[AW] The Rules for GMing are Magic
Narmical:
I just started GMing Apocalypse Word. I was GMing as part of my preparing for interviewing Vincent Baker about the game. Because of this reason, i followed the rules of the game slavishly, even when i didn't total trust them. Usually my GM sense would lead me to change things, in an "i know better" way, but i controlled myself, The interesting thing was, it made me, almost magically, successfully GM in a way that I have tried to GM before, but been unable to. Namely the kind of game where each player is a prominent member in society with there own power structures perusing there own, not necessarily aligned ends.
After this experience i resized isn't "that game about a world after civilization goes to shit" but rather "that game where each character has there own sphere of influence and we find out how they work together or against each other when shit gets bad". In other words there is a particular GMing style built into the rules of the game. This style permeates the game and it's foot print is visible right from character creation.
This led me to thinking, whats this GMing style called? Never before have i seen this topic discussed in a formal way, like is usually done with other game theory topics on the forge (or else where). I know that players and GMs have an intuitive understanding of this concept. If you read or listen to RPG advice media you will hear discussions you can hear terms like "Railroady", "Sandbox", "Tour de Realms" and "Player Driven" used to describe how a certain person GMs. These descriptions are very vague and emotional. I think this is because up until recently GM style was never written explicitly into the rules. No one was expecting it to be a concrete concept.
However, i hypothesize that it is a concrete concept. All lumply games that I have played have a concrete GMing style built into the rules of the game and an extensive GM rules section to help the GM along. Here is a list of games and there written in GMing styles.
Dogs In The Vineyard --> "Travel from fully fleshed out location to fully fleshed out location. Interact with the people in the location, Let the players decide how to solve there own problems"
Poisn'd --> "As you go about your life, bad shit just keeps happing to you. Let the team leader decide how to deal with it, allow the players to challenge the leader"
Apocalypse World --> "each character has there own sphere of influence and we find out how they work together or against each other when shit gets bad"
Mouse Guard --> "Step 1: lead the players around by the nose to the goal, they can never fail until the final confrontation. Step 2: Let the players loose to follow there characters hearts around for a while. Repeat"
This list is not exhaustive or exclusive. The style provided by Dogs is not unique to Dogs, people have GMed like that before. Even the TV show Kung Fu (from the 70s i think) follows a similar structure to Dogs.
My questions are, can we name these? should we name these?
I think it would be useful to name such concepts. The reason being, there is much time and effort spent in the RPG player communality on this topic. There are many advice columns and podcasts which discuss how to set expectations for a campaign. Part of this expectation setting is the GMing style. This seems to be a very difficult piece of the puzzle, judging by time spent on the topic. In contrast, any of the games mentioned above, have this expectation already set by the rules (assuming you GM by the rules)
Any thoughts?
Moreno R.:
Hi!
I don't think that you identify correctly the "GM style" of these games.
For example:
Quote from: Narmical on March 19, 2011, 06:09:01 AM
Dogs In The Vineyard --> "Travel from fully fleshed out location to fully fleshed out location. Interact with the people in the location, Let the players decide how to solve there own problems"
This is not a GM style. This is the way the game works. In OD&D it would be "you go into dungeons to get treasure and xp killing monsters".
To start a discussion about the GMs, the very first thing to say it's really simple: The GM? It doesn't exist. The idea that it exist, as a monolithic role without regard to game rules, it's a relic from less-enlightened times, when people thought that "rules don't matter" and every gdr was played the same way.
Many games still use "GM" as a term, but it's legacy term. In a game where one player has a different role, it's often used as a way to call that player, but the "GM" in two different games can be so different in role and responsibilities to render that name, "GM", entirely meaningless.
(for more about this, I suggest these two threads:
Silent Railroading and the Intersection of Scenario Prep & Player Authorship
You've Landed on Gaming Group "Park Place", Pay $15 Rent)
Anyway, I talked about this because I wanted to explain my intense dislike for the term "GM Style". When you do different works, it's not a "style". A cook is not a different "style" of hairdresser. A farmer is not a different "style" of a singer. It's not a matter of using more high-pitched voice or less, more dramatic (empty) gestures rolling dice or not, or having any female character in the gaming world resemble his girlfriend: these are different works, with different duties, different responsibilities, different authority.
How do you play the GM in dogs in the Vineyard? It's not a style, it's a role, and it' explained in the rules: you do what the game tell you to create the branch, do everything the game tell you to do before and after the adventure, and during the game you must roll the dice or say yes" and "drive the game toward conflicts (and play as if the Lord of Life did not exist"). Rules, not styles.
So, in different games, I literally can do different things. In Dogs in the Vineyard I get to choose if I want to roll the dice or say yes. In Sorcerer I can't, I have to roll the dice when there is a conflict. In Trollbabe I never roll dice and everybody can call for a conflict anytime. Different games.
So, I don't think it would be useful to call the way a GM play in a game in any different way than "How the GM is played in game x" (if the game x has a GM. Dirty Secret call the player with special responsibilities "Investigator", for example). It's more fruitful to examine not "the GM" (that doesn't exist) but the different authorities and roles associated indifferent games (as in the two threads I linked above)
But, seeing that this is the "actual play" forum, why don't you talk in more detail about how Apocalypse World enabled you to "GM in a way that I have tried to GM before, but been unable to". In which games did you try it, failing? How did you "fail"?
Chris_Chinn:
Hi Mitch,
Vincent had a phrase about AW, that I think applies to rpgs in general- different ways to GM a game "align" with different games- that is, certain methods make the game as much as anything else.
For much of our hobby, people assume all games have space to be GM'ed any-which-way, which has led to a lot of problems when it comes to playing games designed to work only in one way, or certain ways. As you yourself mention, you probably would have imported a different GM style over Apocalypse World's rules if you weren't specifically on the look out for it.
I don't know if it makes sense to try to name each style, as much as it makes sense to recognize the larger phenomenon and the idea that, yes, different games should be played differently. O
When I end up talking about it in a more particular manner, I usually end up talking about the differences between a game's procedures ("mechanics" is usually the word used) and the game's directives ("soft advice", "GMing style", "spirit of the rules" etc.).
( Links to posts I've written about this:
http://bankuei.wordpress.com/2010/04/11/gming-broad-authority-clear-directives/
http://bankuei.wordpress.com/2010/06/09/procedures-vs-directives/ )
I look at these things in more detail, because that's really what makes or breaks it- people often ignore the directives thinking they're just extra fluff when they are, in fact, crucial to play.
For example, you can look up a lot of Sorcerer threads in the Adept Press subforum here, where people ran into trouble because they:
1. Ignored the procedural step to write important factors on the chart on the back of the character sheet
2. Which is used by the GM, to improvise scenes and reactions while following the directive to put PCs into situations for humanity checks
3. Which is necessary in order to follow the directive to not railroad play or have an outcome preplanned and still have interesting stuff happen.
You'll notice there are parallels and differences from how Apocalypse World does things ("Fronts", "Make AW Real", "Make their lives not boring"), but that these differences are actually important to talking about it in a meaningful way.
I don't think it's so much that people haven't spoken about it as a theory thing, as much as recognized that with different games having different needs, a broad category might not actually fit.
Chris
Narmical:
Moreno, my post seems to have pushed a few of your buttons. Your feelings and reactions are exactly the reason why I am looking for a 'proper' or 'better' way to describe whats going on here. You make a very good point about what I called GMing style in the games I pointed out is a function of the rules. I use the term GMing style because when I started playing RPGs, concrete rules for GM were unknown to me or my playing partners. The differences in experiences and campaign structure were all a function of the GM you were playing with, not the brand name of the game text.
But you do make an important point, in games like Dogs, AW & Mouse Guard, assuming the rules are followed, the GM is not the one why who is deciding what 'kind' of game it is, but rather the designed. The GM is only a conduit.
To the point of why did I fail at GMing the way AW enables you to GM, I have no idea why I failed. All i know is that the players lack any sort of independent intention. They would constantly look to me for what was next, and I would constantly look to them for it too. I don't know why that happened or why AW was different. If I knew what the difference was I would not have described the AW rules as magical. I going to guess it was just a lack of skill, witch the AW rules in my pocket I can benefit from Vincent's experience in a way that no GMing advice ever could.
Chris, you and I are defiantly on the same page as to whats going on in these games. There is a fundamental difference in the rules of the game and the design methodology. The RPGs I started playing with were a collection of isolated simulation mechanics to handle adjudication of situations. The only mechanics offered to the GM where how to play the other side of these situations, and how to judge changeless and rewards. The games we named, are fully integrated rule sets where each rule assumes the other are extant. As a whole they work, to engender a certain game play experience.
There are two things that I want to stress. These game experienced existed before any of these games we named were written. Dogs did not invent the going from town to town fixing people's problems story structure. It has existed in TV since at least the 1970s. And GMs have been using D&D to play a story like that since at least the 1990s (when someone GMed D&D like that for me).
Chris, you contend that these things don't need names, but i have to disagree. RPG now covers a wider range of ideas than it once did. At one point RPG meant games like D&D, and for some people it still dose. However the popular view on what playing D&D is like is dungeon craw. Where as AW, Sorcerer et. al. have a much different play experience. It is useful, and I think required for the good of the hobby, to be able to label these differences. It will help people find the games they like to play.
Much to the same way that in board games you have strategy games, euro games, party games etc. Yes each game in those categories are different, but there share similar elements that make for a similar game experience. If your a board gamer I'm sure you have friends who love Cranium but hate Settlers. Sure, there both board games, but the experience is very different. One being from euro games and one from party.
Summing up, Apolypse World didn't invent the play experience it provides, there are other games out there that are "supposed" to be played that way. Admittedly there rules don't work as well as AW's for making it happen. But not being the fist I am reluctant to call all of these games Apolypse World-like RPGs.
What do you think?
Chris_Chinn:
Hi Mitch,
You asked "My questions are, can we name these? should we name these?"
When talking about boardgames and "styles of play" usually folks end up talking about specific mechanic setups: "It's a resource trading game.", "It's a imperfect information guessing game", etc. This is because a game might be like other games in a certain way, and different in another - each game sits in a large Venn diagram of multiple overlapping groups.
Is Dominion a deck building game, a limited resource race, or a highly customizable variation game? It's all 3, and each category is different.
When talking about rpgs, here at the Forge, historically, it's been the same way.
Should we name a style of play? Sure, if you can find enough commonalities across enough games sharing enough techniques to name it, and it gets picked up, go for it! Can we? I don't know, depends on which category you're talking about.
You may want to look up Scene Framing, Flags, and Bangs, as some examples of things which, have been named because they work the same way across enough games to get mention as techniques.
Chris
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page