Referee: lessons learned

[Renaissance Man]

Smeelbo,

Once I started reading "alternative" or "independent" roleplaying games like Spirit of the Century and Burning Wheel, I came to realize that properly there are no characters in most traditional roleplaying games, especially D20. Instead, the game mechanics only provide you with an avatar, a "meat puppet" to carry out the player's wishes, with no actual in-game character beyond what the player cares to provide.

If you approach a game with that kind of attitude, you get those kinds of results, but I don't see how that's inherent in the D20 system. Anyway, there's nothing wrong with the "meat puppet" aspect of play - many people started gaming that way and still enjoy it. But if you want a different game, with a greater emphasis on character and in-character roleplay, than you simply employ that approach. Fudge rules if necessary and go. The rules are pretty immaterial. I've played DC Heroes games that are more layered than an Alan Moore story, Shadowrun games that have a sense of intrigue and style, etc. It sounds like Spirit of the Century and Burning Wheel are attempting to be didactic about a specific approach to gaming. That's fine, but it ain't going to be for everybody.

 

[Merxiless]

Side note: Tablesmith is great, easy to make your own tables, I use it every day for all sorts of things.

http://www.mythosa.net/Utils.html

And I'm all for enhanced characters, and story arcs...not just the stats of it.
While d20 doesn't force players into Stat-mode, it doesn't discourage it, either.

What I got from Classic Traveller was the opposite of d20: you had a few stats, and some skills, so you have to make up personality, etc, from nothing...if your referee went to that level.

While that could be said for all RPGs, it just felt more like with the career tables, that your character has a life, and experiences collected, as you went... thus building character.

This was even more true with MegaTraveller, because you had more options on the charts, etc.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

I rarely bother with backup plans - if the players wander off the main plot, they'll probably wander off those too. I just wing it until I can steer them back on track.

 

[tinker123]

Dave: In the past, I have introduced wayward players to 'Escherian Fate'.
Wherever they go and whatever they do, they find themselves facing the same mystery through a different door.

I have also run adventures like that. The appearance of choice (e.g. you get two interesting-looking leads, which one do you follow up?) followed by a completely railroaded result (amazingly, you picked the one that only hints at a solution. do you now want to follow the other one?) provides a decent experience for the players, so long as they never realise what's going on.

Should the group ever realise, it breaks the whole trust model of the session.

 

[Supplement Four]

I feel it's the GM's job to keep the players interested.

If the players wander off what I have prepared, it's not the players' fault. It's mine. I've failed in my job. And, my job is to create such an interesting and enticing atmosphere that my players, as in reading a good novel, will follow me anywhere.

The GM needs to understand his players. He needs to understand what makes them tick--the type of things in a game that attracts their attention--and then play to that. Each player is different, so sometimes, keeping them all interested can be a challenge.

But, that's our job as Game Masters.

I strive to provide the illusion of freedom. I want my players to feel as if they are masters of their own universes. I want them to believe that their choices have great impact on the game (when, in reality, many times their choices mean very little...but, I've failed as a Game Master if they ever realize that).

This means that, sometimes, they need to believe that I'm ad-libbing the game based on their actions, when, in reality, I've only adapted what I had planned to "make sense" with what they've chosen to do.

Bottom line: If the game is boring, if we're not having fun, if the players are just going through the motions, it's not the players fault at all. It's the GM's fault.

I can't stress enough how important it is to know your players. Provide rich role playing experiences for those players who are true role players. Provide action scenes for the less mature gamers who (may not admit it) see their character as a set of stats. Provide puzzles for those who like to ponder.

I've found, if you know exactly what your players "like" (whether they consciously know themselves or not), and include those likes in your scenario (whether that scenario be something you've created or a published adventures that you've tweaked)...and you're flexible enough with your game plan to go with the flow of the game session, then you're likely going to have a rewarding experience.

Game Mastering is hard. It's much harder than playing. It's a true skill that not everyone learns to master. Not everyone is cut out for it.

And, it is true what they say. A GM can make or break a game (more so than a single player can make or break a game).

 

[Andrew Boulton]

If the players wander off what I have prepared, it's not the players' fault. It's mine. I've failed in my job. And, my job is to create such an interesting and enticing atmosphere that my players, as in reading a good novel, will follow me anywhere.

Up to a point. Often, though, it's creative problem solving by the players that sends them off at a tangent.

 

[Supplement Four]

Up to a point. Often, though, it's creative problem solving by the players that sends them off at a tangent.

Then, it's the GM's job to either (A) entice them back onto "the plan", or (B) proceed on the tangent, allowing the players to feel as if they've changed their destiny.

As far as I'm concerned, the Game Master is responsible for the quality of the game session. It's 95% GM and 5% Players. The GM is the director of the movie. The GM is the playwrite.

If the players help the GM out, then that's awesome. It's makes the GM's life easier. But, if the game is no fun, that's not the players' fault. Not at all.

It's the GM's responsibility. GM's shouldn't shirk that responsibility or put it on the players.

It's the GM's ballgame. It's his job to make the game "great".

 

[casquilho]

I agree with Supplement Four for the most part. I understand the idea that the GM holds a greater level of responsability for the game and how it goes. However, I do not agree it is always the GM who is at fault if it goes bad.

Players have and will alays have a level of control as well and thus can damage a game's mood or derail the best made plans. This could be for in game reasons or because the player is bringing real life issues into a game.

What I do believe is the GM is the "Leader" and it is their place to sometimes stop a game for a while if need be to gather it back and bring it under control.

But again, I do agree in the intent and princible Supplement Four is talking about.

Daniel

 

[JAFARR]

Overall it is a partnership between GM and players. The atmosphere of the game is based on what each person brings to the table. If the intent is to have fun no matter what happens in the game, the atmosphere is heavenly. Selfishness will ruin any game, and it only takes one person to do it. Paranoia will also unless that is the character trait of a pc or npc. If everyone takes time to remember that all you have invested in a pc is your leasure time, and you had fun while doing it, the worst thing that can happen is that pc becomes a happy memory and it's time to start a new memory. It is just a game! Have fun!

"Don't worry. Be happy." is a poor way to live your life, but it's the only way to live your pc's life. If you can't play this way with your group, it's time either to leave and find another group or to ask the one who is causing problems to leave. Let's face. Even the best person at doing a given task is going to have off days, so live with is and don't sweat the small stuff. That way it doesn't matter if things are a little off.

I used to play with a guy who tended to be moody. He could be the best player in the world at times. (A 1 HP illusionist activly charging into battle to save his comrads) or the worst (Decides to see how effective his TL 13 weapons are aginst the inhabitants of a TL 6 or 7 world because he thought himself invincible aginst them. The GM asked him to roll %tile dice while he did the same as viewed by a watching party. They had identicale results so the GM rulled he had run headon into a TL 15 drug bust by crack imperial troops.) After he packed up and went home, I asked the GM if we could forgetthe past hour and start over. WE did. and stuck his PC in the low berth until next session. Attitudes that are condusive to fun are more important than GM's skill at Gming or players ability to play.

 

[Supplement Four]

Players have and will alays have a level of control as well and thus can damage a game's mood or derail the best made plans. This could be for in game reasons or because the player is bringing real life issues into a game.

First, I did give the players a 5% influence on the game (as compared to the GM's 95% influence). Second, it's the GM's job to kull the players if one is disrupting a game.

I've done that before. It's not always pleasant, but one person can bring an entire game down. Sometimes, I've done it nicely by just not inviting a person back. Other times, I've had to have a talk and tell the person that, unfortunately, he's not a good fit.

I put a lot of work into my games. I take a lot of responsibility as GM. And, I consider it a "privilege" to be in my game. I take pride in it.

I won't allow disruptive players to ruin it.

Again, it's the GM's job to ensure the game is fun. Sometimes that responsibility goes beyond scenarios and playing to players' strengths.

 

[aramis]

I myself see a game as about 60% GM, and 40% players. If the players are not looking for the adventures, are not motivated to take the hooks offered, I feel no compulsion to stick them into action.

And GM's who take it upon themselves to modify characters already approved without consultation invoke my player-ire. As a GM, I am fond of point based characters, as a player, slightly less so, but still well on the positive. A GM who approves a character and then ignores the approved advantages and disads is failing, but by the same token, as a player, it is my job to enable the GM by choosing such hooks.

 

[Icosahedron]

= Tinker123
I have also run adventures like that. The appearance of choice (e.g. you get two interesting-looking leads, which one do you follow up?) followed by a completely railroaded result (amazingly, you picked the one that only hints at a solution. do you now want to follow the other one?) provides a decent experience for the players, so long as they never realise what's going on.

Should the group ever realise, it breaks the whole trust model of the session.

Oops!...

 

[DaveChase]

For any new GM or players reading this.

I believe the best lesson learned as both a GM/refree and a player is:

Enjoy the world you are running/playing in. If you don't it is not fun for everyone involved.

Reasoning (personal history stuff during early college years)
I played under 5 different GM/refrees in 5 different games/genre from 2 to 5 times a week besides running my own world. I enjoyed each one of them for the world and the type of game and style of the GM. Not everyone that played under one or two of the GMs had the same fun playing under some of the other GMs.

It is important that you find what you like in a game (RPG, strategy, board, etc.) and then have fun with that game. When playing with others try to have the same amount of fun and Respect for them during the game.

I have played in games where some of the players did not like some of the other players but ALL were willing to RPG under that certain GM because they enjoyed the world. The GM never intentionally placed our characters against one another. And we had fun in the game.

After each game players went off into their seperate groups never speak to each other until the next game session.

Sounds a bit like real life.

If you are not having fun running the game figure out why. Then change, fix or stop running/playing that game.

My Futura (Sci Fi) game was so popular for a while in college that I had people sending me letters, text messages (telnet), calling and looking me up between classes to the point that what few classes I was trying to seriously take were being effected.
I loved the running the game (besides playing in a few others), but this was getting to much.
I finally had to bring the majority of players together in a meeting. Placed the entire pile (about 3 backpacks worth) of Futura material on a table and made my little speach about real life and that IF any player so much as followed me to class, wrote more than 1 letter a week, called me more than once a week about Futura stuff I would burn the entire pile and quit running.

After a short silence, a few asked some questions about why I was reacting so extreme (a few others didn't because they knew I was talking about them). After explain the details, we (as a group) made a plan, scheduled what dates I would be running and how often players could do Out of Character material/world work.

It worked. And we all started having fun again playing the world.

Point is, don't let the world or players (or GM) ruin the game by over doing anything.

GM's control the world background and works along with challenging the players. Players interact and modify and challenge the GM by taking on and discovering the world.

Each to their own, work to find your level and then play with others.

Dave Chase
(must be the time of year for soap boxing).

 

[casquilho]

First, I did give the players a 5% influence on the game (as compared to the GM's 95% influence). Second, it's the GM's job to kull the players if one is disrupting a game.

I understand, I just do not agree 100% with everything you are saying. You are talking extreems and in those cases I also have asked folks to leave or left games myself.

It is also sometimes a player who is "a good person" but is having a bad day for example, who could cause a problem on one night. The GM could not control the situation, but (and again here is where we agree) the GM can hault the game or side track it for a night.

We are more in agree ment then it may seem.

Daniel