, we have mind-shackling devil sorcery. No, you can't have any, you phonies.

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?

I absolutely get where you are coming from. And I'll split my response into discussing the concept, and then the truth.

To the concept, I kind of alluded to something similar on the dumbest monster (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?38442-Dumbest-D-amp-D-Creature&p=1022445&viewfull=1#post1022445) thread. There are some gamers (whether they identify as old school, or DM, or any other sub-group) that have a very self-congratulatory opinion of themselves or what they do. I feel like 90% of TTRPG players believe that they are in the top 10%, and that TTRPG-ers in general are mostly in the top 10% of the population, so it'd be very easy to believe that many-to-most DMs think that they are in the top tier of gamers.

Let's be clear, there are some amazingly dumb RPG gamers, and some GMs who I've never seen do anything exceptional (or the only thing I've seen them do exceptional is to be a good GM). GMing, like roleplaying in general, is an open admission activity. Anyone who wants to can do it (anyone who can convince 1+ friends or acquaintances to let them GM for them, in the case of GMing). There's no entry exam to get in the door. Therefore I am always suspicious of that concept.

But on a more practical level, Gming is a skill. One that, barring some extreme examples of learning deficits or the like, anyone can pick up the individual components to (with practice and opportunity, of course). Whether (nearly-)anyone can integrate into what one would call a 'good GM,' well, I think that's like asking if anyone can be a good public speaker or a good writer. Or, frankly, can anyone be good at sitting with a group of 2-8 other people and playing a game together. We all know people who, at least at that time and place, absolutely can't. Those people can't be good players, much less GMs. Whether that can be taught/practiced-past. I'll leave to people skilled in education/psychology.

As to the guy you were talking to, we have no information except what you provided, which did make it sound like he was tooting his own horn a bit. But maybe not. Did you know them well or get any additional feel about what they were like?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1023105Why they would WANT to is indeed the pivot.

So less a "mix of intelligence, imagination, and organizational skills" so much as a mix of foolhardiness, stubbornness, and masochism. :D

Your friend is speaking the language of the practical, not the theoretical.

Quote from: Ulairi;1023047One of the things I hate about "modern" gaming is the emphasis on being a good GM. I put a lot of the blame on the movement away from the "dungeon" being a core part of the game.

I think there's a good point here.

There are certain types of GMing that are not hard - dungeon or similar map exploration (defined routes, set & wandering encounters), with a simple ruleset that doesn't claim to be comprehensive and suggests either "GM decides" or "set a chance in (eg) 6 then roll a d6" for stuff outside the detailed bits. I started GMing with Fighting Fantasy and that was easy. Other kinds of GMing are much harder I think, especially hard to do well.

Quote from: Azraele;1023110This is all hogwash and you're all fools. Every sane person knows that only those who dare climb to the summit of mount dragon's eyes and wrest the secrets of Gamemastery from the clutches of the twin demons Xagyg and Nosenra have the mettle and magic to become true, capitol-G Gamemasters. The rest of you weaklings are soft-bellied imposters, guzzling cheetos and pontificating about elfgames in your dank basements.

Shame on you, you sham GMs you. Stop insulting the true Masters.

Jack Chic was right, we have mind-shackling devil sorcery. No, you can't have any, you phonies.

Can I have a gamemaster who's a hot brunette in a black sheath dress?

Quote from: Ulairi;1023060This anecdote furthers my belief that one of the biggest impediments to getting new players is the RPG "community". Before I deleted my Twitter account and Facebook accounts I cannot count high enough the times I read a post from somebody that was terrified to GM a session based on stories like yours or what they see on Twitch.

And again, I think when I got started GMing, the game was very focused on the "dungeon" and buying a module that was focused on the dungeon or building a dungeon was a way for new players to all learn the game together. Now that we are focused on "story telling" and too many of the gaming intelligentsia believe that the dungeon is "outdated" it makes it a lot harder for new players both behind and in front of the GM shield.

I think the easiest way to learn and teach the game is with a dungeon crawl.

I missed this the first time through.

You are exactly right.  Even more so if you draw up your own dungeon level or two.  It teaches you a LOT about how to run the game in a nicely bounded environment.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;1023109In theory, how much of a chance to grow would you guys give a new GM before you would decide to bail out? I think I can put up with a lot, as long as it's not abusive.

Assuming the new referee is wiling to discuss stuff out of game, and everybody concerned is open minded, quite a while.  I think frank communication and a player to referee discussion is vital to the process.

I agree Jeff!

Certainly, if you want to be a good GM, you should read up, practice and accept sincere constructive feedback. Which is generally true of any endeavor you might want to "level-up" in. :D

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1023122Can I have a gamemaster who's a hot brunette in a black sheath dress?

Come to London and I'm pretty sure I can get you a nerd-cute gamemistress in a black sheath dress. Possibly with red roses. :D

Anyone can be a pretty good GM. I think being a player first helps, but of course not required.

It seems like a lot here confuse "can be" with "can become".
Even if literally anyone would be able to become a GM that is ok or better, that is not the same as anyone being able to be an ok or better GM as is.
EDIT:
Interesting enough, the title of this thread asks "become", but in the OP, the argument seems to be that someone claimed that not everyone can "be".

Quote from: Catelf;1023191Interesting enough, the title of this thread asks "become", but in the OP, the argument seems to be that someone claimed that not everyone can "be".

So perhaps it is 'what are we actually discussing?' that is causing the confusion.


Suffice to say, I think a consensus has formed. GMing is a real skill that takes practice and opportunity to develop. In all likelihood, there are people who are naturals, but likely very few people who would be incapable of learning it, given the opportunity and motivation.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1023236So perhaps it is 'what are we actually discussing?' that is causing the confusion.


Suffice to say, I think a consensus has formed. GMing is a real skill that takes practice and opportunity to develop. In all likelihood, there are people who are naturals, but likely very few people who would be incapable of learning it, given the opportunity and motivation.

Which, to me, is far more interesting than discussing if you have to be a "Chosen One" to be "born" a referee.

Quote from: Catelf;1023191It seems like a lot here confuse "can be" with "can become". ...

Sorry Catelf, but this weeks asshole % is too low, so this has to be done.

None of us are confused. Maybe if you're an AP English teacher whos butthole is so tight as to create its own gravitational pull, perhaps you might be confused that real people use colloquial terms, but outside that rare state, no confusion here.

Can Be and Become are synonymous in most circles. ANYONE can pick up an RPG, form a group and GM for them. Anyone. Because this is a site discussing RPGs, and new people wander here for advice, it would behoove those of us who recruit and train new GMs to make some assertions and clarifications.

Fucking Nerd.

(:P PS, I still love you - I'm mostly being as pedantic as you just were - nanny nanny boo boo)

Quote from: trechriron;1023294Sorry Catelf, but this weeks asshole % is too low, so this has to be done.

None of us are confused. Maybe if you're an AP English teacher whos butthole is so tight as to create its own gravitational pull, perhaps you might be confused that real people use colloquial terms, but outside that rare state, no confusion here.

Can Be and Become are synonymous in most circles. ANYONE can pick up an RPG, form a group and GM for them. Anyone. Because this is a site discussing RPGs, and new people wander here for advice, it would behoove those of us who recruit and train new GMs to make some assertions and clarifications.

Fucking Nerd.

(:P PS, I still love you - I'm mostly being as pedantic as you just were - nanny nanny boo boo)

* applause *

It's a dirty job, but somebody had to do it.

I think most anyone who wants to do it should give it a try.
I'm VERY patient with GMs so long as they're not jerks... and those who want to will improve.
But soo much of it comes down to social interaction that I think it depends a lot on WHO you are GMing for. A 'bad' GM for one group might be 'great' for another.

I enjoy the face-to-face group I'm in, but I know other people who would HATE our GM and walk out... not that they're bad Players... but there are styles and personalities involved. There are some objectively good/bad things to do/not do as a GM... but a huge chunk of it is going to be how well you mesh with the rest of the group.

Last year I joined an online group that intended to rotate games/GMs. At the time I told them I would run Call of Cthulhu at some point, but after playing a few sessions with them I realized that that just would not go well for them or me... but I still show up as a Player.

Quote from: jeff37923;1023019Anyone 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.

Correct.

Being a good player is a skill, too, and likewise takes years of application. Most never make the effort, and flee into point-buy and encounterisation.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1023353Correct.

Being a good player is a skill, too, and likewise takes years of application. Most never make the effort, and flee into point-buy and encounterisation.

What's point buy have to do with it?

What a load of post modernist BS.

No, not everyone can be a GM.

Just like not everyone can be an architect.  I wanted to be to one, to design buildings, learn civil engineering, but I just don't have the aptitude for it.  I just ain't smart enough.  Not everyone can be an Engineer.  Not everyone can be a world class Athlete.  But that's OK, I have other abilities.  Everyone does.  It's what makes the world so interesting.

BUT!  And this is a KEY POINT

Like most things in life, it can be learned, and luckily the bar to entry is very, very, very low.  As long as you're willing to mentally flexible, problem solve relatively quickly (as in minutes, not days) and willing to use your imagination (Even if you think you have none), maybe you'll pick it up.  If you don't or can't, then there's something else for you.

But is it something everyone can do?  Nope.  Life don't work that way, Sugar Pop.

Except 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.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1023355What's point buy have to do with it?

Because if you don't know how to think your way out of difficult situations - or evade them completely - then you try to stat your way out of it. It doesn't matter if you figure out how to avoid or disarm the trap if you've managed to get +30 to save and have 152 hit points.

Superior players rely on their wits, not on the numbers on the page. But it takes time to do this.

Point-buy and encounterisation also helps the inferior DM. "Well, if the book says they can handle this encounter, I guess they can." So I guess it could be useful as training wheels... but at some point you get rid of them and just ride.

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.

If I can do it, then anyone can do it.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;1023372If I can do it, then anyone can do it.

In my experience, that is not true.

Quote from: trechriron;1023294Sorry Catelf, but this weeks asshole % is too low, so this has to be done.

None of us are confused. Maybe if you're an AP English teacher whos butthole is so tight as to create its own gravitational pull, perhaps you might be confused that real people use colloquial terms, but outside that rare state, no confusion here.

Can Be and Become are synonymous in most circles. ANYONE can pick up an RPG, form a group and GM for them. Anyone. Because this is a site discussing RPGs, and new people wander here for advice, it would behoove those of us who recruit and train new GMs to make some assertions and clarifications.

Fucking Nerd.

(:P PS, I still love you - I'm mostly being as pedantic as you just were - nanny nanny boo boo)

Ok, you did ask for it.
No, i'm not an english teacher, i'm very much closer to the opposite, in the way that i have english as my second language, and because of this has indeed run into the double meaning of "can be", whereas one means "is competent" and another means "may become competent", and those two are far from synonymous.
And even more, both meanings seem to come up far more in online discussions than your troll-brain seem to be able to fathom.

Also, my butthole is only that tight so i can squeeze the resistance out of dicks like you.
And of course you love me, i was built to be lovable.
:p <3

Now i hope we together has filled up this week's asshole-quota, so we can talk serious again?
:cool: :D

It's easy to be a shitty GM.

It takes either natural talents or concentrated effort or a mix of those to become a good GM.

Quote from: Catelf;1023382Ok, you did ask for it.
No, i'm not an english teacher, i'm very much closer to the opposite, in the way that i have english as my second language, and because of this has indeed run into the double meaning of "can be", whereas one means "is competent" and another means "may become competent", and those two are far from synonymous.
And even more, both meanings seem to come up far more in online discussions than your troll-brain seem to be able to fathom.

Also, my butthole is only that tight so i can squeeze the resistance out of dicks like you.
And of course you love me, i was built to be lovable.
:p <3

Now i hope we together has filled up this week's asshole-quota, so we can talk serious again?
:cool: :D

Okay, if English is not your first language I'll give you a break.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1023373In my experience, that is not true.

Then you must know some real dunderheads.  Fifteen year old kids can run an adequate game.

Anyone can be a good GM.

But it requires some qualities people don't have: maturity and impartiality.

Without those, sooner or later there will be a trainwreck.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1023390Then you must know some real dunderheads.  Fifteen year old kids can run an adequate game.

Can't deny that.  Although, Mac, below makes the point for me.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1023392Anyone can be a good GM.

But it requires some qualities people don't have: maturity and impartiality.

You do realize you just negated your own statement, yes?  Some people just don't have the aptitude.

OK, maybe calling myself stupid wasn't exactly accurate, I've worked with computers for over 30? (First PC was a Vic20) years, as well as having been a computer hardware tech for over a decade so it takes some knowledge and ability to problem solve, not to mention organizational, but I'll be the first to admit, I am not a genius by any stretch of the imagination.  But being intelligent by itself doesn't mean you'll be good at things, even things that aren't that hard like running an enjoyable RPG.

(I'm good enough to be a computer tech, is what I'm saying, but that's not enough to be an even moderately decent GM, it takes more.  Flexibility, which I like to stroke my own ego into thinking I have, and impartiality.)

So again, no, not everyone can do everything.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1023392Anyone can be a good GM.

But it requires some qualities people don't have: maturity and impartiality.

But immaturity and partiality are much more fun.

QuoteWithout those, sooner or later there will be a trainwreck.

And we all slow down our cars to watch a train wreck.

Well, there are genuine humans with power and capacity limits. (Currently known as the developmentally-challenged, or was it on-the-severe-side-of-the-spectrum? differently-abled?... the mentally handi-capable? I am gauche with the terms these days.)

But barring that, yes, I do believe you have a point. Children play Let's Pretend all the time. And apparently it left a litany of scarred adult wrecks who are still ruing the day.

Whether people do it well with an eye towards juggling the social needs of people, the demands of judgment and creativity, and the constancy of organization and preparation... That's another matter. But it's not like any of these are impossible to develop as skills. Practice! It's OK if there's naught but tears and cheeto dust in the end as long as you get back up and try again, with an eye towards remembering we're all just people.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1023373In my experience, that is not true.

My personal experience dovetails with yours, actually; some people have that certain spark and some people don't, which is not surprising. I've listened in to some games where I thought that the GM was the most boring person I'd ever heard in my life, but the players all seemed to like the style. YMMV may vary, and all that.

What I've been getting from gamers here locally for decades - especially from The Serious Gamers! - is on the order of "If that doofus Chirine can do it, then any moron can do it!" So, my data may be, as me dad the rocket scientist might say, 'ratty'.

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?

I agree, anyone can be a GM, all you need is a fair understanding of the game rules, willingless to learn and adapt and have a skin as thick as a rhino's.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1023370Because if you don't know how to think your way out of difficult situations - or evade them completely - then you try to stat your way out of it. It doesn't matter if you figure out how to avoid or disarm the trap if you've managed to get +30 to save and have 152 hit points.

Superior players rely on their wits, not on the numbers on the page. But it takes time to do this.

Point-buy and encounterisation also helps the inferior DM. "Well, if the book says they can handle this encounter, I guess they can." So I guess it could be useful as training wheels... but at some point you get rid of them and just ride.

That's a crock 'o shit. Players who proselytize about random rolling, in my experience, are shit at the actual game aspect of the game. Give me a powergamer anyday, you've got something to work with there at least.

In fact, even when it comes to roleplay, they're still shit because they tend to have little to no ambition or aren't goal-orientated which means I can't trust them to do shit in-game like follow-up leads, build businesses, establish relationships in the power structure, plan, scope etc...

GMs who "rely on their wits" can't structure their gameworlds for shit and end up bullshi... fiat'ing the players when it comes to consistent gameplay and in-world reactions. Can't even design a fucking AOA.

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?

It's probably self-aggrandizing bullshit. But it's not wrong.

There's levels to this shit. Like coding, there's I-know-variables and then there's Knuth or Torvalds or Sweeney and several different tiers in-between.

I write maze solvers and fuck around with APIs for fun. Hell, I built my own character validator/generator for my club games myself ages ago. A lot of coders I've met, however, just don't have that love for it, that affinity for it.

It's that affinity that makes GM'ing logarithmic in terms of ability scale, like any other skill or discipline.

Number crunching, personal charisma, encounter design are just some of aspects you need to be good at or possess. The more you do, the higher up the scale you can potentially reach. And practice does make perfect, of course, though it's only one part of music-making process (so to speak) and you need something to work with to even begin on the path to getting really good.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1023057If anything it's harder to be a "good player." It sure as hell is for me, so I stick with what I enjoy, GMing.

And that tells me the two roles come at the game from fundamentally different angles. Anyone can be a GM but it means playing a different game essentially than being a player.

This is the same as saying someone watching John Wick will have an appreciation for firearms in the same way someone who's gone to spend their Saturday at the range and that these are transferable.

One is a passive participant, the other is active.

No dude, if anything, you should GM first before being a Player. Gives you perspective and respect for the role. Too many players bitch about gms. Like biking, you'd get much better drivers if everyone had to ride a motorcycle for their commute and FAR less people trying to kill bikers as a result.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;1023058I think some people are more able to hit the ground running than others, from experience. With enough practice, I can imagine someone might get good eventually, but the trouble will be finding others who are willing to spend their time in a bad game.

In my limited experience, that hasn't been the case. For example, in college, one guy volunteered to GM for a group. He pretty much sucked, and people lost interest. Some of the "diaspora" ended up in a vampire game with a guy who was pretty good.

I really wanted to give the other dude a chance, but no one else did.

Do you go for the veteran lawyer with fifteen years of experience and a string of highly public case wins or do you go with the fresh-out-of-school grad with a barely a year as a junior associate?

When it comes down it, most people will go with the former.

And that's why that grad has to have that special something to stand out from the rest and make it. First impressions are last impressions, yo.

Quote from: Ulairi;1023060This anecdote furthers my belief that one of the biggest impediments to getting new players is the RPG "community". Before I deleted my Twitter account and Facebook accounts I cannot count high enough the times I read a post from somebody that was terrified to GM a session based on stories like yours or what they see on Twitch.

And again, I think when I got started GMing, the game was very focused on the "dungeon" and buying a module that was focused on the dungeon or building a dungeon was a way for new players to all learn the game together. Now that we are focused on "story telling" and too many of the gaming intelligentsia believe that the dungeon is "outdated" it makes it a lot harder for new players both behind and in front of the GM shield.

I think the easiest way to learn and teach the game is with a dungeon crawl.

I'd say for teaching mechanics, yeah sure. The actual other half of the RPG, as in the roleplay aspect, nah you're gonna need to learn to improv and take on a different personality fairly quickly.

Quote from: Skarg;1023063Anyone can, but (after having played with, talked with, and heard about many problematic GMs who don't improve their wacky behavior very quickly at all) I don't really want to play with just any GM, and not even with many experienced ones. There are many GM behaviors that I don't want to play under, and in recent decades some of them have become typical and supported.

Care to share some wacky behaviors? It's always interesting to hear about the shit that happens at gaming tables around the world.

Quote from: Psikerlord;1023149Anyone can be a pretty good GM. I think being a player first helps, but of course not required.

See above replies.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1023356What a load of post modernist BS.

No, not everyone can be a GM.

Just like not everyone can be an architect.  I wanted to be to one, to design buildings, learn civil engineering, but I just don't have the aptitude for it.  I just ain't smart enough.  Not everyone can be an Engineer.  Not everyone can be a world class Athlete.  But that's OK, I have other abilities.  Everyone does.  It's what makes the world so interesting.

BUT!  And this is a KEY POINT

Like most things in life, it can be learned, and luckily the bar to entry is very, very, very low.  As long as you're willing to mentally flexible, problem solve relatively quickly (as in minutes, not days) and willing to use your imagination (Even if you think you have none), maybe you'll pick it up.  If you don't or can't, then there's something else for you.

But is it something everyone can do?  Nope.  Life don't work that way, Sugar Pop.

Post-modernism has nothing to do with this. That's saying the GM is a fish when really they're a complex, self-sustaining organic automata that represents the RPG hobbyist's journey from angst-ridden mechanics-polemicist to becoming the embodiment of the path of least resistance of those who just want everyone to enjoy themselves at the gaming table.

Or it could just be that they need to go take a shower real bad.

Anyway, your post is also a crock 'o shit like Aaron's above but from a different angle, one of defeatism and one that tries to have it both ways. Keep it simple: you either can or you can't and there are levels to the can, it's as black 'n' white as that.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1023392Anyone can be a good GM.

The OP is about being a GM, not being a good GM.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1023392But it requires some qualities people don't have: maturity and impartiality.

Without those, sooner or later there will be a trainwreck.

Yes, and that is how people learn to be better. If you haven't had a train wreck you don't know what to avoid in the future.

Bad GMs are the ones who have the same train wrecks again and again, or those who relish having train wrecks.

Even bad GMs are GMs.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;1023471Give me a powergamer anyday, you've got something to work with there at least.

You can keep all the powergamers. Those clowns are a waste of space.

I'd happily mail you any I encounter...preferably in sandwich bags.

Quote from: soltakss;1023472Bad GMs are the ones who have the same train wrecks again and again, or those who relish having train wrecks.

Agreed.

A good GM isn't someone who never makes mistakes. Good GMs learn from their mistakes and aim to improve.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;1023465What I've been getting from gamers here locally for decades - especially from The Serious Gamers! - is on the order of "If that doofus Chirine can do it, then any moron can do it!"

All your "Serious Gamer" stories sound like escapees from a mental hospital or champions of the asshole brigade.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1023415It's OK if there's naught but tears and cheeto dust in the end as long as you get back up and try again, with an eye towards remembering we're all just people.

Just people??? WTF. Players are pawns for our ego gratification! What hobby are you in?

:D

I just discovered tonight that people offer paid GMing lessons on Roll20.  So apparently everyone is capable of becoming a GM if they pay enough.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1023589You can keep all the powergamers. Those clowns are a waste of space.

All your "Serious Gamer" stories sound like escapees from a mental hospital or champions of the asshole brigade.

I'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.

I like your point, and I think it's accurate. I don't think they're escaped patients, but I do think they're assholes. Which is why I avoid them, and then they get cranked when I don't run games for them or play in theirs - they simply can't get their heads around it. After 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.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1023104Anybody can, with practice, learn to be a "pretty good" referee.

Maybe to be "great" you need a certain inborn talent, or a lot more work, or whatever.  But anybody can learn to run a fun game.  Period.

If by anybody you mean anybody who has the ability to learn to play an RPG, than certainly anybody can GM one. Whether they want to and whether they are interested in doing the work to become reasonably good at GMing are different questions. GMing is skill like many others. On the degree of difficulty scale it is hardly rocket science or brain surgery nor does being an adequate GM require the level of effort and native ability that is required to become a world class athlete.

And I agree with those who mentioned dungeon crawling. I think the original focus of D&D on dungeons provided an easy porint for new DMs/GMs to learn and the encounter tables and other rules provided a semi-automated process to facilitate the DM creating that initial setting.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1023656The main RPG page has a thread about Can Anyone GM? and your thoughts on how AW helps new GMs would be interesting.

I don't think everyone has the ability to become a good GM. Slow thinkers will slow down play in most games where the GM is the bottleneck. People with a weak theory of mind who have a hard time seeing the world from the perspective of various NPCs won't produce compelling conflicts and will either let NPCs take unreasonable courses of action or let them act on information they don't have.

But, something that is often forgotten is that GMing is a skill that can be taught and trained. And just as with any skill just doing it over and over won't produce the same results as directed training and learning specific techniques. I had GMd various systems and freeform scenarios for about a decade when I ran into Apocalypse World and the process of GMing that game let me do a massive leap in GMing ability. Apocalypse World fundamentally does two things to help the GM:

A. it sets up rules to follow. Instead of providing rules just for conflict resolution, or the physics of the world, it gives the GM three overarching rules:
1. Make Apocalypse World Seem Real.
2. Makes the PCs lives not boring.
3. Play to find out what happens.

Important stuff that the GM can fall back on whenever they are unsure what to do. If they don't know how to resolve a situation, make the outcome realistic. If they don't know what to throw at the players, make something exciting happen (note: it does not say make the players have fun). Play to find out what happens stops the GM from destroying the game removing player agency.

B. Freeing up GM brainspace. The GM has a list of moves. Whenever a PC fails a roll, or when the table goes quiet, the GM makes a move. The list basically boil down to either foreshadowing or setting up a situation. The brilliant part of having a list is that it frees up mental resources and provides constraint to be creative in. The most often used move is "Announce future badness." this gives the players something to react to, and if they don't react, something bad is likely to happen. The apocalypse setting directs the GMs brain to typical bad stuff, the distant war cries of cannibals, the water reserve is almost empty etc. Another favorite of mine is "Separate them", someone has wandered off on their own and might have to deal with a situation their character is not good at, someone might be presented with treasure and have the opportunity to be selfish about it etc.

Putting all rolls in the hands of the players. The GM does not need to simulate the actions of his NPCs by rolling for them, he simply makes the world seem real by letting them do reasonable things. There is no need to roll an opposed strength check to see if a mutant brute can beat the malnourished midget in arm-wrestling, it simply happens, there is no need to see if the sniper can blow the head off a PC, you simply announce they see the distant glint of a scope and if they stand around they are shot.

The loop of setting up situations, putting the players in the situation to react and then following through with the to you most obvious outcome (or if they have a move that determines the outcome you don't even need to do that) takes up very few resources in your brain and is not incidentally the fundamental loop of improv theatre. You set something up, someone reacts and you do the most obvious thing next. What seems obvious to you will seem real to the others and sometimes, if its something they didn't consider, they will be surprised and delighted. Playing NPCs is also helped with a list, each NPC is assigned a type and a primary drive. Through this you can easily determine their next action, the added bonus is the players will notice that this character is consistent. An example would be a warlord: collector. Warlords have their own list of moves (example: buying out an ally) and collectors have a specific drive (to own people).

So my thought process as GM might go:
Alright, the PCs a trekking through the territory of this warlord. It's a collector so it will want to own people. A warlord move is "encircle someone". I tell the PCs they have been surrounded by warriors, their demands are they enter the service of their warlord.

The problem with most AW-hacks is they don't understand this loop and how carefully the different NPC types and GM moves are curated to both create interesting play and to gel with the setting. An AW-hack in a different setting would require different NPCs and different GM moves. The basic loop is brilliant through, and after GMing Apocalypse World and learning this loop I use it in all other games, only stepping away from it when that game makes specific demands.

To my mind no other game has explicitly taught its gameplay loop to the GM, at least not one which is this open and can produce a "true" roleplaying experience. Another game that creates an explicit loop but fails as a roleplaying game is 3:16 Carnage Among the Stars. There is an explicit loop of missions, levelling up and the campaign escalating as the threats increase and the orders given to higher ranking PCs become contradictory. The problem is that it's a very constrained loop that does not include the limitlessness that is the strength of tapletop roleplaying. It does not provide help when covering situations that are not related to the missions while the gameplay loop of Apocalypse World is all encompassing.

Everyone 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.

Note: GMs in Apocalypse World are called MCs, so you don't get confused reading another discussion about it.



Now, 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.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1023589Just people??? WTF. Players are pawns for our ego gratification! What hobby are you in?

:D

I'm in the 'Sunshine and Rainbow Dream Wish Fulfillment Chapter' of our hobby! :D I may gore you with my horned viking helmet, but it's mostly boffer NERF -- no critical injuries or lasting damage. :)

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1023104Anybody can, with practice, learn to be a "pretty good" referee.

Maybe to be "great" you need a certain inborn talent, or a lot more work, or whatever.  But anybody can learn to run a fun game.  Period.

Never underestimate the ability of stupid people to prove us wrong.

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

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.

I've met several of those people. Some of them are even convinced that they are good GMs. I'm not sure, however, that with forgiving players, appropriate feedback* and other opportunity to learn from mistakes, etc., that they would be incapable of improving.
*mentioned specifically because I suspect that many of these people are Florence Foster Jenkins (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Foster_Jenkins)-style cases, where too many people are 'in-on-the-joke' or otherwise invested in the status quo, and not enough people are offering constructive criticism.

QuoteNever underestimate the ability of stupid people to prove us wrong.

I don't think anyone disagrees that there is someone somewhere that is simply too stupid (inattentive, inarticulate, etc.) to ever learn to GM passably well. I just think it is really rare, and those people would have to be really limited-- the same kind of people who would never be able to speak in public or ride a bike or work a VCR/smart phone/etc.

The intellectual baseline to run an RPG isn't high. If you can play, you can GM.

The real barrier for a lot of people, though, is temperamental. Having a very passive or indecisive temperament can be just as limiting as a cognitive deficiency. Some people are simply incapable of taking any kind of leadership or decisive actions in a social environment. They're spectators in life. Sometimes passive participants. Never initiators, organisers, or leaders. Putting a book in front of them and telling them to run an adventure, even after they've seen it done for years as a player, is as daunting to them as telling someone who hates water to row a boat out to an island half a mile off shore. It's just not going to happen.

Just wanted to echo the 'if I can do it anyone can'.  It's a specific skill set, and some will be better than others at certain parts.  But anyone can run a fun game with the right amount of work put into it.

"Everyone can learn to be an effective public speaker".

Both true and not really true.

Quote from: EOTB;1023802"Everyone can learn to be an effective public speaker".

Both true and not really true.

No, but that's the approximate threshold, and that's why I used it, ride a bike, or operate a VCR (or smart phone) as kind of a guideline. If someone were to make the statement 'anyone can learn to ride a bike,' we'd all know that they really meant 'almost anyone can ride a bike, and those who can't have some really shitty life-events going on probably more important that the bike riding.' Same with the others.

Anyone can be a game-master it's just that not all will be good at it.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1023810No, but that's the approximate threshold, and that's why I used it, ride a bike, or operate a VCR (or smart phone) as kind of a guideline. If someone were to make the statement 'anyone can learn to ride a bike,' we'd all know that they really meant 'almost anyone can ride a bike, and those who can't have some really shitty life-events going on probably more important that the bike riding.' Same with the others.

These things don't tap into deep subconscious fears though.  They're technical in nature.

Game mastering requires people conquer: 1) laziness 2) being the center of attention and 3) possess the "it" factor.   To be done well.  

It's like saying "everyone can be healthy".  Well, yes.  And yet only a tiny minority of people will ever be healthy, because it's work and giving up other pleasures.  And then on top of that it, the process must unfold in front of people whose esteem is valued.

I think it's more like playing basketball:  Almost anyone can do it, exceptions being those with certain physical, mental, or emotional disabilities.  Even that bar is fairly low, if the candidate is interested enough.  But "playing basketball" covers everything from playing in the backyard with a bunch of equally talentless hacks all the way up to peak contests that start with a height minimum and only get tougher on the restrictions from there.  If you bounce the ball off your foot half the time you try to dribble, can barely even attempt a layup, and are a little vague on the rules--you and the others might still have a great deal of fun and learn something along the way.  

How well does the prospective GM insist on performing, how much effort will they expend, how much natural talent do they have, and when do they expect to reach that minimum threshold that will satisfy them?  Only then can I tell you whether they can GM in a way that will satisfy them or not.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1023834I think it's more like playing basketball:  Almost anyone can do it, exceptions being those with certain physical, mental, or emotional disabilities.  Even that bar is fairly low, if the candidate is interested enough.  But "playing basketball" covers everything from playing in the backyard with a bunch of equally talentless hacks all the way up to peak contests that start with a height minimum and only get tougher on the restrictions from there.  If you bounce the ball off your foot half the time you try to dribble, can barely even attempt a layup, and are a little vague on the rules--you and the others might still have a great deal of fun and learn something along the way.  

How well does the prospective GM insist on performing, how much effort will they expend, how much natural talent do they have, and when do they expect to reach that minimum threshold that will satisfy them?  Only then can I tell you whether they can GM in a way that will satisfy them or not.

Well, 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."

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...:D

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.

Quote from: Sailing Scavenger;1024177How often have you been in the position where you felt like something should happen

Never.

"SHOULD" is the first word a referee should expunge from their vocabulary.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1024180Never.

"SHOULD" is the first word a referee should expunge from their vocabulary.

I'm herniating myself trying to agree harder with this. I agree with this the hardest I have ever agreed about everything, ever. This sentiment is a fundamental axiom of decent GMing.

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

You too huh? One of my players really shouldnt be allowed near a kitchen. :eek:

Quote from: jeff37923;1023902Does the RPGA even still exist?

God I hope not!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1024180Never.

"SHOULD" is the first word a referee should expunge from their vocabulary.

Let me rephrase SHOULD as "it would be fun if the players were presented with an opportunity or problem right now". Unless you prefer a completely reactive world which is inert till the players poke it.

I prefer players who don't sit around with their thumbs up their asses until the mysterious stranger in the tavern delivers their singing quest-o-gram.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1024202I prefer players who don't sit around with their thumbs up their asses until the mysterious stranger in the tavern delivers their singing quest-o-gram.

If you read my posts with an ounce of charity we might even have a fruitful discussion.

Quote from: Sailing Scavenger;1024203If you read my posts with an ounce of charity we might even have a fruitful discussion.

I think you're reading our resident antiquarian grognard with a touch more seriousness than he speaks.

I urge you to become familiar with the typical posting style of this board before becoming offended or dismissive. The wisdom of a guy like Gronan isn't something to be casually dismissed; same with Pundit, or Chirine, or almost anyone who regularly doles out two-fisted honesty on this board.

He's probably typing something about "huwting your fee-fees" as we speak. But take a stroll down his post history for the longer posts; you'll find sage advice from someone who was present during the birth pangs of our hobby, advice and experience of decades of practice and high-level game thought.

It's on you if you find his style too abrasive to tolerate; I've added a few posters here to my ignore list. The trick to thriving here is figuring out the salt to gold ratio of posters and interacting accordingly.

Quote from: Sailing Scavenger;1024203If you read my posts with an ounce of charity we might even have a fruitful discussion.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2218[/ATTACH]

Quote from: Azraele;1024206I think you're reading our resident antiquarian grognard with a touch more seriousness than he speaks.

I urge you to become familiar with the typical posting style of this board before becoming offended or dismissive. The wisdom of a guy like Gronan isn't something to be casually dismissed; same with Pundit, or Chirine, or almost anyone who regularly doles out two-fisted honesty on this board.

He's probably typing something about "huwting your fee-fees" as we speak. But take a stroll down his post history for the longer posts; you'll find sage advice from someone who was present during the birth pangs of our hobby, advice and experience of decades of practice and high-level game thought.

It's on you if you find his style too abrasive to tolerate; I've added a few posters here to my ignore list. The trick to thriving here is figuring out the salt to gold ratio of posters and interacting accordingly.

I'll respond to his snark till he relents and shares some of that wisdom.

Quote from: Sailing Scavenger;1024211I'll respond to his snark till he relents and shares some of that wisdom.

You're in for a long wait.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1024212You're in for a long wait.

Oh jesus, good luck kid...

"Unless you prefer a completely reactive world which is inert till the players poke it. "

Speaking of "an ounce of charity."

Dear Pot,

Quite right, black as pitch.

Love,
Kettle

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1024202I prefer players who don't sit around with their thumbs up their asses until the mysterious stranger in the tavern delivers their singing quest-o-gram.

I agree. The catch is that proactive players are rare and most often I have to train them to be proactive in the game. Once they become proactive, my job as GM gets much easier because I can follow the players' lead in adventure prep.

Quote from: Sailing Scavenger;1024211I'll respond to his snark till he relents and shares some of that wisdom.

/tosses the D.O.N.G. white-belt at his feet

Quote from: jeff37923;1024236I agree. The catch is that proactive players are rare and most often I have to train them to be proactive in the game. Once they become proactive, my job as GM gets much easier because I can follow the players' lead in adventure prep.

Why do you suppose that is?  The default used to be "this game is about having adventures, so go have adventures."  After three or four dungeon crawls, we started wondering "hey, what's outside the dungeon and town?"

In my experience proactive players weren't rare 35 to 40 years ago.  They seem to be now.

Why?

Quote from: jeff37923;1024236I agree. The catch is that proactive players are rare and most often I have to train them to be proactive in the game. Once they become proactive, my job as GM gets much easier because I can follow the players' lead in adventure prep.

Proactive players are a godsend for gaming. Reactive gamers are... well... dead weight ultimately. It's okay to have one or two reactive players, but ultimately you need players that want to drive the game to places that reactive players would never go.

Grooming reactives to being proactive is a lot of work. But it can happen. Depends on the player and how much energy you're willing to burn on the process.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1024241Why do you suppose that is?  The default used to be "this game is about having adventures, so go have adventures."  After three or four dungeon crawls, we started wondering "hey, what's outside the dungeon and town?"

In my experience proactive players weren't rare 35 to 40 years ago.  They seem to be now.

Why?

Damn... this is a good question. My hot sports opinion incoming:

 I feel like in the late 70's and early 80's this is exactly how we used to be. I suspect it's because back inna day we had no preconceptions about setting. We going on an adventure to the Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, or we're gonna traipse around the Isle of Dread etc. there was little consideration to anything but being in the moment of what our characters were doing. I think once Greyhawk broke out (for me at least) - as a GM I wanted to put it in a lot more connective-tissue in my games. Where the dungeons were actual places I slapped in those hexes - and the players started interacting with the setting beyond - "Okay everyone jumps off the ship on the Isle of Dread - lets go!".

Players seemed to want to explore more. I suspect it's because such novelties didn't exist for us in entertainment. Today? It's different. Most entertainment has been proscribed and unless you're doing multiplayer gaming (and a lot of the time even then) - it's passive and linear.

I think we came from an age where we were *hongry* for it. Because we simply didn't have a lot. I mean... when I try to explain to my grown-ass kids oh Venture on the Atari 2600 was insanely awesome!! (You play a goddamn SQUARE)... compared to the insane photorealism of games today - it is inconceivable that Venture could have been remotely fun.

My players, now, want more sophistication than just "a module" in our campaigns. I've picked up younger players that are either blown away by the way we play where everything is wide-open and nearly anything within the context of the setting is possible. Rather than going on "adventure paths" where things are much tighter. My games have scared away some players because being proactive rather than being served up a platter of adventure stresses them out - or they don't even realize they're in it until it's on them. I've noticed that a lot too. Some players will sit there while the world is spinning on around, rumors of monsters rampaging on the frontier... while they putter around waiting for shit to happen, then one day the monsters are storming the town and savaging and pillaging their homes and everyone/thing inside.

Yeah - it's a weird phenomenon. But I do agree it seems more prevalent today than Backinnaday.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1024241Why do you suppose that is?  The default used to be "this game is about having adventures, so go have adventures."  After three or four dungeon crawls, we started wondering "hey, what's outside the dungeon and town?"

In my experience proactive players weren't rare 35 to 40 years ago.  They seem to be now.

Why?

Having been all over the board in my GM style over the years, I think it has something to do with the way the game is presented to them.  

A. Long time ago, me talking to prospective new players:  "This is a game we are playing where you are a single character and you go into the dungeon and try to get treasure."  We were already playing board games, war games, etc.  This tended to attract active participants.

B. Later, me talking to prospective new players:  "You play a character in a story, similar to how a movie or book would go."  I give you three guesses on what we got with that pitch, and the first two don't count.  Eventually, I got it fixed.

C. Now, they already think they have some idea of how an RPG works, because they've picked it up from general discussion, internet, etc.  So I don't get to make their first impression.  Instead, I usually must start of with something that disabuses them of their first impression.  Though every now and then, I get lucky.  Started two new players today, one that had never played before:  "You are a character in a setting.  I'll describe things. You tell me what you do.  I'll tell you if you need to roll."  It's too early to tell for sure, but out of the recent five new players, it appears that at least two are reasonably active, and the others are willing to go along with whatever they do, unless it sounds insane.  :)

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1024241Why do you suppose that is?  The default used to be "this game is about having adventures, so go have adventures."  After three or four dungeon crawls, we started wondering "hey, what's outside the dungeon and town?"

In my experience proactive players weren't rare 35 to 40 years ago.  They seem to be now.

Why?

I always read the really good questions when I am about to start work.....

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1024250Having been all over the board in my GM style over the years, I think it has something to do with the way the game is presented to them.  

A. Long time ago, me talking to prospective new players:  "This is a game we are playing where you are a single character and you go into the dungeon and try to get treasure."  We were already playing board games, war games, etc.  This tended to attract active participants.

B. Later, me talking to prospective new players:  "You play a character in a story, similar to how a movie or book would go."  I give you three guesses on what we got with that pitch, and the first two don't count.  Eventually, I got it fixed.

C. Now, they already think they have some idea of how an RPG works, because they've picked it up from general discussion, internet, etc.  So I don't get to make their first impression.  Instead, I usually must start of with something that disabuses them of their first impression.  Though every now and then, I get lucky.  Started two new players today, one that had never played before:  "You are a character in a setting.  I'll describe things. You tell me what you do.  I'll tell you if you need to roll."  It's too early to tell for sure, but out of the recent five new players, it appears that at least two are reasonably active, and the others are willing to go along with whatever they do, unless it sounds insane.  :)

What was the "fixed" pitch you eventually started using to disabuse people of their previous notions?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1024254What was the "fixed" pitch you eventually started using to disabuse people of their previous notions?

Sorry, that wasn't what I meant.  That was in my "let's try this other stuff that people advocate that sounds good but will completely screw up my game" phase.  I did it with an almost complete new group of players. Eventually, I painstakingly got them to be proactive by identifying each of my screw ups, developing a fix strategy, and working through it.   Playing a more lethal game helped.  When people know that going with the obvious can get their character killed, they tend to think a little more.  Once they start thinking, it eventually occurs to a few of them that they can bypass some of the problems by charting their own course. Though in fairness, the bad pitch wasn't anywhere near the whole problem.  If I'd have done that, and then run the game well, it probably wouldn't have hurt much.  But the bad pitch was representative of my fuzzy thinking.

What else did you do to fix it?

I have some passive players too and I'm wondering if there's things I can change or if that's just their personality and nothing can be done but to let them enjoy what they enjoy.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1024258What else did you do to fix it?

I have some passive players too and I'm wondering if there's things I can change or if that's just their personality and nothing can be done but to let them enjoy what they enjoy.

That sounds like a good opening for a new topic.  I doubt I'm the only one with feedback.  I will say, that some people can't be really turned into proactive players.  All you can realistically do is get them to stop sabotaging the active players, but that's often enough.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1024261That sounds like a good opening for a new topic.  I doubt I'm the only one with feedback.  I will say, that some people can't be really turned into proactive players.  All you can realistically do is get them to stop sabotaging the active players, but that's often enough.

How do passive players sabotage active ones? Wouldn't they just go with the flow?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1024263How do passive players sabotage active ones? Wouldn't they just go with the flow?

Passive player doesn't like the sound of a suggestion from an active player.  Passive player refuses to go along, but also refuses to make a counter-suggestion.  Basically, your type of player that always has a reason why something won't work or is too risky or too boring, but never seems to have a better idea.  I suppose that could be called something more like "inertia" rather than "passive" though.  "Actively Inactive." :)

Some players will be proactive if other players will let them, but they won't be confrontational about being proactive.

Passive-aggressive, pretty much textbook.

To which "Lead, follow, or get the fuck out of the way" is the best answer.  As referee I won't put up with that shit; after about 5 minutes, put up or shut up.

Quote from: Sailing Scavenger;1024177I 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?

I cannot recall one instance.

Quote from: Sailing Scavenger;1024191Let me rephrase SHOULD as "it would be fun if the players were presented with an opportunity or problem right now". Unless you prefer a completely reactive world which is inert till the players poke it.

The world reacts the way the world reacts. And it's important to realize that the PCs are not the only thing or even the most important thing in the entire world that I am running. Sometimes the world is passive because a world where Ninjas leap through the window every time something slows down for more than ten minutes of real time strikes me as gonzo and silly and neither is what I want in a setting. Sometimes the world is active and it pokes the PCs. Whether that reaction sounds "fun" to me isn't very high on my list of things I care about when I GM.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1024289Passive-aggressive, pretty much textbook.

To which "Lead, follow, or get the fuck out of the way" is the best answer.  As referee I won't put up with that shit; after about 5 minutes, put up or shut up.

Passive-aggressive is one subset of the type I'm discussing.  I don't put up with that, either.  There is a milder former of that kind of thing, though, that can cause the same kind of problems, but isn't motivated by being a trouble-maker or trying to control things.  In fact, I think a great deal of it is merely thoughtless, bad habits.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1024241Why do you suppose that is?  The default used to be "this game is about having adventures, so go have adventures."  After three or four dungeon crawls, we started wondering "hey, what's outside the dungeon and town?"

In my experience proactive players weren't rare 35 to 40 years ago.  They seem to be now.

Why?

I think it may be an American generational cultural thing. The only correlation that I can think of is the preponderance of entertainment that requires the user to be passive (television, movies, or Youtube videos) and the decline of entertainment that requires some interaction (reading). Maybe. I don't know, really. It does make for something to think about.

I think it's less a short attention span or anything of that sort of thing -- though it might be -- and more that people today want to feel like they're in a story that has themes and a greater purpose instead of just randomly shooting around in the dark and hoping something comes of it. (as they would see it)

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1024310Passive-aggressive is one subset of the type I'm discussing.  I don't put up with that, either.  There is a milder former of that kind of thing, though, that can cause the same kind of problems, but isn't motivated by being a trouble-maker or trying to control things.  In fact, I think a great deal of it is merely thoughtless, bad habits.

Man, I can tell you STORIES... I'm reliving the Passive Player Wars now just reading this... the quiet horror.

Yeah there's passive-aggressive, and then there is straight-up PASSIVE. As in "they're there to essentially socialize not game". Not that they're bad people, not that they mean to screw everyone else, but that they do not want to engage with the game in any meaningful sense or do things that benefit themselves or the party. The problem is that they become dangerous when the party needs to depend on them for their assumed role.

I've let go a few players that I've gamed with for decades because no matter how much I tried to engage with them, I'm talking full force throwing the kitchen-sink at them, every ploy in the D.O.N.G. handbook and I had... *marginal success*. So little success, I finally just took a break and had to not invite them to the new campaign. And I didn't do it lightly, or even out of the blue, I had private discussions with them, talks with the group, etc. etc. constantly changing my engagement methods with them. They'd waffle between absolute passivity - just going along with the group and adding nothing, engaging with nothing - like a cardboard cutout prop. Some of them were too intimidated by the context of the game and would vapor-lock when I'd ask them "what do you do?".

Some players don't want to game at the level you want to GM. You need to cut those people loose. The key is realizing how far you're willing to go down that road with them before you realize they're playing a different game than you.

Quote from: tenbones;1024388Some players don't want to game at the level you want to GM. You need to cut those people loose. The key is realizing how far you're willing to go down that road with them before you realize they're playing a different game than you

Now THAT is signature-worthy

Quote from: tenbones;1024388Not that they're bad people, not that they mean to screw everyone else, but that they do not want to engage with the game in any meaningful sense or do things that benefit themselves or the party. The problem is that they become dangerous when the party needs to depend on them for their assumed role.

I'm fairly tolerant of that kind of thing, but not infinitely so.  When someone manages to push my buttons in that way, they've taken passive to a new depth.  But what I do demand is:

A. If you are gonna be passive, then go along with the people that aren't.

B. If you are active, spend some of that activity encouraging and including the passive players, instead of leaving all of that up to me.

Since I enjoy a game that can slip in and out of proactive/reactive mode almost on a whim, that's a good, relaxing mix for a semi-casual game.  Sitting around doing nothing won't cut it.  Active PC says, "I'm going to talk to the city council, you two guys come back me up."  Passive PC 1:  "Sure, I'll put in my 2 coppers, as long as you'll drive the conversation."  Passive PC 2:  "I'll stand in the back and look stern."  That's enough to get by,  And then sometimes, one or both passive guys get caught up in the scene, relax, and just start playing--not least because they know if they don't feel like it next time, we won't demand it.

Quote from: Azraele;1024391Now THAT is signature-worthy

Your taste is impeccable.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1024394I'm fairly tolerant of that kind of thing, but not infinitely so.  When someone manages to push my buttons in that way, they've taken passive to a new depth.  But what I do demand is:

A. If you are gonna be passive, then go along with the people that aren't.

B. If you are active, spend some of that activity encouraging and including the passive players, instead of leaving all of that up to me.

Since I enjoy a game that can slip in and out of proactive/reactive mode almost on a whim, that's a good, relaxing mix for a semi-casual game.  Sitting around doing nothing won't cut it.  Active PC says, "I'm going to talk to the city council, you two guys come back me up."  Passive PC 1:  "Sure, I'll put in my 2 coppers, as long as you'll drive the conversation."  Passive PC 2:  "I'll stand in the back and look stern."  That's enough to get by,  And then sometimes, one or both passive guys get caught up in the scene, relax, and just start playing--not least because they know if they don't feel like it next time, we won't demand it.

Yeah I'm that way too. But there are times when I've run games where the tension of the game made demands of the PC's that they really needed to count on one another in a degree higher than the casual adventure. Especially in D&D at high levels where each party member is command of some greater element of the overall campaign. Or something more intimate where the party is doing things like spec-ops etc. where team-play matters for all the marbles.

As a GM I like getting my campaign to that level where everyone has earned their spot at the highest levels of play and they have brought the campaign to that level - and when conflict comes at that stage, everything is in jeopardy. And you realize, deep down the party has been carrying a lot of dead-weight and it's going to fall through the floor because those passive players aren't even trying to go along with things. They would rather sit pat having done little, but enjoying the view owning a nice Inn in the village rather than kicking off the revolution to overthrow their despotic overlord...

I need players that want to game at that level. But can equally find joy in playing at lower-stakes too. Not the other way around.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1024312I think it's less a short attention span or anything of that sort of thing -- though it might be -- and more that people today want to feel like they're in a story that has themes and a greater purpose instead of just randomly shooting around in the dark and hoping something comes of it. (as they would see it)

What's that got to do with passivity?

I still remember a response I got from a player who was feeling overwhelmed by all that was happening around her: "I don't know what you want me to do. I don't know what is the right answer you want."

And then I realized there is an advantage to the dungeon crawl structure. It has an obvious goal with just enough decisions to keep it from being mindless. And it seems that people need that nowadays, the obvious structure telling them what they need to do.

For me, that sort of obvious structure always bored me. But I guess I was already an active player wanting another level of play with the GM. That said, nowadays there is much less self-motivation, a tentative fear that they'll "answer the GM wrong," which I presume comes from years of video game training.

There are different levels of Pro-Active, you know.  Some players like a Hook to be presented for them to grab hold and run with.  Until they get that, they don't do anything, but once they got a grip, the ain't stoppin'!

This is a not an All or Nothing situation, which I think some of you may be falling into the trap of believing it is.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1024435For me, that sort of obvious structure always bored me. But I guess I was already an active player wanting another level of play with the GM. That said, nowadays there is much less self-motivation, a tentative fear that they'll "answer the GM wrong," which I presume comes from years of video game training.

Here is me not dragging this thread out of gaming into other areas by posting alternatives to video games as explanations for this behavior. I'm thinking it, but I'm not doing it.  Kind of passive-aggressive like.  Please carry on. :)

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1024439There are different levels of Pro-Active, you know.  Some players like a Hook to be presented for them to grab hold and run with.  Until they get that, they don't do anything, but once they got a grip, the ain't stoppin'!

This is a not an All or Nothing situation, which I think some of you may be falling into the trap of believing it is.

How much bait on that hook, though? I can understand new players getting that deer in the headlights look when faced with so many possibilities at the game table, but with someone who has been playing for decades? When literally EVERYTHING in the game is an adventure possibility, the players themselves have to shoulder some of the effort.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1024241Why do you suppose that is?  The default used to be "this game is about having adventures, so go have adventures."  After three or four dungeon crawls, we started wondering "hey, what's outside the dungeon and town?"

In my experience proactive players weren't rare 35 to 40 years ago.  They seem to be now.

Why?

I am not sure they are not rare now either. But theres alot of different styles and some players like some defined roadmarks or direction.

And even that varies wildly from "Legends say there used to be a great kingdom to the north that fell to ruin." to "Did you hear about the caravan that vanished up north a week ago?" to "We are mounting an expedition to investigate the ruins of the north. Any adventurers up for the challenge?" to "You! Yes you there. GEAS! Go the fuck north and explore!" to "You have been mysteriously teleported to the ruined kingdom of the north."

Others will effectively make their own adventures. Or something in between.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1024408What's that got to do with passivity?

Well, let me put it this way. I've seen players express a preference for themes and story that have *meaning* directed by the GM, with the coherence that comes with it, rather than things that just bubble up organically since those could be anything.

For instance, a game that is about tackling a certain dilemma and the sacrifice needed to do it, structured in such a way that the players have to engage with that specific dilemma. The story then becomes more about the character's reactions and morals in response to this crisis.

A hypothetical would be a king that is dying of a magic curse, and the curse can only be broken through various unsavory means. The implicit theme of the game might be "you have to accept you can't save everything and prioritize the one thing you'll sacrifice everything for, or risk loosing everything anyway by trying to do the impossible," and this is then revealed through the actual playing, even though the GM seeded the world to produce this theme.

So, not really sandbox, more like an adventure with a set topic but the players can choose how they tackle it.

Quote from: jeff37923;1024445How much bait on that hook, though? I can understand new players getting that deer in the headlights look when faced with so many possibilities at the game table, but with someone who has been playing for decades? When literally EVERYTHING in the game is an adventure possibility, the players themselves have to shoulder some of the effort.

It depends on the group.  And I'd assume that people who have been playing together for decades would know how much hook and bait to use, if any.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1024508It depends on the group.  And I'd assume that people who have been playing together for decades would know how much hook and bait to use, if any.

Just because someone has been playing for decades, does not mean that they have been playing in one of my groups for decades. Rein in your assumptions, please.


EDIT: Edited to prevent the Grammar Nazi from Down Under having a stroke.

Quote from: jeff37923;1024510Just because someone has been playing for decades, does not mean that they have been playing in one of my groups for decades. Reign in your assumptions, please.

He said, "playing together." At least read the bits you quote before trying to refute them.

And it's rein. A reign is the rule of a monarch; a rein controls a horse. To rein in a horse means to slow it down. This is the problem with using old tired metaphors, as Orwell told us. The purpose of a metaphor is to call up a mental image to make vivid the person's point; but an old metaphor that everyone's forgotten the meaning of doesn't do this. It's just lazy writing.

On topic: a competent DM needs a good command of language, to well-express their ideas and the setting. That's the way it is under the reiGn of the Viking Hat DM.

Quote from: jeff37923;1024445How much bait on that hook, though? I can understand new players getting that deer in the headlights look when faced with so many possibilities at the game table, but with someone who has been playing for decades? When literally EVERYTHING in the game is an adventure possibility, the players themselves have to shoulder some of the effort.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1024514He said, "playing together." At least read the bits you quote before trying to refute them.

I will if you will.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1024514And it's rein. A reign is the rule of a monarch; a rein controls a horse. To rein in a horse means to slow it down. This is the problem with using old tired metaphors, as Orwell told us. The purpose of a metaphor is to call up a mental image to make vivid the person's point; but an old metaphor that everyone's forgotten the meaning of doesn't do this. It's just lazy writing.

On topic: a competent DM needs a good command of language, to well-express their ideas and the setting. That's the way it is under the reiGn of the Viking Hat DM.

Thank you, Grammer Nazi from Down Under.

Quote from: jeff37923;1024445How much bait on that hook, though? I can understand new players getting that deer in the headlights look when faced with so many possibilities at the game table, but with someone who has been playing for decades? When literally EVERYTHING in the game is an adventure possibility, the players themselves have to shoulder some of the effort.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1024508It depends on the group.  And I'd assume that people who have been playing together for decades would know how much hook and bait to use, if any.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1024514He said, "playing together." At least read the bits you quote before trying to refute them.

I will if you will.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1024514And it's rein. A reign is the rule of a monarch; a rein controls a horse. To rein in a horse means to slow it down. This is the problem with using old tired metaphors, as Orwell told us. The purpose of a metaphor is to call up a mental image to make vivid the person's point; but an old metaphor that everyone's forgotten the meaning of doesn't do this. It's just lazy writing.

On topic: a competent DM needs a good command of language, to well-express their ideas and the setting. That's the way it is under the reiGn of the Viking Hat DM.

Thank you, Grammar Nazi from Down Under.

I wouldn't have criticised your misuse of metaphor if I'd agreed with you, it was just a good chance to have a dig. I'm a grammar commie. Nazis kill everyone, commies kill people who disagree with them.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1024524I wouldn't have criticised your misuse of metaphor if I'd agreed with you, it was just a good chance to have a dig. I'm a grammar commie. Nazis kill everyone, commies kill people who disagree with them.

My bad, I'll change it in a moment.

I do have some questions which I think you may have some of the best answers. I'll start another thread for those.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1024440Here is me not dragging this thread out of gaming into other areas by posting alternatives to video games as explanations for this behavior. I'm thinking it, but I'm not doing it.  Kind of passive-aggressive like.  Please carry on. :)

High Fructose Corn Syrup? GMO Wheat induced Gluten-intolerance? Chem-trails? Storygames?!?! :p (See? I brought it back to gaming. :D)

Quote from: Opaopajr;1024435I still remember a response I got from a player who was feeling overwhelmed by all that was happening around her: "I don't know what you want me to do. I don't know what is the right answer you want."

"There's not a single answer that I want to hear. What is the answer you want to give me? What would your character do?"
Yeah, been there, done that, it was my answer. At least I got better things than just a lousy t-shirt out of it:D!

Quote from: AsenRG;1024741"There's not a single answer that I want to hear. What is the answer you want to give me? What would your character do?"
Yeah, been there, done that, it was my answer. At least I got better things than just a lousy t-shirt out of it:D!

Yeah... it's a flummoxing question. I gave a similar response. But I can tell you what really was going through my mind was self-doubt, trying to figure out "Where did I go wrong?" Could've been residual confusion from other GM expectations, but yeah, it made me pause.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1024772Yeah... it's a flummoxing question. I gave a similar response. But I can tell you what really was going through my mind was self-doubt, trying to figure out "Where did I go wrong?" Could've been residual confusion from other GM expectations, but yeah, it made me pause.

Personally, I attributed it to the PC games with single solution, because the player had no previous experience with RPGs before I introduced her. She actually agreed;).

Quote from: tenbones;1024388... Some players don't want to game at the level you want to GM. You need to cut those people loose. The key is realizing how far you're willing to go down that road with them before you realize they're playing a different game than you.

This is a great quote, and true, though I've had several mostly-passive players who weren't really a problem because they were just like mostly-subordinate NPCs that happened to have players attached to them. As long as the GM treats them as such and doesn't do nonsense like stall the game for them or avoid having them die when they're incompetent or make the other PCs and/or the party's NPCs give them much more slack than they deserve, or let the players socialize OOC during play, they're just mediocre companions and don't hurt much of anything. In fact, they can be object lessons on the benefits of smart active play, when they freeze up and get pushed into a chasm to their deaths, or the party ditches them because they're less competent than an NPC and there's only so much room in the boat, etc.

Quote from: Skarg;1024908This is a great quote, and true, though I've had several mostly-passive players who weren't really a problem because they were just like mostly-subordinate NPCs that happened to have players attached to them. As long as the GM treats them as such and doesn't do nonsense like stall the game for them or avoid having them die when they're incompetent or make the other PCs and/or the party's NPCs give them much more slack than they deserve, or let the players socialize OOC during play, they're just mediocre companions and don't hurt much of anything. In fact, they can be object lessons on the benefits of smart active play, when they freeze up and get pushed into a chasm to their deaths, or the party ditches them because they're less competent than an NPC and there's only so much room in the boat, etc.

Sounds good except for the part about the party abandoning. I've never seen that happen. Everyone always bends over backwards to bring them even if they all die.

Quote from: Skarg;1024908In fact, they can be object lessons on the benefits of smart active play, when they freeze up and get pushed into a chasm to their deaths, or the party ditches them because they're less competent than an NPC and there's only so much room in the boat, etc.

Managing resources is important. And haven't we all encountered PCs who were way less useful and interesting than some of the NPCs?

Quote from: Skarg;1024908This is a great quote, and true, though I've had several mostly-passive players who weren't really a problem because they were just like mostly-subordinate NPCs that happened to have players attached to them. As long as the GM treats them as such and doesn't do nonsense like stall the game for them or avoid having them die when they're incompetent or make the other PCs and/or the party's NPCs give them much more slack than they deserve, or let the players socialize OOC during play, they're just mediocre companions and don't hurt much of anything. In fact, they can be object lessons on the benefits of smart active play, when they freeze up and get pushed into a chasm to their deaths, or the party ditches them because they're less competent than an NPC and there's only so much room in the boat, etc.

I haven't seen that, I admit.  And I'll also defend the casual player; some people simply are, and will always be.  The key to being a successful casual player, I think, is having a cooperative attitude; "what do you want me to do."  If somebody's content to be a competent follower, I'll let them.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1024952If somebody's content to be a competent follower, I'll let them.

That was me when I played back in the 90's, although less from being casual and more from lack of assertiveness.  

(I once described myself as a Moonglum to everyone else's Elric)

Rolemaster Standard System's Gamemaster Law breaks down player archetypes into animal subcategories including the Cow and the Sponge.  The cow is just there to pass time and not really into it and the sponge just absorbs whatever the GM lays down without ever engaging with it.

I thought there was something wrong with what I was doing or with one of my players, but it sounds like he is the Sponge. Or the Cow maybe.

On the other hand, people always say "passive player" is a valid personality type and to just let them enjoy it passively if that's what they want...

Yeah, there's not much to be done for people who just aren't really into it.

Pretty much everyone could GM.

Anyone who is sufficiently disciplined and keeps at it and works on it could become a good GM.

Not everyone can be a GREAT GM.

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." :D

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." :D

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.

Quote from: Omega;1026467And 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.

A fair point. Contextually, I had inferred from the OP that the topic was more along the lines of, 'can anyone who could and would ever play a TTRPG take on the role of gamemaster, given the need and an incentive to do so.' Once we start including people who pathologically hate dice, hate games, hate all forms of social activity, perhaps still think TTRPGs will damn your soul, and so on down the line, then the answer becomes of course there are people who can't, but the question has been reduced to a pretty meaningless one.

Quote from: Omega;1026467"No gaming is better than bad gaming." :D

I would disagree with this. Obviously some games are going to be so poorly run, or comprised of people you just don't like, so in those cases skip it. But I think if you are sufficiently interested in gaming, you can find enjoyment in even a poor to mediocre game. I meet too many people who haven't gamed at all in ages because they adhere to a 'no gaming is better than bad gaming' which I think helps contribute to the whole 'bitter, non-gamer, thing'. In my experience, it is like anything else, the more you do it, the better you tend to get. Some people are better than others, but it is still just a game. Taking the game too seriously, having overly lofty expectations and letting that impact your behavior at the table, is one of the fastest ways to make an enjoyable game miserable for yourself and others at the table.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1026517I would disagree with this. Obviously some games are going to be so poorly run, or comprised of people you just don't like, so in those cases skip it. But I think if you are sufficiently interested in gaming, you can find enjoyment in even a poor to mediocre game. I meet too many people who haven't gamed at all in ages because they adhere to a 'no gaming is better than bad gaming' which I think helps contribute to the whole 'bitter, non-gamer, thing'. In my experience, it is like anything else, the more you do it, the better you tend to get. Some people are better than others, but it is still just a game. Taking the game too seriously, having overly lofty expectations and letting that impact your behavior at the table, is one of the fastest ways to make an enjoyable game miserable for yourself and others at the table.

That's not what the idiom means.  "Mediocre gaming" isn't "bad gaming," and for some people mediocre gaming is still fun.  Besides, in the context of this topic, the answer is obvious.  No gaming is better than bad gaming, but confronted with bad gaming, the best route is to GM yourself, even if that means a spate of bad gaming that you'll sooner or later replace with at least some mediocre gaming.  And who knows, maybe it will get even better?

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1026521That's not what the idiom means.  "Mediocre gaming" isn't "bad gaming," and for some people mediocre gaming is still fun.  Besides, in the context of this topic, the answer is obvious.  No gaming is better than bad gaming, but confronted with bad gaming, the best route is to GM yourself, even if that means a spate of bad gaming that you'll sooner or later replace with at least some mediocre gaming.  And who knows, maybe it will get even better?

Based on what I've seen over the years, I think a lot of people equate mediocre gaming with bad gaming. I guess I've just become very suspicious of that kind of bitching, and find "just game already" a much more productive approach to things. I see way too many people hesitating to game or GM for no reason.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1026517I would disagree with this. Obviously some games are going to be so poorly run, or comprised of people you just don't like, so in those cases skip it. But I think if you are sufficiently interested in gaming, you can find enjoyment in even a poor to mediocre game. I meet too many people who haven't gamed at all in ages because they adhere to a 'no gaming is better than bad gaming' which I think helps contribute to the whole 'bitter, non-gamer, thing'. In my experience, it is like anything else, the more you do it, the better you tend to get. Some people are better than others, but it is still just a game. Taking the game too seriously, having overly lofty expectations and letting that impact your behavior at the table, is one of the fastest ways to make an enjoyable game miserable for yourself and others at the table.

Gaming takes time, a true zero-sum.  

Don't invest your time in mediocre anything.  If the gaming available is mediocre-to-bad, and investing even more time to do it yourself isn't on the table for whatever reason, then look for something great to put your time into.  It doesn't have to have anything to do with gaming.

But never settle for mediocre for very long.

Quote from: EOTB;1026553Gaming takes time, a true zero-sum.  

Don't invest your time in mediocre anything.  If the gaming available is mediocre-to-bad, and investing even more time to do it yourself isn't on the table for whatever reason, then look for something great to put your time into.  It doesn't have to have anything to do with gaming.

But never settle for mediocre for very long.

Are you gaming though. If this standard is still leading you to regular sessions of play, I say fine. If it is resulting in months and weeks of no gaming, then I think your standard is unrealistic and probably causing you to miss out on fun.

I guess  what I am trying to say is your starting attitude matters too, and you bring in a lot of what you get out of gaming. If you come in hyper critical, or with expectations that just don't match what happens at a typical session, you can end up killing your own enjoyment. I've definitely seen this. And I've also seen plenty of people, particularly online, who just never game because they've got it in their head that the session, the GM or the players all need to match some perfect ideal. Again, the bottom line is it is just a game. Forgetting that seems to be one of the primary causes of people not enjoying themselves. Obviously if a session makes you miserable, or detracts from other things you'd rather do, I'd say don't participate. But with gaming, I find just stepping in and doing it solves half the problems people fret about on the internet.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1026555Are you gaming though. If this standard is still leading you to regular sessions of play, I say fine. If it is resulting in months and weeks of no gaming, then I think your standard is unrealistic and probably causing you to miss out on fun.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1026555I guess  what I am trying to say is your starting attitude matters too, and you bring in a lot of what you get out of gaming. If you come in hyper critical, or with expectations that just don't match what happens at a typical session, you can end up killing your own enjoyment. I've definitely seen this. And I've also seen plenty of people, particularly online, who just never game because they've got it in their head that the session, the GM or the players all need to match some perfect ideal. Again, the bottom line is it is just a game. Forgetting that seems to be one of the primary causes of people not enjoying themselves. Obviously if a session makes you miserable, or detracts from other things you'd rather do, I'd say don't participate. But with gaming, I find just stepping in and doing it solves half the problems people fret about on the internet.

I'd agree with this.  But I'd say this is a gamer measuring an available game against a hypothetical ideal game.  I'm not talking about that - yes, the perfect is the enemy of the good.  I'm a stickler about gaming with people who have similar outlooks on campaign fundamentals, but outside of that sessions are very not serious in meatspace even if straight-serious in imaginary space.  The entire point of gaming for me is in the dining room camaraderie with the players, who are my friends (which is why I try and avoid gaming with people who would be more upset about level draining than they'd be laughing uproariously and busting the balls of the friend who goofed something and was drained as a result).  

I do go weeks at a time with no table sessions, as we all have pretty full lives and (IMO) rightfully prioritize gaming against everything else.  But if I'm not playing, I'm creating, so my personal hobby time is well spent regardless.  I'm talking about always asking yourself if your time is best spent.  How much I game is a much lower priority to me than that my time is spent on things that enrich my life.  If I'm sitting in on an adventure that doesn't scratch the itch of why I like AD&D in the first place, then I'm going to look at replacing that time with whatever is available that leaves me either improved or genuinely entertained.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1026524Based on what I've seen over the years, I think a lot of people equate mediocre gaming with bad gaming. I guess I've just become very suspicious of that kind of bitching, and find "just game already" a much more productive approach to things. I see way too many people hesitating to game or GM for no reason.

Well, as the guy responsible for really spreading that meme, "bad gaming" does NOT mean "the occasional off night."

I am not responsible for people equating mediocre gaming with bad gaming.  Most people are booger-eating morons.

If you're not having fun, it's bad gaming.  That does not mean ever nanosecond has to be filled with awesomeness.

So, if you are having fun, does that not define "good gaming"?

I'd say, "YES".

Quote from: jeff37923;1026575So, if you are having fun, does that not define "good gaming"?

I'd say, "YES".

That, of course, is the logical corollary.  If everybody else is having fun but you, it's good gaming for them.  At that point, the correct thing to do is to politely excuse yourself.

I confess as I've gotten older, my tolerance for "mediocre gaming" - and by that I mean having players unwilling to engage at particular level that enables us to get our game to certain level of play - has evaporated to a thin crusty film at best.

I've spent many years gaming with people that ultimately, I've realized despite my often elaborate efforts, are not playing for the reasons or goals that I am. I liken it to a softball league and we have players that want *just* sit around and drink rather than play to win. I don't mean to sound militant or anything (I'm not) I'm just saying that there is a certain level of play I want in my games that I will no longer settle for in my players. This doesn't mean if we don't reach that level of play that I'm suddenly kicking people out of the group - it just means as long as everyone in good faith is making reasonable attempts to get the game to that level of play, it's game on.

I want to play in the big-leagues not T-ball at my table. I want players that want that too.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1026576That, of course, is the logical corollary.  If everybody else is having fun but you, it's good gaming for them.  At that point, the correct thing to do is to politely excuse yourself.

/agreed

Quote from: tenbones;1026577I confess as I've gotten older, my tolerance for "mediocre gaming" - and by that I mean having players unwilling to engage at particular level that enables us to get our game to certain level of play - has evaporated to a thin crusty film at best.

I've spent many years gaming with people that ultimately, I've realized despite my often elaborate efforts, are not playing for the reasons or goals that I am. I liken it to a softball league and we have players that want *just* sit around and drink rather than play to win. I don't mean to sound militant or anything (I'm not) I'm just saying that there is a certain level of play I want in my games that I will no longer settle for in my players. This doesn't mean if we don't reach that level of play that I'm suddenly kicking people out of the group - it just means as long as everyone in good faith is making reasonable attempts to get the game to that level of play, it's game on.

I want to play in the big-leagues not T-ball at my table. I want players that want that too.

Hence my oft-repeated statement, "management of expectations is the key to success."

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1026588Hence my oft-repeated statement, "management of expectations is the key to success."

Truer words... etc. etc.!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1026588Hence my oft-repeated statement, "management of expectations is the key to success."

Yes, on that and all that preceded it.

Late to the party, but here are my thoughts: almost anyone can be a good GM (disabilities can make for obvious exceptions), but few people are willing to put in the effort willing to be a good GM.

For me, being a GM means that you need to be willing to know the system you're dealing with, know the players, their characters, and the intentions and desires of each, and then be able to plan accordingly. This takes a lot of time.

You also need to be able to react on the fly, which is mostly also about that same sort of prep.

Finally, you have to be willing to be a group leader, and that requires efforts at organization, arranging logistics, and a willingness to deal with problem players.

Each of these things take time and can be mildly unpleasant to do (depending), so if you don't put in the effort you won't be a good GM.

This is why most GMs suck. It's not because they can't get better. It's because they don't want to.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1026517I would disagree with this. Obviously some games are going to be so poorly run, or comprised of people you just don't like, so in those cases skip it. But I think if you are sufficiently interested in gaming, you can find enjoyment in even a poor to mediocre game.

I'll have to take your word for it, I wouldn't know.

Its much like FFGs Star Wars RPG and the special dice. Some people just cannot handle alot of symbols, (some can barely handle a few) and same with DMing. Some are just never going to be able to do it for whatever reason. And as said. Some are going to suck any joy out of playing.

I am all for patience and giving someone a chance. But there is a point past which "No gaming is better than Bad gaming."

I certainly think that there are some people who would find GMing to be a chore they'd rather not do. And others who like it much more than playing. I'm in the latter category.

Anyone is capable.

'Nuff said.

Quote from: FeloniousMonk;1028725Anyone is capable.

'Nuff said.

Well, anyone with a normal range IQ and who can read could theoretically be 'capable' of GMing. But not everyone who is capable will like it, or be any good at it.

Quote from: tenbones;1026220The 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.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1026249Absolutely 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.

The RPG sessions and campaigns that I enjoyed the most and remember the most fondly and found most interesting all had major contributions from the players, particularly the players getting involved and taking creative actions that the GM did not plan at all but that the GM provided a situation and a play style which allowed, invited, inspired and provided interesting dynamic reactions to players choosing what to do and how to do it, and then played out whatever evolving situation that was.

The GMs that I'd most like to play with are the ones who enable that, generally by not being too focused or attached to what they've planned or anticipated. They do also tend to create fun and interesting content, sometimes very elaborate and dramatic, but I think that's secondary to the way the GM handles play.

Hmm. The campaigns and sessions I remember most fondly ALSO had major contributions from the players... in the form of stuff their characters did.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1028887Well, anyone with a normal range IQ and who can read could theoretically be 'capable' of GMing. But not everyone who is capable will like it, or be any good at it.

True, but my assertion is that any of that group who's willing to put forth some honest effort can run at least a 'pretty good' game with practice.

I don't have the sense that there are large numbers of people asking to be called gamers who only watch streams, but if we are going to quibble over terms, Gaming or RPG Enthusiasts is probably the way to go for someone who watches games or reads them but isn't playing them. Still, I am not particularly concerns about who gets called a gamer and who doesn't. A lot of them are probably potential players though. I'd imagine a solid chunk of people who came to the hobby by watching streams, would at least have a curiosity about jumping in and giving it a try. I think we should approach streaming like any other cultural moment where the potential to grow the hobby or have a boom is there. Eventually things will probably settle down again like they always do, but this is a good opportunity to share the hobby with people who are suddenly taking notice of it.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1029530True, but my assertion is that any of that group who's willing to put forth some honest effort can run at least a 'pretty good' game with practice.

Serious effort can make a difference.  I know some people who were bad GMs that became at least adequate GMs (or sometimes, good GMs with one system or setting they were really drawn to) by sheer time and effort.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1030145Serious effort can make a difference.  I know some people who were bad GMs that became at least adequate GMs (or sometimes, good GMs with one system or setting they were really drawn to) by sheer time and effort.

Exactly.  Exactly!  See, I'm really sick of the "I can't GM because I'm not a Chosen One!" wailing.  With some effort, any normally functional person can at least provide fun for their buddies and themselves.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1030199Exactly.  Exactly!  See, I'm really sick of the "I can't GM because I'm not a Chosen One!" wailing.  With some effort, any normally functional person can at least provide fun for their buddies and themselves.

I think of learning to GM as being like learning to read & write, learning to do elementary school arithmetic, or learning to play a sport like basketball or tennis in a casual and noncompetitive setting. Can the overwhelming majority of adult humans learn to do those things? Yes. Is it easier because of ability for some people to learn than to do those things than for others? Yes. Does it take some effort and practice (an amount that varies based on ability) to learn to do those sorts of things. Yes.

Learning to GM for your buddies so they can have some fun is like learning those things.

Quote from: Bren;1030215I think of learning to GM as being like learning to read & write, learning to do elementary school arithmetic, or learning to play a sport like basketball or tennis in a casual and noncompetitive setting. Can the overwhelming majority of adult humans learn to do those things? Yes. Is it easier because of ability for some people to learn than to do those things than for others? Yes. Does it take some effort and practice (an amount that varies based on ability) to learn to do those sorts of things. Yes.

Learning to GM for your buddies so they can have some fun is like learning those things.

Pretty much. Is it an incredibly difficult and rare skill? No. Can anyone do it? Also no. The main barriers to DMing aren't cognitive, they're social. A lot of people are simply too passive to organize and coordinate any activity involving multiple people.

People seriously overestimate how hard it is to "entertain" a bunch of players.

Quote from: Bren;1030215I think of learning to GM as being like learning to read & write, learning to do elementary school arithmetic, or learning to play a sport like basketball or tennis in a casual and noncompetitive setting. Can the overwhelming majority of adult humans learn to do those things? Yes. Is it easier because of ability for some people to learn than to do those things than for others? Yes. Does it take some effort and practice (an amount that varies based on ability) to learn to do those sorts of things. Yes.

Learning to GM for your buddies so they can have some fun is like learning those things.

I think the difference is in the sheer number of different skills in which a budding GM needs to have some mild ability.  Multiple social abilities, multiple organizational abilities, an interest in the game's subject matter, an interest and comfort with basic math (done rapidly, in public), some passing acquaintance with probability effects (or at least able to fake it), a "fair referee" mentality that can be turned on and off at will as needed, a sense of pacing and flow, etc.  And that doesn't even cover the "nice to have" abilities that some people think are necessary, such as dramatic voices or narrative plotting.  

It's less like playing amateur tennis or softball, and more like being the YMCA "coach" that can get a game going of anything happening, from swimming to tennis to softball to made up dodge ball variants.  No one expects you to be earth-shaking, but the guy doing it wants to be mildly competent at the full range.  

Of course, that's back to the basic problem:  The only way you get to be mildly competent at the full range is to simply jump in and get some experience.  So the first necessary ability is the willingness to risk making a fool of yourself in front of your friends while you develop the other skills. :D

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1030246I think the difference is in the sheer number of different skills in which a budding GM needs to have some mild ability.

Yes you need a collection of skills. If you are trying to be a passable GM for every possible player than you need all those skills. But being a good or even passable GM for every possible player isn't the task.

The task is to be a passable GM for the group of players you have at hand or can fairly easily find. To be a passable GM you don't actually need to be even average at all of those skills. It helps if you are passable or better yet good at all those things, but I've seen plenty of passable GMs who just weren't good at some aspect of the GM's art. Sometimes one or more players picked up some of the slack, e.g. the player who good at math can do much of the math stuff, the player who is good at calendaring can organize and maintain the social calendar, the player who really enjoys rules stuff can be the expert or the lookup for obscure rule stuff during play. There are lots of ways to handle these things in a manner that should be acceptable to a casual group of buddies trying to have some fun of an evening.

QuoteOf course, that's back to the basic problem:  The only way you get to be mildly competent at the full range is to simply jump in and get some experience.  So the first necessary ability is the willingness to risk making a fool of yourself in front of your friends while you develop the other skills. :D

People having what I think are unrealistically high expectations for a new GM don't help people take that risk.

Quote from: Bren;1030309People having what I think are unrealistically high expectations for a new GM don't help people take that risk.

Nope.  It's the fear of making yourself into a fool in front of people.  It's a VERY powerful fear, even in front of people you consider friends.  And given that a lot of socially awkward types used to and still do, gravitate to this hobby, it can get quite crippling in some cases.

It wasn't hard for me because my humour tends to be self-depreciating so I'm OK with making an ass out of myself in front of a crowd.  I do that just by looking at people ;)

I can make fun of myself because I know I can take it. :D Making fun of someone else?  Not so much.

Because I developed an extensive vocabulary early, from mostly reading instead of talking, I often mispronounce words, often with unintended comic effect.  Despite a huge interest in running a game and already developed skills in all the other things I listed, unless I had been willing to make a fool of myself early, I'd have never run.  And it was worse around my buddies than anyone else, because they had no reservations about letting me have it every time I said something wrong.  It was a running gag in our early games.  

I didn't say expert.  I said "mild ability" in those areas.  But you've got to have the confidence that mild is good enough.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1030330Nope.

Of course the level of your fear is related to the level of expectation for your performance. It it wasn't you would be cripplingly afraid of ever doing anything at all in front of other people. But you aren't cripplingly afraid of doing absolutely everything in front of other people, right? So if you (and your players) can lower the level of expectation for the performance of a new GM your fear will be less. Now maybe your fear is still too high to ever even try to GM, but that level of fear is not a problem related to the degree of difficulty with being a GM nor is it likely to be fixed or even helped by people nattering on a forum or providing "how to be a GM advice."

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1030338Because I developed an extensive vocabulary early, from mostly reading instead of talking, I often mispronounce words, often with unintended comic effect.

Oh yeah. I recall mispronouncing the word "tunic" as ton-ik. I came across the word while reading the Odyssey. I figured out the meaning from context, but got the pronunciation completely wrong. Thereafter I made a greater effort to look up the pronunciation of words I didn't know in the dictionary.

If your first halting efforts at running a game are met by an excessive level of shit from your friends, you need new friends.

"You dickweeds want to play?  Then help me learn how to run this fucking game, you bunch of buttnuggets."

Yes, my friends and I do address each other like this.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1030199Exactly.  Exactly!  See, I'm really sick of the "I can't GM because I'm not a Chosen One!" wailing.  With some effort, any normally functional person can at least provide fun for their buddies and themselves.

Yeah, there's definitely no 'chosen one'.  There ARE people who have some more natural talents that would make them predisposed to potentially being a great GM. However, to get to great GM status still requires effort.
I was always a good GM, but I became a great GM by doing it a lot and working on doing it better each campaign.

What's good is subjective.

Since the GM runs the game world, the personality, thinking, humor, logic, tastes, values, interests and so on all impact what the GM's worlds, characters, game situations and sessions are like.

Different GMs are more or less compatible with different players in various ways.

What's good is rarely entirely subjective.

And you can certainly place several objective benchmarks on what defines being a 'good GM'.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1031311And you can certainly place several objective benchmarks on what defines being a 'good GM'.

Like what? Would you mind giving a few examples?

Quote from: jeff37923;1031336Like what? Would you mind giving a few examples?

1) A GM that is inconsistent in the application of their ruleset might still provide an enjoyable experience, but invariably will run into issues down the road with the ability to being fairly arbitrary or even non-judicious in their application of those rules. They might be called a "good GM". A better GM can adhere to the rules, and be flexible with the group if something happens according to the rules that "doesn't jive" and make calls with the group and not let it detract from the experience. OR they can make a hard call that adheres to the rules and still make their players feel that it was a good call even at their expense.

2) A Good GM can run a module. A Great GM can run a sandbox campaign that has the module in it, re-worked for the purposes of their campaign within an entire world, seamlessly allowing options both good and bad to present themselves, and allow the actions of the PC's to naturally create content and further options (some might close/open based on those choices) and present an experience of far greater personalized nature that transcends what the Railroad GM might have envisioned. To do the latter takes much more skill, and more work.

There's two good examples. I can provide more.

Quote from: tenbones;1031423There's two good examples. I can provide more.

Please do. I find this to be a very worthwhile line of inquiry.

Obviously these are generalities and can be expanded upon.


A Good GM can be prepared to execute a set series of encounters as a Game Session. A Great GM can let encounters be totally emergent or random and tie it in organically to the larger world.

A Good GM can let you make PC's of any kind of background and make you happy. A Great GM can work with you to create a PC in context with the campaign that makes you excited to play something other than your surface assumptions that have nothing to do with your unicorn freakshow. Including allowing you to play a unicorn freakshow but put into context of the campaign with special considerations and expectations that matter.

A Good GM can hand-wave details in doing mundane things in order to keep the adventure flowing. A Great GM can make literally anything important or potentially important.

A Good GM can allude to a larger setting without really engaging in the world and still have a good game. A Great GM can make your players *want* to go explore beyond the boundaries of their assumed adventurespace.

A Good GM can run a genre or system with good proficiency. A Great GM can run anything and make it at bare minimum, "good".

A Good GM can incorporate new material into a game well. A Great GM can create new material of their own devising and make it seamless to the sandbox at large.

A Good GM can pull off an good session of moderate complexity with little prep. A Great GM can pull off a good session of moderate complexity with relative ease and little to no prep. They can pull off the occasional great session with good complexity out of their ass with little prep.

A Good GM will create consistent fun in their games. A Great GM will create moments that those players will talk about for decades.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1030338Because I developed an extensive vocabulary early, from mostly reading instead of talking, I often mispronounce words, often with unintended comic effect.

I avoided running dungeons with any "bas-relief" features for years ...

Mostly agreeing with Tenbones.

Quote from: Zalman;1031719I avoided running dungeons with any "bas-relief" features for years ...

I should have.  But I got away with that one, because my players at the time didn't know how to pronounce it either.

I agree with the things Tenbones wrote, too.

What I meant was about other things that are more subjective, which I suppose we could agree are more about preferences that objective good or bad, though it seems most players are quick to treat them as good or bad when they hit their acute preferences or dislikes.

e.g.

humor - the GM's sense of humor will be there in a world/characters/situations he makes and runs. Whether it's funny or welcome permeating a game world is subjective.

stunts - some players want to be allowed to say their PCs do wild things, be allowed and get bonuses for them. Others want to play within consistently defined limits. It's subjective but opposite tastes tend to look at the other extreme as bad.
 
continuity - some GMs do their best to have their worlds/sessions/characters be consistent. Others think it's more important to do what seems fun/cool to their players in the moment even if it breaks continuity - again, it's subjective what we prefer, and gets called bad/good at either end.

realism - some players & GMs value things seeming realistic to them. Others are hostile even to the use of those words. Both sides may argue it's not subjective, etc.

Similarly with logic, historicity, gonzo-ness, pacing, "story arcs", player conflicts, etc.

Yes, the things you named are relatively quite subjective. But there's other things that are much more objective.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1032372Yes, the things you named are relatively quite subjective. But there's other things that are much more objective.

Like what?

As I said earlier, this is a rewarding line of inquiry for me.

Quote from: Skarg;1032021I agree with the things Tenbones wrote, too.

What I meant was about other things that are more subjective, which I suppose we could agree are more about preferences that objective good or bad, though it seems most players are quick to treat them as good or bad when they hit their acute preferences or dislikes.

e.g.

humor - the GM's sense of humor will be there in a world/characters/situations he makes and runs. Whether it's funny or welcome permeating a game world is subjective.

stunts - some players want to be allowed to say their PCs do wild things, be allowed and get bonuses for them. Others want to play within consistently defined limits. It's subjective but opposite tastes tend to look at the other extreme as bad.
 
continuity - some GMs do their best to have their worlds/sessions/characters be consistent. Others think it's more important to do what seems fun/cool to their players in the moment even if it breaks continuity - again, it's subjective what we prefer, and gets called bad/good at either end.

realism - some players & GMs value things seeming realistic to them. Others are hostile even to the use of those words. Both sides may argue it's not subjective, etc.

Similarly with logic, historicity, gonzo-ness, pacing, "story arcs", player conflicts, etc.

These things are subjective to the player - but even these are things that a GM can address with basic protocols that the GM adheres to in order reinforce the order/disorder of the world the PC's are in. Sure no everything is humorous to the same person, the issue is moot because if the GM really understands their world and its conceits, *that* is what the players have to deal with within the context of their PC's place in it.

Humor - Unless you overtly are telling your PC's "this is a humorous game", I'm not sure what the point of this is? A Great GM is self-aware enough to know that the level of humor in their game is easily manifested in the interactions the PC's have with the NPC's. Humor is an ingredient, not the point of a campaign unless you're running some TOON rpg or something. You show your PC's. You don't tell. To the degree that your players appreciate your sense of humor is your issue, not theirs. *You* as the GM shouldn't be inserting your "humor"  into the game out of context with the campaign writ-large. At best you keep it isolated to your NPC's and let the PC's play ball where it lands (or flops, which oddly can make an NPC very interesting in its own right. Who doesn't like an oddball NPC with a fucked up sense of humor that doesn't work?)

Realism, Stunts - You set this up with the players before you even pick up a die. When I run a swashbuckling adventure game, I don't run it like a grimdark ultra-realistic mercenary campaign. PC's aren't worrying about scurvy due to vitamin C deficiency because they didn't expressly buy citrus fruit as part of their rations. You TELL your players ahead of time the tone of the game in these terms. My swashbuckling games conversely are all about doing over-the-top stuff. If they forget these things, have your NPC's do them in-game. Set expectations - Gronan's Rule.

Continuity - This isn't subjective at all. This is very much the province of the GM enforcing the style of campaign they're running - especially if you're doing a sandbox. What is subjective is whether or not players "like" continuity - which is an odd thing for me to consider. Unless you're doing one-shot games, I'm almost of the opinion that those players should be doing boardgames. Why *wouldn't* you want some continuity? This is where being a Good/Great GM comes in - you can get your players interested in perpetuating that continuity of their characters and therefore the campaign.

All the rest (logic, historicity, gonzo-ness, pacing, "story arcs", player conflicts) - These are all basic tools of GMing. Learning to manage these qualities in your game are what make you go from being a neophyte GM that might be learning how to manage one or two of these tools, to being a good GM that can really handle most of these things with basic proficiency and be good at one or more of them to the satisfaction of their players, to being a great GM that can dial all these qualities in to whatever level required to fit the needs of the players and the game.

It really is just basic protocols

1) Set expectations. Get feedback. Re-establish those expectations.
2) Stick to the conceits of your campaign. But be flexible to a point.
3) Be the world your PC's are galavanting around in. The World if the GM's character. Get your players to enjoy interacting with your character. Keep them mystified, keep them in wonder, keep them wanting more. All those other "subjective issues" are things to be consumed by the world you present. Your world is not to be ruled by them, it should transcend and include them.

Quote from: jeff37923;1032397Like what?

As I said earlier, this is a rewarding line of inquiry for me.

I haven't thought much about it, but I'd say along those lines a good memory is objectively a qualification.  That is, it's a little like height and agility for playing basketball.  Short people play basketball.  Clumsy people play.  Heck, wheelchair basketball is a thing some people do really well.  Yet there is a limit on what can get done, and it's tied to those objective qualities.  

A good GM can have gaps in memory.  They can have problem with certain types of memory.  They can use various techniques to compensate and/or enhance what they do have.  However, past a certain point, the GM has to have a wide variety of things available, ready to pull from their head with no hesitation.  You can look up a few things, but not everything.  Some kind of decent memory for a good chunk of that stuff is more important than memory for any one thing.

Quote from: tenbones;1032435... It really is just basic protocols

1) Set expectations. Get feedback. Re-establish those expectations.
2) Stick to the conceits of your campaign. But be flexible to a point.
3) Be the world your PC's are galavanting around in. The World if the GM's character. Get your players to enjoy interacting with your character. Keep them mystified, keep them in wonder, keep them wanting more. All those other "subjective issues" are things to be consumed by the world you present. Your world is not to be ruled by them, it should transcend and include them.

I think you're giving useful advice and guidelines for how GMs can try to mitigate issues with these things and find positive ways to relate to them.

However I still think there are several style attributes a GM may have that can be and are often enjoyed and considered great GMing by many players and yet the same style can be hated and considered awful by other players.

I suppose one could fairly say that a "good" GM should communicate clearly with players to let them know what styles they run and detect conflicts to warn off incompatible players, but it seems almost outside the scope of how great his games are for people who do like his style (though of course it is relevant when/if it leads to incompatible/problem players getting into the game)... which brings me back to wanting to say instead that different GMs will be good for different players depending on how compatible their tastes are.

That is, what the GM I'll most enjoy playing with will be one who is awesome at GMing a style that I enjoy, and the GM's ability to run styles I don't like is irrelevant to that (or even becomes negative if he switches outside of styles I like).

Well no one is going to like everyone all the time. But I would say this is a personal issue, less than a GMing issue. This is the only subjective thing that can't be objectively dealt with. A great GM is flexible (within reason) with his players. The idea is that you're creating a game *with* your players, and that requires building trust, and proving every game session that trust is both earned and returned - players have a responsibility too in that relationship.

Anyone that is proficient in these basic items will, by default, probably be a "good GM". Let's not confuse objectivity of action with subjectivity of thought. The problem might be that the player in question's lack of discernment. There are people that subjectively like a lot of *bad* things without any real objectively critical reason. You, as a GM or as a person in general, can't help that.

Those are the players you jettison.

GM's that are "great" are adaptive in style and ideally have a wider range. But again - you can't please everyone all the time. There are reasons for this that go beyond just gaming.

Quote from: tenbones;1032857... GM's that are "great" are adaptive in style and ideally have a wider range. But again - you can't please everyone all the time. There are reasons for this that go beyond just gaming.

You can define it that way if it makes sense to you, but in thinking of GM's I've played with and whom I consider both "great", for example (names changed):

Sue has many clearly great & entertaining GM skills but occasionally does some things I don't like so much (e.g. heavy riffing on other fiction, fairy tales, jokes, pop culture references) and varies in style and will adapt and indulge some player styles, which is an ability and entertains those players, but sometimes when I'm in a game and that happens, it's off-putting or annoying. There are several types of examples where adapting a varied style to cater to someone is from my point of view dragging at least that part of the game to places below what I would even want to play. (e.g. Usually we do tactical combat but sometimes someone thinks it's cool to attempt a stunt that breaks the rules in various ways, and she'll just let/make it work in ways that make it easier, less dangerous and more powerful than it should be (from my consistency-oriented perspective), undermining/removing the otherwise-rational tactical game which is one of the things I show up for.)

Dave has a mostly rather different style which is creative in unique ways that I really like even if it's a bit different from my own preferred style. Dave has run a variety of campaigns and some have varied widely in style in some ways but not in others. He runs a game the way he's going to run it. He is strong in letting and encouraging players to do interesting, creative and unexpected things, but only as their character and within the limits of the character, the world, the situation and the rules. He'll let you try (and may even encourage) a crazy cinematic stunt, but he'll assign a realistic chance of it working or failing horribly. He runs the game the way he runs it and I don't think he's very adaptable at all to people wanting the game to work differently than the way he runs it unless he agrees they have a cool idea that makes sense.

I don't think I'd call Dave "adaptive in style" but I'd call both of them "great" in different ways, and if I had to choose, I'd much much rather be GM'd by Dave, and would hate it if he adapted his style to styles I don't like as much as the one Dave runs.

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?

You are right, Jeff. There is a certain level of competence you must acquire, which comes through prep, practice and effort. After that, it's just a question of matching your style to the players (or finding players [and a system] that match your style). Some folks like to make things hard. I think of this bullshit pretentiousness about craft, and I am reminded of David Mamet's books on writing and, especially, acting -- "Show up on time. Say your lines. Go home." There's not much more to it than that.

Quote from: tenbones;1032857The idea is that you're creating a game *with* your players, and that requires building trust, and proving every game session that trust is both earned and returned - players have a responsibility too in that relationship.

This, without a doubt.

Quote from: tenbones;10314231) A GM that is inconsistent in the application of their ruleset might still provide an enjoyable experience, but invariably will run into issues down the road with the ability to being fairly arbitrary or even non-judicious in their application of those rules. They might be called a "good GM". A better GM can adhere to the rules, and be flexible with the group if something happens according to the rules that "doesn't jive" and make calls with the group and not let it detract from the experience. OR they can make a hard call that adheres to the rules and still make their players feel that it was a good call even at their expense.

2) A Good GM can run a module. A Great GM can run a sandbox campaign that has the module in it, re-worked for the purposes of their campaign within an entire world, seamlessly allowing options both good and bad to present themselves, and allow the actions of the PC's to naturally create content and further options (some might close/open based on those choices) and present an experience of far greater personalized nature that transcends what the Railroad GM might have envisioned. To do the latter takes much more skill, and more work.

There's two good examples. I can provide more.

Quote from: tenbones;1031476Obviously these are generalities and can be expanded upon.


A Good GM can be prepared to execute a set series of encounters as a Game Session. A Great GM can let encounters be totally emergent or random and tie it in organically to the larger world.

A Good GM can let you make PC's of any kind of background and make you happy. A Great GM can work with you to create a PC in context with the campaign that makes you excited to play something other than your surface assumptions that have nothing to do with your unicorn freakshow. Including allowing you to play a unicorn freakshow but put into context of the campaign with special considerations and expectations that matter.

A Good GM can hand-wave details in doing mundane things in order to keep the adventure flowing. A Great GM can make literally anything important or potentially important.

A Good GM can allude to a larger setting without really engaging in the world and still have a good game. A Great GM can make your players *want* to go explore beyond the boundaries of their assumed adventurespace.

A Good GM can run a genre or system with good proficiency. A Great GM can run anything and make it at bare minimum, "good".

A Good GM can incorporate new material into a game well. A Great GM can create new material of their own devising and make it seamless to the sandbox at large.

A Good GM can pull off an good session of moderate complexity with little prep. A Great GM can pull off a good session of moderate complexity with relative ease and little to no prep. They can pull off the occasional great session with good complexity out of their ass with little prep.

A Good GM will create consistent fun in their games. A Great GM will create moments that those players will talk about for decades.

Thank you, man:)! That's a good list, and gives me ideas what I have to work on.

Quote from: Skarg;1032021I agree with the things Tenbones wrote, too.

What I meant was about other things that are more subjective, which I suppose we could agree are more about preferences that objective good or bad, though it seems most players are quick to treat them as good or bad when they hit their acute preferences or dislikes.

e.g.

humor - the GM's sense of humor will be there in a world/characters/situations he makes and runs. Whether it's funny or welcome permeating a game world is subjective.

stunts - some players want to be allowed to say their PCs do wild things, be allowed and get bonuses for them. Others want to play within consistently defined limits. It's subjective but opposite tastes tend to look at the other extreme as bad.
 
continuity - some GMs do their best to have their worlds/sessions/characters be consistent. Others think it's more important to do what seems fun/cool to their players in the moment even if it breaks continuity - again, it's subjective what we prefer, and gets called bad/good at either end.

realism - some players & GMs value things seeming realistic to them. Others are hostile even to the use of those words. Both sides may argue it's not subjective, etc.

Similarly with logic, historicity, gonzo-ness, pacing, "story arcs", player conflicts, etc.

Well, that's why not even the best GM can please everyone equally. Hence the rule "run the game you'd want to play, you can never please everyone";)!

Quote from: jeff37923;1032397Like what?

As I said earlier, this is a rewarding line of inquiry for me.

I already said that Tenbones named most of them.

A GM has to be able to have a sufficient basic grasp of the rules. He needs to be able to organize the adventure, and the setting. he needs to be able to coherently explain things to the players. he has to be sufficiently organized to make the sessions happen and continue to happen on a regular basis (in the case of a campaign). He needs to be able to clearly portray NPCs in a way that will not cause confusion at the very least, and I would suggest that would be contributing to rather than harming immersion as well. He needs to be able to manage players.

Quote from: Skarg;1033023I don't think I'd call Dave "adaptive in style" but I'd call both of them "great" in different ways, and if I had to choose, I'd much much rather be GM'd by Dave, and would hate it if he adapted his style to styles I don't like as much as the one Dave runs.

But you'll note - you didn't say what made Sue "great" as a GM. In the case of what we're talking about - the difference between a "Good GM" and a "Great GM", it's a quality about hitting high-points consistently. Sue very well might be entertaining, even entertaining consistently. But if Sue were "Great" then you'd probably be talking about what makes Sue so damn Great because she's consistently created a breadth of experiences for you that you've not found elsewhere.

One of the big tell-tale signs about Less-than-Great GM's (not necessarily bad ones) is when people pin a specific set of proclivities on the GM that they insert into their game as a norm, in this case (e.g. heavy riffing on other fiction, fairy tales, jokes, pop culture references). It's not to say you can't have these things in your game, but when they become hallmark signatures, what does it immediately tell you? It says "This GM runs this kinda game regularly".

It's an immediate quality that narrows the spectrum of possibilities that, to me, limits the scope of possibilities. This is not to say that Sue couldn't go outside of that box, it's the fact that alongside the other issues you throw into the mix, that Sue strikes me as not being "Great" your only experience is playing in that kind of fare (which in your case clearly not the issue). Dave sounds *much* better in terms of being flexible with the content but consistent in the application of the rules.

Adapting your style to a genre doesn't mean you have to cater to the whims of each player. It means being able to cater to the conceits of your game across genres with fidelity that allows players to experience that via their characters to the fullest of your abilities as a GM. That means you do take your players into account, but your responsibilities as a GM end where the player's responsibilities to actually play begin.

You could very well have players that simply "don't get" what you're trying to do, and still play in good faith. As a GM your goal is to "win them over" through the events and NPC's in the game. To engage them at that level they're capable and willing to engage at. And that's where the rubber hits the road. That's where the tension hits, that assuming they're willing to meet you half-way where you as a GM can make "the magic" happen. But it takes a certain kind of GM to understand that. It takes a little nuance and flexibility.

I've had players that are extremely passive, but like fiddling around with being social type characters rather than murderous combat-monkeys. So I indulge them. I put them in situations where their desires to do heavy roleplay are met and it allows me to create scores of opportunities that would simply not exist among the combat-monkeys of the group. I'll create possibilities for intrigue where before it might have been nothing more than a business transaction of "I'm hiring you monkeys to go kill X." But conversely the combat-monkeys have to learn to appreciate the social aspects of the game - maybe they're tagging along as bodyguards? Then I'll have my NPC's have their combat-monkey NPC bodyguards interact with them.

Engagement. The mere whiff of prodding the interests of the players is often all it takes. But you have to find that sweet spot of what motivates the player to play. There *usually* is something that each players is interested in that you can engage their character about. The key is doing so consistently at a high level of engagement without sacrificing the conceits of your game. That is the difference between being Good and Great.

(I wrote a reply that got devoured by "web browser forgets what you wrote" syndrome - sigh.)

Great point(er)s about all that, which I don't disagree with!

... except instead of saying "That is the difference between being Good and Great." I would say that can make the difference for some players between a great experience with a GM, and a not-great (even bad) experience. (But often that's not even an issue, because the GM's style fits the players.)

I just think we are talking about different frameworks for thinking about what a "great" GM is.

To me, I don't think there is an accurate way to say a GM is "great" in general, but instead I'd say that GMs can be great at playing certain ranges of styles, and I'd call the criteria you mentioned at the end something like "great at connecting with players and catering to (or selecting a style compatible with) them". How good a GM's game can be will depend on how good they are at running the style of game they actually run, which is a separate thing.

If a GM's style is compatible with the players, it doesn't matter much how flexible the GM can be in changing styles. I think almost everyone agrees Sue is a great GM and may be more flexible and appealing to more people than Dave, but Dave's style is something I really particularly like, so I tend to more reliably and excitedly enjoy playing in Dave's games, and I like that if a player asks Dave to cater to some other style, that Dave isn't going to change his style outside what we like to play, or try to cater to something that's just incompatible.