Help me like GMing, please.
Josh Porter:
I just finished running a nine-month Dresden Files campaign. It was an awesome one. The big bad guy cleverly manipulated the elements from behind the scenes. The characters grew and changed (one even transcended humanity and became an NPC). The final episode ended in an awesome scene and the fates of all the characters are still unknown in the coolest possible way. But I really didn't enjoy myself, most of the time.
I don't know exactly why, but I don't enjoy GMing. I love the creation aspect of GMing: making NPCs, concocting "what's really going on", all that stuff. But once I begin interacting with the other players, my heart just goes out of it.
Here's my hypothesis: I want the characters to be self-motivated, and they are not. I want to set up a whole world that goes on around the characters and let them steer the game in whatever direction they want. But unless I start the session with a mission from on high, the other players will just roleplay their characters hanging out at the local watering hole, or trying to open up a checking account. I feel like I'm railroading them into THE STORY I HAD PLANNED ALL ALONG when I try to get them involved in anything. That may be the way they want to play, but it's not the way I want to.
In addition, there are very few players in my group who are interested in the other characters. People will pull out their phones/iPads/etc. whenever someone else has the spotlight. My reaction is probably a bad one, I'll admit. I just ignore the phone-playing players until they get back in the game, which probably makes the problem worse. In general I just get frustrated in two game sessions out of three, and GMing the game just drained me.
So how do I fix it? How do I learn to like GMing? This DFRPG game was not my first GMing experience by far, but it was kind of the last straw. I want to go back to just being a character's player so I can enjoy the game and exert my influence on it without feeling like a dick. What do I need to do/change to enjoy my GMing experience?
David Berg:
Hi Josh,
It sounds to me like the main obstacle to this:
Quote from: Josh Porter on November 27, 2011, 12:43:17 PM
I want the characters to be self-motivated . . . I want to set up a whole world that goes on around the characters and let them steer the game in whatever direction they want.
is this:
Quote from: Josh Porter on November 27, 2011, 12:43:17 PM
But unless I start the session with a mission from on high, the other players will just roleplay their characters hanging out at the local watering hole, or trying to open up a checking account . . . In addition, there are very few players in my group who are interested in the other characters.
If I'm correct on that, then the solution is to create characters who all the players will care about and who will be motivated to do interesting things.
I've found two ways to achieve that:
1) play a super-focused game that tells you why you care and what you're motivated to do (I've never seen a text do this perfectly, but some can really help)
2) before character creation, discuss your goals for play together as a group (this takes some practice to get optimal results, but I've found that simply trying can go a long way)
Personally, I like to do #2 regardless of whether I'm also doing #1.
Are either of these feasible going forward for you and your group?
Ps,
-David
Anders Gabrielsson:
My advice in any situation like this is to just talk to the other players. Get it out in the open.
This doesn't have to be confrontational, like you're dumping your misery all over them or anything like that. You can just tell them that before you start another game you want to talk about what was good and less good with this one, let everyone have their say and then tell them what was good and less good for you.
(As an aside, at any time when I have to give criticism and don't want to piss people off too much or I'm worried they'll get defensive I follow the advice I got from my mother the school teacher: start with something positive, take all the negative in the middle, then end with something positive. Don't sugarcoat anything, just package it nicely.)
In my experience, this is the only way to do it. You can't magically change your players into not doing stuff that drains you, and you can't magically change yourself into not getting drained by the way they play. What you can do is let them know that the way the game currently works isn't as fun for you as you'd like it to be.
Someone else who knows the terminology can probably ask for additional details on your game and help you figure out what creative agenda problems you're having which might help you in the discussion, but the key is to talk about it.
Ron Edwards:
Hi Josh,
Now that is what the first post of a Forge thread looks like.
My response is going to be thoroughly predictable by anyone who's been reading here for a long time. Its simplicity is deceptive.
1. You need to play with different people. Ones who want the same kind of fun you're looking for, for real, no matter what they say.
2. You need to play using a different game. One which actually has a reward system instead of a bzz-bzz hamster wheel like FATE.
3. You need to become a different kind of role-player. One who ... well, see below
I suppose this is why a number of people babble about me "ruining groups." Well, up theirs, and let's move on.
Of the three points, #3 is probably the most opaque, or at least I think it's the one that can be broken out into many different facets.
I'll start by explaining what I'm not saying. I'm not saying, Well, you're not getting X, so you have to become a person who doesn't want X. That'd suck. I'm saying instead, since you're a person who wants X, then you need to learn how to stop playing Y, Y, Y, and more Y, even harder Y! Y! and begin the little steps of actually doing X.
Based on what you wrote, you've experienced some of X as a player rather than through GMing. I recommend you do some detailed, critical reflection on exactly what that was. What was the game system? Who was the group, and why and how did they come to play with one another, especially for a long time if that was the case? How exactly did that GM carry out his or her tasks as such? Or do you really know? Do you think that person had fun, or were they burning out the same way you are for the same reasons, or did something else happen? What happened right there in one single session which struck you then and strikes you now as the finest time you might have possibly had doing this "role-playing" thing? Was your enjoyment genuine or based more on what you hoped would happen or filled in to have happened through personal editing? And any other question which crops up along these lines.
I'm actually pretty serious about every one of those questions, as in, a full paragraph with solid descriptive empirical content for each one.
With all that under way, I'm going to take your thread title literally and focus, not on becoming a player with some kind of "right GM" who makes sure you have fun, but on learning to GM in a way which really floats your boat (that what I mean by "X" above). It may be premature, and again I think you should begin with all those questions, but for preview's sake, we should discuss here the difference between focusing on product and focusing on process. You talked all about awesome, awesome, and I think you were looking at product. The story. The thing. The fiction. The made-up stuff. It struck me instantly that you were somehow able to claim "it" was awesome but that "it" wasn't much fun. Which is impossible, until one understands that you are looking at the wrong "it." Never mind the fiction; it's the experience which needs to be awesome.
To quote Lois, my second-favorite character in Dykes to Watch For, or rather to quote a t-shirt she wore at one point, "I fuck to come, not to conceive." More on this later.
Best, Ron
Josh Porter:
So let me expand a bit.
First, to David:
The irony is that all the players are big fans of all the characters. The playing-on-phones doesn't happen every time, but enough to be noticeable. I don't really know what to make of it, other than to attribute it to good, old-fashioned selfishness.
Your #1 point is true, but i think point #2 is more interesting. Specifically because I've never before seen this group of players create such goal-oriented characters. If any game (not system, but in the sense of campaign) was going to get these guys to play to their characters' ambitions, this was it. And to a large extent, this is exactly what happened. The characters did work toward their ambitions. I just had to prod them a bit to get them off their asses.
I completely agree with both of your points. The first was a little unavoidable (everyone wanted to play DFRPG), and I try to always, always do the second. That's one of the reasons that I am confused about my experiences. The group just seems to have a "wait for the man in the tavern to offer a quest" mindset.
Second, to Anders:
I concur! Talking is always the best option in cases like this. In fact, we all had quite a nice discussion about it.
I let them know that I was not enjoying the sessions that we played. I let them know why: my GMing style was not gelling with their character-playing style. We discussed the differences, and it was quite a good talk. So I decided that I wanted to finish the campaign and asked them to push their characters actively toward their goals so we could get there. The quality of my enjoyment improved A LOT for that last month or so, but I still feel like I need a long break. (Which I'm not really doing. More on that in a bit.)
Third, to Ron:
Ya got three points, so I'll give 'em back that way.
1: Different People
I know this one's true. I haven't yet met the people who want to play the way I do anywhere but on the Interweb. I'm sure there must be some practically on my doorstep, I just haven't found them. Instead I am doing the old missionary trick, and nudging my friends farther and farther from D&D to get to the games I really want. I know that it's rarely worth it to follow this model, but it seems to be working (though you might not know it based on the first post). I'll get 'em in the end!
2: Different Game
Well, I sort of addressed this above, but without finding a new group, this will be hard. Basically, the whole gang decided to play Dresden Files, and I wanted to run it. If nothing else, DFRPG has helped my friends realize that there are better systems for games out there. The guy who ran our 2-year D&D campaign said that FATE is now going to be his new default system for any game he's thinking about running. I'd say that's some good progress, even though it's not all the way there.
I'm attempting to bribe another friend into running Apocalypse World (I gave him the book with that caveat), but it might be a while before that one sees play. So hopefully we're working toward another game.
3: Different Player
Here's a new wrinkle. This: "Based on what you wrote, you've experienced some of X as a player rather than through GMing," is not the case. As far as I know, I have played no game that is really X at all. 4th Edition D&D, Shadowrun, Rules Cyclopedia D&D, those are the only GMed games I've experienced as a player, and while I had tons of fun in all three, none of them are the type of game I want to run.
I think that's my biggest obstacle. I'm trying to create a new experience for my friends and I, while having never experienced it myself. Now, we have played some more narrativist games (Fiasco, above all else) with great success, but they have all been GM-less. And my problem begins to take shape.
With regard to process as opposed to product, I couldn't have said it better. That was what I was trying to get across. I love the product we created, and I even loved about 40% of the process. But in general the process was draining for me. Incidentallty, I'm curious on your thoughts on FATE. Would you mind elaborating on the hamster wheel metaphor?
***
To go in another direction, I think that this is a big motivation for me in my game designs. I have about five of them in various states at the moment, and they break down this way. Four of them are GM-less, and one has a specific starting point/adventure hook (stolen straight from Poison'd) for the game, along with a TON of opportunities for players to take authorship. I am making games that I can run and enjoy at the same time. I'm running Caterpillar (the one with a GM) right now, and it's fucking fun as shit. Both process and product. But that's because I made it specifically for me. I don't know exactly what that says about me/my games/my GM style, but I think it's interesting.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page