What I've Learned As a GM

A stream-of-thought essay on Game-Mastering by Brian Randall

We, as gamers, put a lot of stock in 'good' GMs and 'good' players, as components for assembling a 'good' game.

But, realistically, what makes a 'good' game? Different types of gamers will want different things. The easiest way to get on the road to a good game, as I've found, is to participate in a bad one. That is to say, a game which gives you exactly what you don't want.

I ended up going through a horrible game quite by accident, and came to some conclusions that most of you will probably already have known.

Now, I'll spare you most of the specifics of the bad game I went through, as the details aren't really relevant. This is meant to be more of a pedantic dissertation on the philosophy of gaming (and GMing, specifically) than the details.

And realistically, that's an important factor in your games. What it all comes down to is this:

You, as a GM, probably have an array of sourcebooks at your disposal, if you're using a system that's been around and your players already know. You've got rules galore for managing pretty much everything you could want to manage. There are other tools you can apply, too. Dice, of course, are the most obvious ones, as almost any game I've ever been in relied on them for their mechanic. Figurines, for those of you who want to take detail to the next level.

But, as I realized through the aforementioned horrible game, for me, 'role playing' wasn't about the dice, or the stats, due to the fact that the GM pretty much ignored the dice and had exactly what he wanted to happen take place. This was done badly, in this instance, but showed me that it could be done better, too. The truth of the matter, I realized then, was that gaming is about playing your role, and the dice (or any rules at all) are all secondary to mission #1 of gaming: having fun.

We take gaming seriously, and on some forums, we may take it too seriously. Rules Lawyers are a well known stereotype, but let's look at them after we apply mission #1 to them. For the Rules Lawyer, very likely the game (the RPing, specifically) is secondary to the system it's run in, and the rules that make the world you're in. For the RL, the game is ultimately less about RP, and more about doing what you want within the system. This is not exactly getting to the point where you 'win the game', but it's getting you to a point where you're playing, and ostensibly making progress.

Now, before anyone gets the idea that I'm saying RLs can't RP, or have no interest, that's not what I'm saying. I'm just pointing out what is their primary drive in the game. RLs are gamers, too, and they're in the game to have fun.

Looking at a few other stereotypes, we get the Combat Monkey and the Drama Queen. Both of these players have clearly definable goals -- the Combat Monkey wants to fight, get better at fighting, and fight some more. And maybe he'll RP along the way, and maybe all his fighting is pure RP because he's on a quest for vengeance. Most likely, though, the Combat Monkey archetype is there to fight, because for him (or her), that's what the game is 'about'. That's the fun part.

The Drama Queen, of course, wants to RP, talk their way around most confrontations, and see about doing things that work (most likely within the system), to accomplish their goals without fighting as much. Or maybe just as much as the CM, only it's, you know, dramatic. This is also valid, but most DQs are really all about the character interaction, the thrill of BEING someone else. That's the sea route to comedy India in terms of fun for them.

Taking what we've learned here, your ideal 'good' game is going to cater to what your players want. As a GM, it's your job to make sure that their goals and yours are close enough for you and your players to have fun. Because, let's be honest. If you're not having fun, it's not much of a game, is it?

Any time your game becomes so serious that you have to kick someone out of it, and no longer speak to that person as a friend, or every time you end a friendship over something your GM did to you ... you're taking something that's a game way too seriously. Because you've just taken the entire thing into the realm of no longer having fun, in which case, why are you bothering? The only reason you're ever going to get a 'bad' game is, in short, by having a GM that fails to meet the player's expectations.

Of course, your players may demand things you don't want to give them, in which case, take a step back and ask yourself if it's going to be fun gaming in the first place. Communication is the key to any good game, I believe. Some players will go for the cruel, sadistic, unfriendly, and monster/trap/evil NPC/natural accident route to the extreme, and make you suffer every inch of your journey until it's complete. And if that's what you're looking for in a game, to make that final reward that much sweeter, then it's perfect for you. But it might not work so well for someone else.

This isn't to say you can't surprise your players once in a while. There's no reason everything should be sunshine and roses the entire trip. If it's too easy, it may lack desired dramatic tension. But communicating with your players is the key here. Communication is always the key. Check with your players and see what they want. As a GM, be flexible enough to change things to suit your players.

The worst thing you can do as a GM is to make an immense, structured, static world, and expect your players to go through it a specific way. Because if your players make a move that throws you, they're suddenly running into things and NPCs that you've statically assigned to screw them over or not care, or just wonder why the heck they're around. And now you're not having fun because the path you wanted them to go down isn't being trodden, and they're unhappy because they're running into things that aren't helping them reach their goal.

This may sound an awful lot like saying, "always let the player win; it's not about the player versus the GM". And it may be. Check with your players, and see what expectations they have for their characters. Players can get attached to characters, and pretty upset if their character is killed ... then they have to create a new one. Permanent character death is one of those things you have to seriously consider before bringing it into your game. Will your players enjoy gaming knowing that at any moment a bad die roll means they're either out of the game, or their character is gone, and they need to start over? For some people, the answer is going to be yes. For others, it's going to be no.

But this brings us back to the instructions for how to play (and to GM) a 'good' game. And that's to play together. To work together with your players to what their goal is. Give them the challenge they want -- don't be afraid to throw them a few surprises, because the game will get boring without it. But always be sure that you know what they expect out of the game, and that they know what you're planning on giving them.

Realistically, as some of you already know, you don't even need rules to run a 'good' game. If you're all working together, you don't even need a GM, let alone the dice. Use exactly what you're comfortable with, if it's every single core book and supplement ever created, or if it's just, "Let's all work together and tell a story."

That's about it out of me.