RPR Archive The Game Masters Guild

Personally, on the thought of appeasing players, I find that doing whatever all of your players want all of the time can destroy a game. Maybe not destroy, but many of you can understand my meaning as GMs.

We've all run across them: players who want the game to start as soon as the GM has the game post with the sheet and information up and ready, players who want to play a Yuuzhan Vong Jedi, players who are the best at what they do.

Why do we limit them and why do we let them get away with it? Because we want them to have fun. I'll admit that after my years of playing an Ex-Jedi Mandalorian Bounty Hunter, I've gotten a little headstrong as to what my character can and can't do, and I even try to convince GMs of games that I play in to allow it. Some cave and I end up trying out new ways to not God-Mode, but others fail.

Case in point, "uber-players" like the ones with "angsty-past" characters and "orphans" we allow them because... well they exist in both real and fantasy worlds. But as GMs, shouldn't a bit of cultural diversity count for something anymore?

Back to FUN, we as GMs try to allow our players as much freedom as possible in regards to timelines, species traits, and even training (Jedi/Sith/Mercenary/etc), so they can play a character they want. I've noticed GMs create games with complete freedom (WotG and IBoP for a few semi-examples ) and others where things are a bit limited (Mando games, Jedi Games (not 50 uber-Anakins... those games suck ).

But why do it? If freedom promotes more players that create a greater game-fanbase, then why the hell shouldn't you do it! You have 30 players PM sheets for "Admiral of the Imperial Navy", "Jedi Grandmaster", and "Republic Commando Squad Leader".

I think, as GMs, it would be best to try both approaches and see which suits our own style. A rushed game, in my personal opinion, is a game headed for the "locked" bin.

 

Thing is though, it is about the PCs. Without them, you have fan fiction (or science fiction, or whatever parks your ark). The GM is (in my opinion) an allegorical party host. You're in charge of providing the food, the drinks, the music, the decorations, maybe some games as well, and hoping everyone gets along fine. You smooth over disputes, clean up messes, join in the festivities and keep the good times flowing. The guests play an important part: without them, there'd be no party, and that wouldn't be much fun. Just the same, a good host is a wonderful thing. You can build a party on potluck, but that's a tricky business, and even then it's good to have someone coordinating it so you don't end up with thirty vegetable platters. When everyone's in a good mood, you can all socialize and laugh and tell stories and play games and have a grand old time.

That said, just because you're trying to make sure everyone has a good time, it doesn't mean you're required to roll over and take whatever they dish out. Your house, your party, your rules. Someone blasting the music a little too loudly? Get over there and tell him to wind it down. Someone gets overly rowdy and breaks something? Make him clean it up and hold him responsible! Someone alternating between drunkenly groping the other guests and streaking through the living room clad in nothing but a lampshade and glitter? Give him the old heave-ho! Cops show up at three am because you totally cannot do that to livestock in this state? Sorry dude, you're on your own.

Point is, you want to ensure that you guys can all have fun, on rules you're comfortable with. And in just about every case, it's not going to be all about you (or all about one of the guests either, that one can be kind of not-fun for others too). So be active, be engaging. Mingle, see what people want and try to provide (but don't give them the shirt off your back to make them happy). When you put a lot of effort into making things interesting for your guests, it shows and it pays. Make it as sophisticated as you want, or as carefree as you desire... different parties for different people, no? Don't let things get too out of control for your tolerance, and don't feel too bad about tossing any party-killers either if you can't work anything out. Keep your spirits up too, you're the linchpin of this whole bash.

So live it up, have a blast, be a good host... maybe make some friends and memories.

 

To me the role (and job) of a Game Master is to lay out the overall plot and story, make it intriguing for the players, but also knows how to get their hands dirty. Without a GM the game itself has no plot or basis to follow. In my case, I invest ALOT into the story of my piece. That is the core to it. And, as such, I expect the players to provide as much as they possibly can with their characters, so that I may make in interesting for all.

Each player is important, the character they supply brings a new dent into the story which must all be rectified together. I have an interesting way to set up the plot of my RPG. Usually I take liberties with each character and find ways to connect them all together. It's the puzzle and challenge that I love with this quality. To have each individual character relate to the other in one manner or another, deepening the plot. I go into every RPG I make stating to myself: "Everything is Connected".

But a Game Master has to be a leader, take control in dire situations, shows the players the way, a GM is absolutely necessary. To enforce the rules, make sure everyone plays fair, but more importantly, deal with the story and overall plot. A GM must know when to take a stand, and slap the backs of those that step out of line.

When I start an RPG, the first thing I do is outline the entire story. To me, these players are relying on ME to provide the case and plot. And make it fun for them. But I like to leave alot of areas open because it's important for the players to be able to breathe, they have to know they can come to me with ideas and thoughts, and we can share on this story I'm developing for THEM to enjoy.

I also make sure to have a firm set of Rules, which are required to follow. I also like to play in my game, and interact with these characters, because each is important, I don't join my RPG setting out to be the MAIN character, but each character in and of itself is important. I simply find ways to move the plot forward using my character as that link. Since I connect threads, if you will, together.

An RPG is a puzzle, each player is a piece of that puzzle, and it's my job as Game Master to put this puzzle together, connecting the pieces together, and seeing the final product. And it's always been a fun journey for me.

 

[image=http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/2165/gmgbh9.jpg]

*The Game Masters Guild* (Official Roster)

Full Members:

Penguinator-176
Reynar_Tedros
Pheonix_Rising
Squishy_Vic

Partial Members (Add GMG to sig or bio!)

Zedd-Vega
Obi-Wan21
Winged_Jedi
Sith-I-5
LightWarden
Rayson
Darth_Vaders_cousin


*Agenda*

Now:- Informal discussion. "The GM's role, the better GM..."

Soon- Formal discussion: "GM Theory- GM's role, what does it mean? How far is too far?"

Later- Specific Game Discussion - Floor open, PM me if interested in being "put on the operating table..."

*Always accepting discussion ideas!*

---

I love the conversation that has been taking place so far...Great stuff guys...Keep it up. Look for me to have a Formal Topic up in the next couple of days...

 

[image=http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/2165/gmgbh9.jpg]

*The Game Masters Guild* (Official Roster)

Full Members:

Penguinator-176
Reynar_Tedros
Pheonix_Rising
Squishy_Vic
Obi-Wan21
Rayson

Partial Members (Add GMG to sig or bio!)

Zedd-Vega
Winged_Jedi
Sith-I-5
LightWarden
Darth_Vaders_cousin


*Agenda*

Now:- Formal Discussion- GM Theory: GM Interaction

Soon- Specific Game Discussion - Penguinator-176. Specifically, Dr. NO

Later- GM Caseload

*Always accepting discussion ideas!*

---

And we?re off!

[b]*Topic*[/b]
(Based off of idea from Reynar_Tedros)

[b]GM/Player interaction vs. Player/Player interaction. What type of interaction is best for what kind of game? Is a certain type better than another? Which is more GM friendly? Which is more player friendly? Can the two peacefully coexist to satisfy both styles?[/b]

 

This is a tough one. If you don't mind me putting in my thoughts.

A game where it is mostly GM/Player interaction can be quite boring for the Players I tend to find, and can be rather stressful(for loss of a better and more accurate word) for the GM as s/he has to constantly update the character. Where as when there is lots of Player/Player interaction, the players play within themselves for as long as they can, and the GM posts say every second or third post to keep them busy and on track. Though that can sometimes lead to players trying to advance as quickly as possible. So I think that you need a balance of both, players who just play with the GM, may feel left out, if others are out with other players, but if players just play within themselves they can get carried away.

I genereally(in the entire one RPG that has gone more than 2 pages of mine) put people into groups, because not only can the interact with them but it's easier for me to GM kinda, as I do a GM post for the groups and not 10 idividual GM posts. Though if the players decided they want to leave the group and go out on their own, I generally let them, unless they are trying to do something totally outragous.

In saying that I am having a good time in 'System Lord' where at the moment I am just playing with the GM. Though I did put out a distress call so that I may interact with other players. Anyway my point is that while I am enjoying getting my fleet totally outnumbered by NPC ships, I wouldn't mind having some interaction with others, though becaues of System Lords' nature it is entirely my fault that I never got around to talking with others.

So the key is balance. I think.

 

GAH! Thinking... with the brain... it hurts! Must... think... with brains... in... fingers!

But seriously, I prefer a mix of both GM/Player and Player/Player interaction. I don't think that a GM playing as a character in the story is necessarily a "player" but a Major NPC. Thus the term: "Non-Player Character". If the GM is termed as "Game Master" he's not really a player then, is he?

I digress, however, on the thought of which is better, I'd have to say GM/Player, because I happen to like D&D-esque (That's Dungeons & Dragons folks) where the DM has set NPCs and the players interact with the DM and themselves while trying to find the solution to some problem. For smaller scale games, I say GM/Player interaction. It's less to keep track of in terms of players, storylines, and side-plots.

But for larger games, like IBoP and WotG, Player/Player interaction is highly recommended. When two or more players can move the storyline along on their own with minimal GM assistance, then larger scale games seem to attract a larger base of players (the ones who like games to start in 3 days, no offense guys ).

I personally side with GM/Player games, and more recently, my own games have been smaller scale as not to overload myself. Factors of overloading include school, schoolwork, work, and sleep. With a smaller game and a player base that can adapt to its GM without much complaining "ooc: has this game died? Where is Zedd?", "OOC: Uber-Bump!" excetera excetera.

As for one being more "GM Friendly" as PRENN liked to point out, I think it determines on the style of the game and the GM himself. If the GM likes the faster paced games and makes one himself, then I say go with the Player/Player strategy. If they happen to like smaller games with more control with who is doing what/when/where/why/how, then go with the GM/Player strategy.

Player friendly depends as well. Most games gather a weird base of players (not to say that any of us aren't a bit weird, I mean, we're roleplaying on a forum folks. We-are-not-normal. ) I think that when a game gathers too many players (small and large included) that want the game to start quickly, then to appease the players the GM starts the game and its a major flop. On the other hand, games where a lot of players are expected and the GM starts the game to gather more than the 3 players he has will eventually flop as well.

To be player friendly, be open to suggestions and fit them into your planned story if possible. GMs and Players are mighty flexible people. The RPF is full of Stretch Armstrongs, you just have to take the time to talk to them.

And yes, going back to my main paragraph, I think its completely possible for both styles to coexist peacefully within a Biodome starring Pauley Shore. It just takes some discussion between players and GMs to understand "why does this idea work", "is this relevant to my current plot", "why has Indiana Jones stolen the Tapioca pudding from the Yuuzhan Vong" y'know, stuff like that.

In conclusion, in order to have a successful game, the GM needs not only a minor layout of where the story is to go (to keep the players on track people), but also players who can cooperate under any circumstances. Not necessarily like a facist dictatorship "GM IS LAW" but more or less "Pardon me Mr. GM, would you be so kind as to listen to my idea for my character/side-storyline for your game?"

~ZV

 

You also need something taht grabs people's attention.

In my opinion, a GM should enforce qualoty posting. I'm sick of seeing script-like posts and posts in all one ugly or bright colour or highlight. Ugh, not cool guys. You're giving me a headache!

The role of a GM is to ensure that the players are enjoying the game, and to ensure that the game moves on smoothly.

Of course, there are times a GM should interact directly through characters, and times when he should just sit back and watch the show.

Ideally, you should all want to sit back and enjoy the show. Once started, the game can run itself!

 

I think both are fairly important. The GM has to know when to move the story forward, and the players interaction are what makes the game. As a GM you not only control NPC's, but it's also fun to have player interaction with a GM as a full-time character. Just because a GM has a set character, besides the NPC's, does not mean it would be forced playing if you will. When I GM I create a character to go along with the NPC's I have to control to move the story forward.

I always find it fun to play in my game, lol. I mean, I took all the time out to craft the story and plot, of course I want player interaction. In the games I set up I always give the feel that my character I've set out to be is nothing important, nor the star. I give the players free will over how the story moves forward with themselves, and I use NPC's to pull the strings of the plot in the right direction.

It's all about a balance. A GM has to know how to have fun in player-player interaction, but then the GM-player interaction is meant to progress the story. But it is the players job to also know that a GM's set character is not meant to simply control and progress the story, which I see happening more and more.

I know quite clearly a GM is in charge, as do the players. But they seem to think a GM can only do anything. And I just find that odd. A GM isn't necessarily God, but the players treat him as such. They sit around when a GM has a set character and treat him like he's the only one who can do the crazy stuff.

If I don't want something done it'll be in the rules, anything outside of that is peachy. Players usually get the wrong interpretation when a GM joins his own game, and I realize most GM's choose to be some leader on control the situation, but those aren't the games I like to lead. Freewill and choices are what make it interesting, and then to piece the puzzle together even with changes is an added fun challenge.

So players and GM's both, need to learn to interact on not only a leader-follower basis, but a player-player interaction as well. And the games will become more fun for it.

 

I'm a real side-splitter.

 

So it seems that the most everybody agrees that a good mix of player/GM and Player/Player interaction is the best forumla to use. How do you accomplsih this? I have heard many ideas about what the ideal RPG looks life, and the ideal GM, but none of us are the ideal GM. How can we better encourage the perfect mix of Player/GM and Player/Player interaction? How can we allow the players to make major choices while at the same time keep the story as we had it planned out moving ahead?

Also, don't forget to go vote you guys!

 

I've got three significant little signs that would sum that up pretty nice Prenn...

D20

But after that, I do realise that playing by 'The Rules' is for hardcore gamers that devote every waking moment of their lives to gaming(partially myself).

"Convert the nonbelievers!"

 

I hear that. D20, or just about any other game system (and there are many) are good for this sort of thing. It allows the players to make choices without having everything go their way all the time. It also allows for measurable levels of skill, so you can have someone who's wickedly better than someone at something, and not be a accused of godmoding (powergaming/munchkinizing though... that's another story. But those are problems with the player, not the game). The players can interact with each other, the GM can control the world, and throw things at the player that are appropriate for their abilities. Or, challenging for their abilities. And then you don't have to worry about pride shields in battle when you have straight abilities (which I find annoying... even if you out-play/out-manuver/out-gun/out-think.

As to GMPCs, I like to avoid having them too often. Maybe they might travel with your players for a bit through a difficult place, such if no one in the party has any wilderness survival skills and you need to find something in the forest, but I'd mostly minimize their involvement. Well, maybe serve as a sidekick/handler at most, keeping the PCs informed when needed. But for the most part, the GM has every other character in the game world to use, so you don't need to concern yourself with just one that's in the spotlight all the time. Afterall, it is about the players, and throwing your character into the mix shifts it so it becomes about you as well. Then things just get complicated, because you have to worry about balance, accusations of favoritism (oh man, are there some funny legends about GMPCs). Bascially, it may be that you're investing too much on the wrong level. There are very few situations where a GMPC improves the game in a way that couldn't be done with just an NPC (in fact, some of the uses I'm thinking about are probably just NPCs anyways. GMPCs should rarely be catalysts because that can detract from other PCs who don't have anything else. Instead, make them exist for the purpose of making other players great). On that note, I usually prefer to not let players have NPCs, unless they're someone with a personal attachment to their character (family, loved ones, etc).

Hmm... I think I may have talked in circles there. Point is: GMPCs walk a close line since they can cross over into Pet PCs. Since you are the GM and have the final say in the world... this is very *bad*. However, if you can build a GMPC that doesn't step on peoples toes, you might be able to make something useful out of it. So you might want to do things like:

0) Don't treat him any differently from a regular PC. No fudging rolls, special abilities that other PCs can't have, nothing that makes him better than the others. You break this rule and you've likely lost. Your role is to make the game about THEM. If you're going to have a character better than the PCs, please make it an NPC (such as the BBEG [Big Bad Evil Guy] or some natural part of the order of the world [such as the king's guard, or distingushed leaders. And try not to make their positions too permanent...])
1) Make the character fill a niche no one else wants to play (transport pilot, healer, trap-checker, tracker, gadget guy, scout, etc)
2) Use the character to fill in gaps in player knowledge. This especially helps when you're dealing with a world that you're familiar with, but the players aren't. That way, you can seemlessly integrate a lesson along with your plotline. Alternatively, you can use them to drop hints or such if your players are stuck, but try not to be too obvious/overbearing about it. No one likes a smug GMPC who sits there and smirks as the clueless PCs try to figure out the problem. Unless your character is a rather arrogant Oracle.
3) If the character does do something that someone else does, please don't make it so he does it better (especially if that something is what the other player prides their character on being capable of)
4) Avoid giving your character too much face time. If the major purpose of th

 

I agree 100% with LightWardens points. The Fact is, with GMPC's it really depends on the GM, and how their style of GMing is.

 

Perhaps I'm biased because the first game I ever joined in the RPF was War of the Galaxies II, and thus the Role Playing I grew accustomed to was GM Player to Player interaction, but it was more than that.

It wasn't even a Game Master Playable Character, but it was another player that ran the game. The people that primarily ran WotG took the places of power within the game, but did not run the game, persay. The game was run by the players, and the people in power (within the game; i.e. GrandAdmiralJello and his character, Emperor Jello) would direct his/her own faction. And no, I did not just refer to GAJ as a female.

The game's direction is determined by the players and what they want to happen in the game. There is no divine plan that a GM wishes for the game to follow. Things happen as they happen, and it was beautiful. Of course, this creates a number of problems, but it was a fair trade once those problems were solved (or at best, negated).

That's my opinion, feel free to disagree.

 

I do agree with you for the most part, Rayson. But I wanted to add some things. There should be a GM to be the overseer - to watch over and make sure ridiculous plots and stories do not happen. For example, in my RPG's, I do have a plot point, but they don't have to do certain things to do it. There are many choices to pick from and all would be acceptable.

Examples:

Let's say I have player A and player B start off on the same planet. Let's say my plot point is for them to meet a certain Sith Lord. It does not matter how they meet this Sith Lord - as long as they do. Whether they are taken hostage or willingly choose to meet him, they will eventually meet that plot point.

I believe players should have the freedom to roleplay and make choices as they see fit with their imagination, but their are boundaries such as rules and plot points like the one mentioned above.

So in conclusion, I think an RPG can be run by the players, to do what they wish, but their must be a GM to take charge and resolve issues according to the rules they set for the players. Also, if a GM has certain plot points to be met, they should allow the players to achieve the goals how they want their characters to do so how they want, as long as they do not break rules/boundaries.

But, there can be problems. Such as the players never interacting and doing whatever they want until they get bored and the game dies or ends. Which is why I believe a GM has to set some plot point or goal for the players to eventually reach.

 

No matter what the game, you always need someone or something who can drop the hammer when needed. Even if it's just the guy you consult for the rules. Because otherwise everything works until the moment it doesn't, and then you have problems. Plus, an overseer (one with skills anyways) can smooth out dead zones and introduce new changes. You could have a player do that too, but I prefer one without a particular sense of attachment to his own characters. Feels safer that way.

 

[image=http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/2165/gmgbh9.jpg]

*The Game Masters Guild* (Official Roster)

Full Members:

Penguinator-176
Reynar_Tedros
Pheonix_Rising
Squishy_Vic
Obi-Wan21
Rayson

Partial Members (Add GMG to sig or bio!)

Zedd-Vega
Winged_Jedi
Sith-I-5
LightWarden
Darth_Vaders_cousin


*Agenda*

Now:- GM Caseload

Soon- Specific Game Discussion - Penguinator-176. Specifically, Dr. NO

Later- Open Topic (Please PM me with what you want to see discussed)

*Always accepting discussion ideas!*

---

[b]*Topic*[/b]

[b]As many of you know, a recent endeavour was taken up by both the CDG and the GDG. And now, I would like to add the GMG to the list. I would like to look at this superhero project from the Game Masters Perspective, but I am not the entire guild. You guys have a say as well. What do you think? Would you like to partake in this intraguild project, or would you like to keep doing our own thing?[/b]

 

Doctor No, Prenn? It's Doctor Who!

Other than that, an almost perfect 42nd post.

 

Sorry about that Peng. But what's your oppinion?

 

Just so y'all know, I put GMG in my sig.

And this "superhero" project. Where might I find out more information on it? Is it in one of the guild threads or what?

 

The one time I don't check, and I miss somebody. Damn.

Sorry about that, Zed. You can find info on it in the GDG, and the CDG, the last pages.

 

I'm actually very excited about the Superhero RPG, if handled correctly of course. There are many ways said RPG could play out. Personally, as a GM and a player, I'd say it would be best if the RPG took staples from the show Heroes and Marvel's Civil War epic. As realistic as possible but with the obvious ramifications of the revelation of these Heroes to the world and to the Government.

As a GM, I'd say more than one would be handy, especially for an RPG of this size. And the plot would have to be outlined to a certain degree, but not to a degree that it would ruin the player's freedom. There's alot of strings that could trip this one up, but if dealt with correctly, it could be a truly fascinating experience for players and GameMasters.

As a hardcore comic book fan, I already realize the number of stories this one could take, although there is the Extraordinary RPG which also slightly deals with this very thing, it's made a few mistakes along the way that have caused me to shy away from it, as such, any superhero RPG could hit that rough road if not watched carefully.

How do you fix interactions for the characters? What feels too forced? How to set up a story of this size but make it accessible? The cards seriously need to be laid out on the table at once and organized accordingly.

As a GameMaster, we need to make it fun, but also it needs to have depth. If the Superhero RPG was made as just a free-roaming RPG it would lose it's strength very early on, it must be balanced with story, and the players have to feel like they control their lives.

So there is a thin line that could be crossed. As for me, I can see many ways to work out these things, the overall story could be set up in many ways. I understand most GameMasters approach games from different views, but as a GameMaster I approach the game from the story perspective FIRST, then the remaining followings.

In a game such as this God-modding would have to seriously be enforced, and the abilities one could have would HAVE to be limited. We don't want tons of people running around with the same exact powers either though, it would sort of lose that original feel. And a GameMaster needs different things to work with.

And do they run around in tights? How would they handle this? It would also have to be made clear this doesn't exist in either DC or Marvel universes, because then you'll have people running around saying they're related to some hero or some other crap. I think it'd be a HUGE mistake to set this in an existing continuity.

The game has to have an individuality to it, it needs to be set apart, but weakness is another thing. Not every hero has some major weakness, you can't have a weakness from just flying, this isn't Superman. And I think it's unfair to make every hero have a weakness, it's a loophole to fair things up, but in retrospect, it's not fair. If someone can only fly, then they shouldn't have a weakness.

Now controlling time and any type of telekinesis type powers themselves have downsides, controlling time itself would make the person tired and weak, doing things with your mind, depending on what it is, could make you weak. But what about the power to be invincible? Would that power be allowed? Someone like that would have NO weakness, and it would be contradictory to make said person have a weakness.

Anyhow, just throwing a mix of things out, I have no clue what's been discussed in both respected topic, this is just coming from me.

 

My oppinion is that a Superhero RPG has been attempted numerous times. The Xavier's Institute for Higher Learning, Extraordinary, and Exiles have all had superheroes in them, and Extraordinary is pretty much about just that.

I made a Superhero RPG not too long ago - okay, yeah, too long ago, and it had small turnout, though that may have been my fault. I planned it out carefully, and had an interesting backstory.

We even had a super-powered Jack Layton! (Google him, for those Un-Canadians amongst us)

Ultimately, the problem was that no-one posted, and the players weren't too serious or experienced.

 

I am too new to the position of Co-GM to have anything to offer right now, so all I can is lurk sadly while this goes on.
I'll join in when I can.