[D&D/Rifts Style Games] DM burnout- what's a DM get out of it?
Natespank:
Alright.
You all might be right about what I should do.
However: I still think I've raised an interesting point and you're all neglecting it.
You may be absolutely right about ME. The idea is still worth considering though, the idea's what I made the thread for.
The idea is this: in a gamist game, during play the DM's role is more or less that of referee. In most cases the DM is excluded from the gamist aspect of the play that he runs. He doesn't really get to take part in the gamist aspect of a gamist game. What little aspect of "game" that there is for the DM to play out is poorly defined and lacks a lot.
In a sim game I think the GM's role is better related to the sim play- he explores the situation and setting and color right alongside with the players. In a Narr game, I think the GM has a related role where he can actually explore a theme with the players and facilitate it. The role seems coherent.
But in gamist terms, the GM only really gets to be a referee and facilitator- not a gamer himself. He's partially excluded from the creative agenda. His gamist challenge is merely to challenge the players and keep them on their toes- mostly a design aspect, not a gameplay aspect.
Caldis:
I think your point is interesting but I think talking Creative Agenda clouds it somewhat.
When you get down to the personal goals that drive an individual you've moved past talking about Creative Agenda. We cant really tell what motivates people towards any specific agenda but we can see in action a shared understanding of how the game will operate and what are our goals for the game and the fiction we are creating as a group. So whether a gm is an impartial referee or an active combatant in the game doesnt really matter, it comes down to him understanding and working towards a game where success for the characters is determined by the strength of the players actions and/or whether they get lucky with dice rolls when they gamble at risks.
As for what a gm gets out of running a game like this, in my experience the people who really enjoyed running games in this style and had a real knack for it tended to either be interested in it dramatically or as design testing. They would either love to perform and reveal their work through play, much like a actor/writer or else they wanted to see what would happen with their creation like a scientist running rats through a maze. I ran into more of the former than the latter but that may just have been the crowd I ran with.
Chris_Chinn:
Hi Nate,
Quote from: Natespank on March 22, 2011, 11:04:30 AM
In most cases the DM is excluded from the gamist aspect of the play that he runs. He doesn't really get to take part in the gamist aspect of a gamist game.
I'm not understanding you here. If you're playing gamist play, as a GM, you should be taking whatever encounter you've made, and going all out in terms of playing them tactically. That's pretty much textbook gamism.
Or are you referring to the fact that, in D&D (4.0 at least) the encounters are designed to be draining on resources and not deadly each and of themselves?
Here's a simple question- if you had a fair encounter and got a Total Party Kill in your game, would the players' reactions be:
1) "Damn that was tough! We're going to have to play more strategic next time!"
2) "Man that sucked! This game is bullshit!"
#1 is folks who are there to play a gamist game and #2 is people who came to play something else. The idea that you don't get to play hard and strategic is only an issue in #2.
Assuming you want #1 (gamist play as a DM), the question is - how is your group playing, or what is their expectations that you're not getting it? Again, if everyone's on the same page about what they want, this shouldn't be an issue.
And again, can you talk about a time when things worked just right- in D&D or any other rpg so we have some benchmarks about what you're aiming for in play? This is what the Actual Play forum revolves on.
Chris
stefoid:
Yeah, I see, you can play the monsters by the rules but there isnt anything that tells you what level of opposition to make, its arbitrary. and your own goals are vague. You could front up with 1 orc or 1000.
Ill try to come up with a suggestion on your terms:
1) The level of opposition should be pitched so that if the players play well, they win, and if they dont they lose. Thats still a judgement call, but at least you have a clear guideline. It means the players fate is in their own hands.
2) Change it up -- look for and challenge the parties weakspots. Avoid their strengths and hit them where they are vulnerable.
3) Use their greed to split them up
4) Force them to cooperate or lose individually.
5) Have something cool on the line as stakes for the contest. If they lose the battle, they dont die, but they dont get the stakes. the really phat loot! too bad, so sad.
6) Once you have determined the right amount of opposition, your devious strategies and tactics -- have fun! play hard but scrupulously fair - try to win. Narrate the monsters having a victory celebration if they do win! Let the monsters steal some of THEIR stuff if they do win.
7) Be fair, fair and overly fair to the players. Youre playing hardball with your goal of winning and your tactics, but if there is a grey situation with the rules, or tactic that the player think should work or give them some advantage, etc... judge in favour of the players, even if you think its a bit dubious. Show them how fair and generous you are being, to underline the point that if they lose, its not because of some stupid rule or arbitrary judgement on your part, its because they should have chosen better strategy.
Natespank:
Thanks for addressing the idea :)
Quote
I'm not understanding you here. If you're playing gamist play, as a GM, you should be taking whatever encounter you've made, and going all out in terms of playing them tactically. That's pretty much textbook gamism.
Okay, so as I read you:
1- Design Step - Design an adventure that will run objectively and fairly; attempt to make it challenging. Normal DM-design stuff. The DM "wins" from a design perspective if the game is fun and challenging for everyone. Easy enough. To make it interesting one could attempt to design the adventure, say a dungeon, such that the PCs have about a 50% (or 20% haha) chance of making it to the end without having to retreat.
2- Actual Play Step - Put on your Angry DM hat, dedicate yourself to the PC's failure and try to destroy them every chance you get throughout the game. The DM "wins" from a play perspective if the PC's fail the quest.
With number 2 I feel there's a conflict of interest. Because the DM is the creator, ruler and driving force behind the world, he has omnipotent power. As a being with omnipotent power, he's in an unfair position to "win." To counter this, every aspect of the adventure has to be set into stone or predefined in some "fair" way ahead of time that the DM, during play, has no power to meddle with.
That might mean strict adherence to random encounter rolls, exploration rules, NPC behaviour, loot rules/decisions, experience points, etc. However, players are unpredictable beasts and I've never experienced an adventure without the DM having to heavily improv. When it comes time for the DM to improv the conflict of interest rears it's ugly head- to "win" the DM has to destroy the PCs, and if he consults the players to help with the improv, the players realize that to "win" they have to defeat the adventure and they'll tend to urge the option that benefits them.
A framework like this that's well-defined and WORKS well- that would be cool though. That has potential. It just doesn't play like that very well out of the box, so to speak, so a lot of the mechanics have to be made up.
Quote
#1 is folks who are there to play a gamist game
I've killed a lot of PCs in the last 2 months, they're okay with it these days. I've conditioned them.
Quote
Again, if everyone's on the same page about what they want, this shouldn't be an issue.
The same page tool is handy. I've talked to the group over the last few days about sorting this out specifically.
Quote
And again, can you talk about a time when things worked just right- in D&D or any other rpg so we have some benchmarks about what you're aiming for in play? This is what the Actual Play forum revolves on.
Keep on Borderlands: I found a copy of the module in a used book store! I ran it with my group using the Swords and Wizardry rules for a couple of sessions. Half the group disliked it and hardly participated- however, half the group loved it. I'll talk about them.
One player was killed crossing a raging river; another 2 died fighting lizardfolk. They later discovered a mound that the lizardfolk were using as a home base. The PCs returned to the keep to spend all their money on burning oil to flood/detonate the mound. They rented wagons to carry it all and took a ferry this time to cross. They also used a forest fire to drive away some goblins once. Awesome resourcefulness and improv gameplay on their part.
The entire few sessions they never found the caves of chaos, but they had a hell of a time. The unhappy players convinced us to go back to 4e rules though :(
It was a hella-fun game for those of us who liked that style of game. Exploration, getting lost, sandbox, in-game improv/strategy, expected character casualties, mystery. Fun stuff. Super simple rules that encourage some role playing too as opposed to diplomacy or streetwise checks.
The kick I got out of that particular mini-campaign was sort of an experimenter's pleasure: I wanted to see what would happen, what the players would do, how the encounters would go, etc. It was like I got to watch a story unfold- this was partially possible because the rule system and module was alien to me.
Skincleaver Dungeon: I dungeon I built for one of my first 4e games. The goblins weren't allowed to sleep inside for the most part so to enter the dungeon the PCs had to fight a huge horde of goblins and a few orcs. After those were killed the rest of the dungeon inhabitants either hid, barricading and defending themselves in parts of the dungeon, or else sneaked around laying traps and trying to ambush the invaders.
I tried my damndest to keep the hiding goblins hidden and alive; while the PCs were busy with this or that I had my trapper teams leave traps all around the PC's area of the dungeon, mostly concealed bear traps. I tried to hurt the group about as much as I could before they found my boss badguy- Skincleaver. They were pretty ragged by then but I'd estimated about correctly that time and they made it through just barely, and cleared the dungeon.
What I enjoyed about this also a curiosity thing: I was pleased that my prediction of PC power was about right so that they were worn down about as much as I expected. I enjoyed seeing how they'd react to the goblin trappers and how they would react to the hiding goblins. It was a "lets see what happens" moment- I also liked being able to go all out with my tactics because I wasn't worried about killing the PCs in a skirmish. It was nice forcing the players to use advanced tactics to survive too- it was like I was training them.
It helped that 4e was new at the time- I didn't know how things would go. Seeing how my players react in situations has sort of lost it's appeal to me- they're pretty predictable in many ways these days. Also, for combat, they've grown to excellent tacticians so there's no kick out of forcing them to play well anymore- they usually do. The only reliable ways to challenge them anymore is unfair encounters with much higher level groups (which levels them up like crazy!)
Sissy Elf: I had a friend DM once and he ran a ship mutiny adventure where 3+ factions fought over the fate of a cruise ship. The DM limited our abilities so that we were weaker than level 1 characters. He tried to run the factions objectively, so we had to keep switching allegiances and I ended up in the brig twice. When outright combat broke out the PCs ended up surviving a big fight where nobody really survived, and came into conflict with an insane paladin. Our characters were boned- I had like 3hp at the time. However, he was adjacent to the edge of the ship so I bull rushed him. I rolled a 20- basically, the only way I could have hit him. It would have been a TPK otherwise since the other PCs were basically out for the count.
It was good because we were in such constant, legitimate danger of death that we've celebrated our survival of that ship for years since. That player doesn't DM for us often. Loved that game.
Quote
As for what a gm gets out of running a game like this, in my experience the people who really enjoyed running games in this style and had a real knack for it tended to either be interested in it dramatically or as design testing. They would either love to perform and reveal their work through play, much like a actor/writer or else they wanted to see what would happen with their creation like a scientist running rats through a maze. I ran into more of the former than the latter but that may just have been the crowd I ran with.
I think I like both things you mentioned; however, with a more-gamist style campaign there's less opportunity for drama so it's been mostly a design testing experience for me. In my current campaign the players are growing into munchkins! So it's been an experiment in creating emergent behaviors in munchkins for a few games now, but the kick isn't so strong lately. I'd rather participate in a gamist way against/with the PCs.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page