Do GM's Play?

[Plankowner]

Having read these responses, (thanks guys!), I will have to go back and redo my ideas for my upcoming campaign (set in the Spinward States TNE1248) and make it more combat oriented.

The players are going to be recent Naval Acadamy graduates on their first assignment. They happen to be assigned to the same ship as Lt Arbella (daughter of the current Imperial Regent). So they will be young, but with a LOT of potential.

The Spinward States book provides lots of possible combat situations and the Imperial Regency steps up to reclaim worlds that seceded a few years ago.

Maybe I will let them lead the upcoming nuclear bombardment of Rhylanor...

 

[Supplement Four]

Maybe I will let them lead the upcoming nuclear bombardment of Rhylanor...

Your plot sounds cool!

But, then again, I'm an old, grizzled gamer--I like that "story stuff".

For your group of newbies, I'd keep the plot but make sure the action is character focussed (more fist fights and bullets flying rather than passively participating in a nuke bombardment). Think Star Wars rather than the new Battlestar Galactica.

Also, with all that action, you may need to house rule your combat system a bit. Combat in Traveller tends to be very deadly (I'm not sure which rule set you're using), and you need some bounce-back-from-action protection in there.

I'd say to either up the medical facilities, or throw in some saving checks...maybe use Hero or Luck points...some kind of mechanic that allows the PCs to get hit but bounce back fairly quickly.

Maybe you can make armor very protective in your game so that if the newbie players are wearing it, it's much, much harder for them not to be injured.

 

[fredofmars]

I'd say to either up the medical facilities, or throw in some saving checks...maybe use Hero or Luck points...some kind of mechanic that allows the PCs to get hit but bounce back fairly quickly

That's why I roll the dice as the GM behind the screen! I can control what happens better that way. The players don't know that my roll just killed them. If the plot requires them to be alive but need medical attention, then that's what I can tell them. I will almost always go in the direction the dice say, but sometimes more or less than what a strict reading of them would entail. I consider that part of the "role-play" of the GM (as opposed to the "roll-play").

I've both played and GM'd, but mostly GM'd the last couple decades. Admittedly, most of my "GM-ing" has been of the solo gearhead variety...

 

[Sturn]

I last was a player around 1986? I've ran many campaigns since then. It has not been by choice. I seem to always be the one organizing groups wherever I happened to find myself over the last 20+ years (college, military, and now back in my hometown). I would love to be a player again in a good campaign, but until that day comes, I'm planning yet another campaign for my two nephews.

There may be hope though. My youngest newphew has quite the creative mind and has recently spoke of borrowing some of my D&D books to develop a Dragonlance campaign. This was after I fed him the novels of course.

 

[Sturn]

That's why I roll the dice as the GM behind the screen! I can control what happens better that way. The players don't know that my roll just killed them.

Be careful not to ever let them know you do this! They may suddenly become ultra-brave death commandoes, charging into every fight since they know the "gods" are on their side. It could remove some of the fear, and thus some of the fun.

I'm talking from past experience in other campaigns where I used to do the exact thing. In more recent years, I roll everything out in the open and make a point to tell players I will not "cheat" the dice for them. Yes it can change a story arc, but often that leads to even more unexpected fun. My players tend to be more realistic about combat situations, using more tactics (they dont' rush in, knowing they can and will get their arses kicked). Thus the excitement is brought up a huge notch, and victories for them are sweeter.

I completely understand the reasoning to control the dice, since the GM has a story in mind that could be ruined. But, I think players eventually understand this and feel they are just living YOUR story and not THEIR story. Of course I have a plan for what may happen, but it's great fun when the story is just as much a surprise for me as the players.

 

[Whipsnade]

I voted yes.

I got stuck in the GMing role because my original group prefered my campaigns to those run by others in the group. However, I began as a player and played as often as I could. It's just that, if we were going to role-play, it meant I was going to GM.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[Antony]

I voted nope. It's not that I only want to GM its that no one else wants to do it. Those few other GMs I know seem to be in the same boat. I'd play in their games but am not really interested in what they are currently running. This is a state of affairs that has gone on for years.

 

[Maladominus]

Poll Choice C: Once in a blue moon, I select a "Co-GM" to temporarily take over my GM duties. This allows me to play as a Player-Character in my campaign. How uniquely briliant!


Am I the only person that has ever attempted this? Or even thought about it? I must admit.... being able to "hand-pick" a competent and willing and able "assistant GM" is no easy task. I'm much like you, S4, in all my years of gaming I've almost always been seen as the guy who is obligated to GM. Always. But again, I have succeeded in (in a few occasions) drafting an assistant GM: this is a person who knows my campaign well. This person knows my play style well. This person knows the game rules well. And this person has earned my trust to temporarily "take charge" of my beloved campaign(s), thus taking the role of the all-powerful GM. Hence, this frees me up to be able to play as a mere mortal "Player-Character", just like the rest of the guys.

 

[chshrkt]

I was a Yup. My wife is the main GM in our family unit, though the members of her regular gaming group before she met me regularly switched off GM duties.

 

[Supplement Four]

I'm much like you, S4, in all my years of gaming I've almost always been seen as the guy who is obligated to GM. Always.

The difference, though, Mal, is that I prefer to GM rather than play. I don't see it as an obligation. I like GMing more than I like playing.

Playing is fun. GMing is awesome.

I'm a weird bird, though. I think a lot of GMs would rather play than GM, but they GM so that they can play.

I GM because I really like it.

 

[casquilho]

.....I prefer to GM rather than play. I don't see it as an obligation. I like GMing more than I like playing.

Playing is fun. GMing is awesome.

I agree that I think more of the GMs do it because "Someone" needs to. When you find the person who really loves to GM, and if their style fits your style, that can be like RPG heaven.

I like to GM more then Play, but I also can feel burned out every so often and if I letsomeone else GM and I just play then I feel better.

That is why I do like playing at a convention. It allows me to let go of GMing for a moment and yet not wreck anything I am doing as a GM.

Daniel

 

[far-trader]

Poll Choice C: Once in a blue moon, I select a "Co-GM" to temporarily take over my GM duties. This allows me to play as a Player-Character in my campaign. How uniquely briliant!


Am I the only person that has ever attempted this? Or even thought about it?...

I've heard of it, and it might be close to what we once did in our D&D group. This was long before any of us had really heard of the idea of shared universe storytelling like "Thieves World" and such.

We sat down as a group (about 5 of us regulars iirc) and drew up a map and laid down some guidelines as to house rules and general stuff, then divided up the map into regions with each of us taking one to GM.

We'd each have pretty free reign to ref how we liked in our territory and the PCs would be free to move from one to another as the larger plot dictated. So we'd each have our PC in the other lands and a chance to GM the rest of them.

Thing is after all the work we didn't do much playing. I seem to recall starting in my region and maybe moving to one other before we started playing the modules as they came out. If I recall correctly. And they were more or less just adventures not really set in a larger campaign, and we'd take turns as GM, depending on who bought a new module I think.

 

[fredofmars]

Be careful not to ever let them know you do this! They may suddenly become ultra-brave death commandoes, charging into every fight since they know the "gods" are on their side. It could remove some of the fear, and thus some of the fun.

Good reminder. One thing I do is to roll the dice more often than strictly necessary, thus the players won't know for sure whether a particular roll is related to what's going on or not.

I'm talking from past experience in other campaigns where I used to do the exact thing. In more recent years, I roll everything out in the open and make a point to tell players I will not "cheat" the dice for them. Yes it can change a story arc, but often that leads to even more unexpected fun. My players tend to be more realistic about combat situations, using more tactics (they dont' rush in, knowing they can and will get their arses kicked). Thus the excitement is brought up a huge notch, and victories for them are sweeter.

I completely understand the reasoning to control the dice, since the GM has a story in mind that could be ruined. But, I think players eventually understand this and feel they are just living YOUR story and not THEIR story. Of course I have a plan for what may happen, but it's great fun when the story is just as much a surprise for me as the players.

The main reason I do it my way at present is due to the majority of the players I have GM'd for in the last decade have been quite young. An adult having a character die can be annoyed, but will hopefully understand what happened and why. A young person often has more ego invested in a character.

Of course there are also "adults" that are adult in age only. :toast:

 

[R_Chance]

Good reminder. One thing I do is to roll the dice more often than strictly necessary, thus the players won't know for sure whether a particular roll is related to what's going on or not.

The main reason I do it my way at present is due to the majority of the players I have GM'd for in the last decade have been quite young. An adult having a character die can be annoyed, but will hopefully understand what happened and why. A young person often has more ego invested in a character.

Of course there are also "adults" that are adult in age only. :toast:

I haven't done anything but DM/GM for about 20 years now... I started D&D in 1975 and Traveller in 1977. The last time I was a player was in 1st Edition AD&D and CT. I enjoy both being a player and a GM, but I think I'd give the edge to GMing. Definitely give it the edge when you have a good group of players. I roll dice constantly too btw; keeps the players on their toes I think. I like the old style Traveller character generation... having players die in generation before the game even starts keeps them prepared for all possibilities As for death during play -- no risk games aren't really that fun IMO. The key is keeping it risky without butchering PCs wholesale...

 

[aramis]

Poll Choice C: Once in a blue moon, I select a "Co-GM" to temporarily take over my GM duties. This allows me to play as a Player-Character in my campaign. How uniquely briliant!


Am I the only person that has ever attempted this? Or even thought about it? I must admit.... being able to "hand-pick" a competent and willing and able "assistant GM" is no easy task. I'm much like you, S4, in all my years of gaming I've almost always been seen as the guy who is obligated to GM. Always. But again, I have succeeded in (in a few occasions) drafting an assistant GM: this is a person who knows my campaign well. This person knows my play style well. This person knows the game rules well. And this person has earned my trust to temporarily "take charge" of my beloved campaign(s), thus taking the role of the all-powerful GM. Hence, this frees me up to be able to play as a mere mortal "Player-Character", just like the rest of the guys.

no. Ars Magica, when played troupe style, everyone is co-gm. not everyone takes up the role, but it is specific that they can.

 

[Merxiless]

We used to rotate more but with the recent economy problems, those guys have had to add extra hours to make ends meet, so they don't have time to GM, so I do.

 

[su_liam]

I wish.

I enjoy GMing, but I'm not terribly good. Unfortunately, with my circle of friends, the choice is GM a game or no game.

My friends are just as happy drinking bad beer and watching a spectator sport on the braindrain tube. Like... <sigh>... golf.

I gotta get new friends.

 

[jrmapes]

I actually, like S4, love to run games.
However I have a healthy dose of really liking to play as a player too.

But as much as I would like to be a player in a game be it Traveller or AD&D/OD&D or even Call of Cthulhu I always end up running 99% of the time.

(no intended self-aggrandizing follows)

And the simple reason is that my gaming group (current and former members) always ask me to run. They tell me often how much the always enjoy my games and prefer me over the other local Referees/GMs/DMs/etc.

When the local con starts approaching, I get constantly hounded about if I am going to run games at the con, even from people who only have gamed with me at the con.

Granted they could be blowing sunshine up my backside just to get someone to run games - but seriously, there are GMs a plenty around here. Every person in my home group is a GM, and all of them I think are pretty darn good at it. But even then only 2 of them have semi-regular games they run. I have even had a couple of them cancel their regular games so they could play in my games.

Frankly put - I don't get it. I do ok as a GM. I don't do fancy maps or make up silly voices for all the different NPCs. I don't ever have loads of notes and plan extensively for whatever they may want to do in the game. I can't count the times I've forgotten rules in the middle of game and had to stop to look something up or if I didn't have a book handy, tell them that I will need to make a ruling on the fly.

I think I have screwed up at one time or another every technical thing a good GM should be able to do - yet they let it go.

Now this may sound a bit of self back slapping but here is why I think they like my games and want me to GM all the time.

I never screw them - But I never coddle them and I try to remain as close to 100% consistent as I humanly can where arbitrary rulings are needed.

I try to never ever railroad them into a situation. If they want to go east and my adventure dictates that they must go west then I screwed up and I have to make it fit on the fly or toss the notes and do it off the cuff.

Over the years I have gained a reputation as the guy who can organize/run a coherent , fun, and interesting game from scratch on 5 minutes notice. Be it one of the many RPGs I know to scenarios for Battletech and other games of that type.


But none of that comes easy. I would be the first to admit that I couldn't even begin to run games players like if it wasn't for a couple of long time GMs/DMs I had for many years that took the time to show me what it takes thur example and then playing in my early games and giving me a lot of constructive feedback.

This is why I never agreed with the saying good DMs are just born too it. I've seen a lot of decent DMs that had a gift but they could have been so much better if they would have taken the time refine what they do if nothing else but to cut out inconsistencies. Nope, DMs aren't born, they are made over time through the school of "I can't believe how bad I just ran that game." And IMO you never ever become a Master Game Master or some silly thing.

Like the player - heck even more-so - it is a constant learning process regardless of rule sets or game genres.

All in all, as much as I would love to play more, I am always happy when I run a game and people have a good time playing it - and even though I used to moan when someone asked me to run a game, now I look at it as the greatest compliment they can pay me.

They want me to direct their fun for a few hours out of their busy schedule when they could have just as easily gone to the movies or stayed home and watched tv or played Xbox.

As a DM/GM/Referee (in my opinion) that is really pretty dang cool and if ya don't think it is the least bit flattering - then there's something wrong with ya.


As an aside,
I hate to be a pessimist but I have had the feeling for a number of years now that Game Masters are becoming a dying breed. There just isn't enough of the younger guys/gals coming up to take over the seat at the head of the table as the groups get older. I know a number of my friends that have young kids are starting them out gaming early on like they were but too many times I've heard them lament that by the time they turn 14 -16 yrs old they almost always lose interest in P&P RPGs, Miniature games, and forget about pushing cardboard around on maps.

Anyway

Sorry for the huge digression. It is just something that keeps coming up lately and well, you all got stuck with it.

Jerry

 

[sabredog]

My take on the issue is that when I referee a game I am playing in the game.

In the early days, when D&D, Runequest, Tekumel, and Traveller were about it - and only Tekumel and Runequest had "house universes" I used to play in other people's game more. But as I learned what RPG's were all about, and how to create and run my own universe in Traveller I found that I enjoyed refereeing more than playing.

I finally realised it's because I didn't like being tied to only one character at a time - as ref I get to play them all! I have my favorite NPC's, I love following thier "careers", tweaking thier personalities, interacting with the PC's, and on and on. After doing that for a few years I found I just got frustrated and bored playing in other people's worlds no matter how good they were.

I think if I were in movies I'd prefer being a character actor than the star.

 

[knirirr]

The grand, overwhelming, 90%-or-more, of the time since, I've been the GM.

I notice, when I don't play (when I don't GM), my players don't play. They don't seek out other GMs (one or two do, but most of the people I play with only play with me).

This is exactly my situation.

I would rather play games but hardly ever get the opportunity. One reason is that I don't much care for games that are heavy in magic/supernatural goings on and I get the impression that these are much more popular than SF. In Oxford it seems that every ref. wants to run games in a heavily magical universe of his/her own devising (a big turn-off for me), and so I run Traveller when I can with a few friends who have some interest in it but would certainly not be considered "hardcore."