Do you GM for yourself or others?

[CuRoi]

To the game masters out there: Who, in your mind, is the primary beneficiary of your gaming?

I suppose I write a campaign for myself. Then, my players thoroughly enjoy it, hijack it, and make it their own. I'm not sure who gets the better end of the deal in the end...

I realize that most GMs are a mix of both (and optimally, both player and planner have a great time). But when it comes time to choose a system, design a homebrew, set limitations, allow splat books, or make any of a thousand other GM decisions, is your first thought, "This is what I will enjoy running?" or "This is what the others will enjoy playing"?

As much as I expect and enjoy players mucking with my plans, I do try to stick to a semblance of the campaign I came up with in my demented little brain while planning between sessions. My campaign world is bigger than the PCs and while they are the stars of the story I want them to know and feel there is "more out there".

I do also try to add in elements that focus on the players / PC party which I feel they will enjoy. It's hit or miss of course, but for the most part they enjoy the personal touches I add. Side quests for specific PCs, NPCs tailored to a particular aspect of a PC, items and rewards they will enjoy, etc.

That's on the story side. Rules side, I make it clear I run a rules light game. Meaning I only want Core books. IMO that is for my own sanity but also for my players. Too many extra splat books etc. and the rules become the stars not the story IMO. I've had players disagree at first with that approach, but I've never had on leave the table because of it. Eventually, they get it and really enjoy the game.

By extension, I also ask if any of you have run games or systems you've disliked, for the benefit of a group of players?

Sort of - I can't say I really hate the Cortex system which is at the foundation of the Serenity RPG for instance. Lots of aspects are nice, fast moving, encourage player interaction, etc. I can say there are enough holes in it you can fly a mid-bulk transport through it in places. So I've gladly run buggy systems for the benefit of a group of players...

 

[Oryan77]

The word "Master" is in the title of DM for a reason. If I let the players dictate what I run, then I might as well call myself a Dungeon Slave.
And for those of you that abuse that role, the word "God" does not appear anywhere in that title.

I run games for myself and would only DM something that I wanted to DM 100%. Part of the enjoyment of DMing is seeing the players having fun. So when I do run a game, I try to gear it towards what I think the players would like as long as it is something I wouldn't mind doing.

 

[Oryan77]

I find players (and when I say players I mean random people you hardly know rather than good friends you've known for years) are extremely critical and vocal at the table . . . . I find that most players do the exact opposite and criticise and bitch and moan over every little tiny detail that they're not happy with so that I come away from games feeling belittled and worthless.

I experience this same thing way too often since I am forced to find strangers from the internet to play with. I'm lucky that I'm in an area where there are a ton of gamers though. So a few years ago, after getting so sick and tired of dealing with BS from some crappy players, I decided I would no longer "settle" for a new player.

Now, I don't hesitate to tell someone that I don't want to play with them. If I meet them and get any red flags for any reason, I don't invite them to the game. If they sneak under my radar and begin to play, and they turn out to be problem players for any reason at all, I ask them not to continue playing with us right away. It sucks telling people that (it's never easy), but the way I see it, they don't mind giving me a hard time, so I shouldn't care how they feel getting turned down.

This has worked wonders for me. There are still a lot of good players out there and I appreciate all the good ones I get to game with. The problem is, as long as you have those crappy players in the group, that's one less good player that could be sitting in that chair. So you don't know of the good players as long as yer keeping the bad ones around.

 

[The Shaman]

To sum up, I engineer and build the vehicle I want, the players drive it how and where they want.

That sounds about like my experience as well.

I run what I want to run; I don't solicit ideas from players along the lines of, "Well, what would you like to play?" I pick a game and create a setting, then look for players who are interested in what I pulled together.

Once the game begins, the players run their characters, I run the setting, and the game is what results when those two things collide.

 

[Water Bob]

To the game masters out there: Who, in your mind, is the primary beneficiary of your gaming?

I can't point to a primary. For me to have a good time, both the players and myself have to be enjoying the campaign.

Yes, I enjoy the creativity of GMing. Whether I'm taking a published adventure and changing it to fit my needs or creating an entire sandbox from scratch (which is the most work but also the most satisfying, to me), that part of the "job" is quite fulfilling.

And, sometimes, when the game is tomorrow and I still have 15 hours of work to put into the game to get it "ready", the GM "job" feels like a real job. But, most of the time, when I'm on top of things and prepared, I love being the GM.

But, if the players aren't having a good time it affects my appreciation of the game, too. As a GM, I fee like I've failed because I haven't engaged all the players and captured their imaginations.

If I have my rathers, I'd rather be the GM. I'm a rare bird, I know. Most people like to play. I haven't actually been a player in decades.

I do like to play, though. It's a different experience. I'm a huge role player. I don't care about stats. I'll play any character I can get to its fullest, regardless of what the character looks like mechanically.

 

[Abraxas]

I only game with friends - people who I do things with outside of gaming - or our/their children (somebodies got to teach them). So I definitely run games catered to them. In fact I am running one campaign (and will be taking over the reins shortly and will be running a second campaign) even though the system used is not my preferred system.

I do things everyday for myself - and running games they prefer is actually doing something for me at the same time - I take great enjoyment out of people having a great time because of something I do.

 

[Kannon]

I only ever run games (Or play them, for that matter), with people I know and can get along with. I've had too many disasters with random people, hardened by random people on the internet trending towards .

With that in mind, I tend towards the service side of DM. A lot of that tends towards that I've always had at least one DM as a player, if not more. And I do take a bit of pride in that I get asked by other DMs to run a game for them. Means I have to be doing something right, eh?

But I also enjoy the "winging it" inherent in maybe operating outside of your comfort zone. I like the high magic, interesting urban kind of settings, it's what I'm best at writing, and I have a large amount of fun making a city come alive. (I adore Sigil, especially.)

But it's also a huge amount of fun taking something you're good at, in something you don't, and making it work. (Currently writing handling "evil" magic in a city-state in Dark Sun, for instance.)

And I've always been blessed with good players, because I've always run with friends. And it always makes it that much more fun to write for players who want to do more than hit stuff with magic and pointy metal until it dies, and loot them.

 

[Tuft]

To the game masters out there: Who, in your mind, is the primary beneficiary of your gaming?

What I mean is, do you think of GMing (the planning, writing, developing, session running, etc) as something you primarily do for your own enjoyment and that hopefully others will enjoy too (but if not, oh well, they can go find someone else)? Or do you think of being a GM as something of a service, where you fashion things mostly to the tastes and desires of the players as best as possible, even if this means running games that are not your favorite?

I started GM-ing as a service and on a lark. We were discussing a fun, tongue-in-cheek system ("Maid the RPG"), that I *really* wanted to try out, but at the same time I did not even want to suggest it to my regular GM, as he already had two weekly campaigns at the time. I also had figured out that he just had been bypassed as a player by some old friends , which sucked. So I surprised myself by suggesting: "Ok, let me try GM:ing this"... I did *not* know that it would result in a 50+ episode still-going-strong campaign.

RPG-ing to me is a way to expressing fantasies, ideas, and stories. The fact that you have to bounce those off other peoples, make them accept them, formulate them in context of the rules, make things connect logically. To me, that hardens those fantasies, makes them more real, more enjoyable, than just free fantasies where you can hand-wave anything that does not fit.

That said, I feel much less in control when GM-ing than when playing. I run a very improvisational style; I go into a session with a few NPC names, a basic stat level I want those NPCs to confirm to, and three-four situations I hope to somehow reach during the evening. Since I let my players do whatever they want, it's like riding a wild beast; I have to invent and improvise the story, NPCs and situations depending on what they decide, and try to stay ten minutes ahead of them, if I am lucky.

When I'm a player, I have my characters, their ambitions and goals, all firmly ensconced and framed by the rules - a much stabler platform. When the situation suits my character I can step forward and do my thing, and when it does not I can step back and watch the other players perform (unless I am on edge for this reason or the other - then I sit and fret or mope ) What I do must satisfy myself, be accepted by the GM, and at least tolerated by the other players.

When I GM, what I do must be accepted by and satisfy my players, a much harder task. You have to compromise all the time; not just between myself and the players, but make compromises between the individual players' likes and dislikes.

So GM-ing is fun, hard, intense. I love it; It takes hours to get down from the adrenaline buzz after successfully riding the wild story beast. But I still would not do it if it didn't also feel like a service; a gift to my players. And I cannot hide that there is a hope of reciprocation; If I GM this, perhaps I get to play that.

By extension, I also ask if any of you have run games or systems you've disliked, for the benefit of a group of players?

I've played systems I hated, and that did not end good. I can't imagine what would happen if I tried to GM such systems...

 

[Kzach]

And to do that, you need to know what your players actually want.

Oh, as I've stated in a previous thread about DM'ing, I've tried every way known to man and furiously typing monkey to be a good DM, including asking them what they want and trying to deliver it, and a gazillion variations of that as well.

My current mentality is, "To Hell with the players!" I go to sessions now completely unprepared and run the games according to my whims in the moment. The bizarre thing is that the sessions I've run since adopting this attitude and DM'ing style have been awesome. It's sort-of like how the hot chick always chooses the bad-ass over the nice-guy; makes no sense, but it works.

 

[Kannon]

Oh, as I've stated in a previous thread about DM'ing, I've tried every way known to man and furiously typing monkey to be a good DM, including asking them what they want and trying to deliver it, and a gazillion variations of that as well.

My current mentality is, "To Hell with the players!" I go to sessions now completely unprepared and run the games according to my whims in the moment. The bizarre thing is that the sessions I've run since adopting this attitude and DM'ing style have been awesome. It's sort-of like how the hot chick always chooses the bad-ass over the nice-guy; makes no sense, but it works.

Wow, I didn't know the AngryDM posted here.

There is something to that, though. Being planned out a whole session ahead of time is as far as I ever plan, and that's only because we've had to skip the last couple of sessions. Since we're playing over Maptools, I've got a stack of campaign-themed maps, and stacks of stuff that is "in" the world, but I don't actually stick them together into something playable until the party actually gets there. And some of the bigger hits of this current campaign have come from me winging it or buying time. (I play the enemies to the hilt, taunting, insults, freaking the hell out... a dying, insulting speech from a leader enemy while I was figuring out what was going to happen next...). Generally speaking, players go for stuff we, as DMs, might even consider mean. But it makes them think, or plan, or work at something that a more "balanced" approach would just make far too easy.