[D&D/Rifts Style Games] DM burnout- what's a DM get out of it?
Natespank:
Recently I've been reading "Reality is Broken" and it's pointed out a few things that interest me.
The author defines a game as something with 4 characteristics:
1- A goal
2- Rules as an artificial obstacle between you and the goal
3- Feedback
4- Voluntary participation.
Later in the same book the author discusses intrinsic versus extrinsic rewards- her thesis is that intrinsic rewards are basic to human happiness and that games dish out huge servings of intrinsic rewards.
The intrinsic rewards that she identifies as most important are these:
-Satisfying work- clearly defined, demanding activities that allow us to see the direct impact of our efforts.
-The experience, or at least the hope, of success.
-Social connection.
-Meaning and significance- we want to be part of something bigger than ourselves.
*********************************************************************************
(I'm only very experienced with of Rifts, Exalted, and D&D- otherwise I'd talk more generally)
Recently, dungeon mastering has slightly burned me out. I've considered giving it up for a while, or trying to blackmail another player into running th game. I'd still like to play, I'm just tired of DMing. I've wondered what a DM is supposed to get out of his game and then I read the chapters I just described.
One of the DM's jobs is to design and plan adventures and campaigns- I love it. It addicts me like heroin.
However, his other job is to "run the game" for his players. From what I can tell-
About the Qualities of a Game:
-The DM has no real goal moment to moment except to make the players enjoy themselves. During an encounter his role is to just run the monsters. While the party's in town, his role's mostly to provide hooks for adventure and facilitate/rule their decisions. By contrast, the players are seeking to survive, to win, to accumulate gold, progress through the story, and to level up. For example, last session I decided it was logical for the orcs to chase the PCs, but during the fight- what exactly is my goal? To remain faithful to what orcs are/do? To kill the PCs? To challenge them without killing them? To create fun for people?
-The DM has no artificial obstacles which prevent him from achieving his goal- if he had one. Take most rule books- most that are related to d&D style games advise the DM to change things in whatever way works best in his campaign.
-The DM gets feedback in real time and DMing is voluntary, so that's fine.
About the Intrinsic Rewards
-The DM's work isn't clearly defined and isn't necessarily demanding by nature unless the DM challenges himself. He's mostly just got to learn the rules. I built an interesting campaign world and various fun adventures- the players love them and they love the campaign. Is that my goal though? Have I "won" the game? What now- or am I not done?
-He gets the rest- especially if he's ambitious and wants to make an important game for multiple groups :)
****************************************
As for DM goals, the only one's I've been able to chase are design goals. Those are fun and rewarding, but they're very short lived. You succeed or you don't- you need a new goal almost every session, or every few sessions. There isn't generally a design goal that you can pursue for an entire campaign (unless I'm missing it).
A simple goal is to make the players enjoy your game. Yesterday one player took the day off work to play our game- it's an alright goal for starters, but it's not the same kind of goal as "Kill Gannondorf" is.
When the DM pursues game-outcomes you get a railroad.
As for DM obstacles and rules, by definition the DM may alter anything he sees fit, so the only rules he has to follow are his own.
In my case I've added a lot of rules for myself. For one, I railroad and interfere with character decisions as little as possible. For another, I attempt to improv as little as possible, so as to "keep the quality up" when I start to run dry. Another is to allow the players to roll for pretty much anything and if a dice is rolled, and I allowed it, it means the outcome is in question. It creates a lot of chaos and player-power in games.
However, these are self-imposed rules.
*************************************************************************
Forgive the long thread, but the short of my post is this: I think d&d style games are games for the players, and aren't games at all for the DM during play and that the DM suffers for it. These games lack the structure to make the game a game for the DM.
I'm sure this extends to many RPGs and games besides those like D&D, but I can't speak generally without more experience.
So: am I right, am I wrong, and if I'm right what can I do about it?
stefoid:
Cool post!
Quote
1- A goal
2- Rules as an artificial obstacle between you and the goal
3- Feedback
4- Voluntary participation.
I think a GM/DM definitely has the goal of making the game the funest for the players. The obstacle to achieving that rule isnt artificial though, its real -- it involves blending imagination, social skills, performance skills and 'GMing skills'. Its a demanding task.
Quote
The intrinsic rewards that she identifies as most important are these:
-Satisfying work- clearly defined, demanding activities that allow us to see the direct impact of our efforts.
-The experience, or at least the hope, of success.
-Social connection.
-Meaning and significance- we want to be part of something bigger than ourselves.
GMing also satisfies the last critera - if you run a kick arse game for your players you will get those last three. The "Satisfying work- clearly defined, demanding activities that allow us to see the direct impact of our efforts" is the bug bear. Ive run games that were hard, stressful and basically not fun for me as GM. Struggling with the process and skills required, basically. That boils down to the "clearly defined" element. Vaguely defined, half-arsed demanding activities can be stressful and not fun.
Quote
About the Qualities of a Game:
-The DM has no real goal moment to moment except to make the players enjoy themselves. During an encounter his role is to just run the monsters. While the party's in town, his role's mostly to provide hooks for adventure and facilitate/rule their decisions. By contrast, the players are seeking to survive, to win, to accumulate gold, progress through the story, and to level up. For example, last session I decided it was logical for the orcs to chase the PCs, but during the fight- what exactly is my goal? To remain faithful to what orcs are/do? To kill the PCs? To challenge them without killing them? To create fun for people?
With D&D, you are more a facilitator of the players involved in a game of squad based tactical combat. Personally I reckon that sort of stuff is better handled by a computer these days. I played online D&D - a first player slasher - with headphones and microphone and I could chat, crack jokes, plan strategy and execute all the D&D skills and feats in realtime with a bunch of other people. As far as that D&D experience went, it was superior to tabletop roleplaying -- all the meat of the D&D experience without the gristle.
But there's other types of roleplaying games out there where the GM is required to facilitate more than just "being the enemy". The aim is to help produce a satisfying series of fictional events that becomes more than the individual sum of its parts. Which is basically a story of some sort or another.
Quote
Forgive the long thread, but the short of my post is this: I think d&d style games are games for the players, and aren't games at all for the DM during play and that the DM suffers for it. These games lack the structure to make the game a game for the DM.
Agree with you there, although Im not sure that there are many RPGs where the GM is playing a game, as in conforming to arbitrary rules with clearly defined goals. Its still more like a facilitator for the other players. I think if done well, the process of helping the group create satisfying fiction is heaps of fun. (only experienced that in fits and starts myself, still learning) Improv GMing is probably the best method for that, because you and the players are both discovering the 'emergent story' together as the game progresses, and improv GMs both want and need to leverage player activity to get the job done, whereas with a predefined plot, you are basically trying to get the players 'back on track' at every opportunity so you done want or need too much player impact on the plot/story arc.
Quote
I'm sure this extends to many RPGs and games besides those like D&D, but I can't speak generally without more experience.
So: am I right, am I wrong, and if I'm right what can I do about it?
right. Good place to start would be "playing unsafe" on making improv less work and more fun.
http://theunstore.com/index.php/unstore/game/49
Natespank:
I'm concerned the DM's role is more one of responsibility than fun, and is primarily one of "entertainer." I think it'd be more interesting if he had well defined goals also. However, any DM vs player action requires the DM to restrict himself, since he can kill at will; and any DM and player collaboration risks railroading or the DM taking over.
Callan S.:
Hi Nate,
Quote
One of the DM's jobs is to design and plan adventures and campaigns- I love it. It addicts me like heroin.
Quote
These games lack the structure to make the game a game for the DM.
I think if you want to remain fully in control of all aspects, then you can't have a game. A game necessarily takes away control over certain aspects, like when it's done, what your goal is, how much currency you get, etc. You can either have full control or a game. Not both.
I think it is possible to make a game where you design a dungeon or something much like you'd design a character, and so you have a capacity to design an adventure, yet it's still a game.
However, maybe that'd water down the heroin aspect? Maybe nothing short of full control will forfill that fix? What say you for yourself?
Natespank:
Quote
I think if you want to remain fully in control of all aspects, then you can't have a game. A game necessarily takes away control over certain aspects, like when it's done, what your goal is, how much currency you get, etc. You can either have full control or a game. Not both.
I don't mind giving up control. If somebody else would DM I'd roll up a character :)
Quote
I think it is possible to make a game where you design a dungeon or something much like you'd design a character, and so you have a capacity to design an adventure, yet it's still a game.
However, maybe that'd water down the heroin aspect? Maybe nothing short of full control will forfill that fix? What say you for yourself?
It's not the full control aspect that's best, it's the challenging design aspect.
Imagine a game where there was points a DM could spend to build as hard as adventure as he could and try to defeat the players with it. He could even make his own monsters. It would be ridiculously hard to design but then it'd be a game for the DM and a ton of fun if it worked out.
I've considered making all my own monsters and itmes, but I frankly don't have time for the project while school looms. I don't have time to completely house rule a competitive DM vs player system either.
I've considered a DM-PC shared goal of "Defeat the level 15 Red Dragon Who Tyrannizes the Land." However, then I'm encouraged to shape a campaign with maximum levelups and minimum danger- sort of lame. So I could add another rule- one PC should die every other session. That's sort of unfair and arbitrary though- poor buggers.
I could also abandon campaign structure and go adventure-by-adventure. That seems best. Perhaps a collaborative effort to get the PCs to share the goal with me- "the PCs slay the mad wizard's pet Dire Gorilla." I would have to add constraints on myself though, and there's the conflict of interest where I have to avoid giving hints and playing the monsters poorly. Also, if I don't help enough I won't vicariously feel their success at slaying said dire gorilla.
I think in that latter paragraph narrativism might work well, but I doubt I could get the players aboard for it. The DM's "goal" could be to present a situation where the players abandon their goals- for example, the gorilla could be really cute or friendly or endangered, etc... doesn't work as a gamist or sim goal though.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page