Key GMing Skill: "Read the crowd"

[Desdichado]

It seems like I've seen a lot of discussion about play style preferences and stuff like that in the last little bit, here, in the blogosphere and elsewhere. As I've been thinking about that, I realize that my answers to a lot of the questions isn't really one size fits all. For example, most of the time, I want the pace to be fairly fast. Spending time on shopping for gear is usually something I'm interestd in skipping past. But sometimes, it can be fun. Sometimes it can be some great roleplaying, or world building, or just a nice break from non-stop action, suspense and drama. How's a GM to know the difference?

Another example: sometimes a group might be confused or directionless, or otherwise failing to "find the game." Is it acceptable in this case for the GM to give "hints" via DMPCs or otherwise, to the players?

And those are just two; I came up with about half a dozen earlier, even on such items as "if a combat is dragging because the opponents have too many hit points, and the resolution of the combat is pretty much assured at this point, but the mop-up is going to take several more rounds to conclude--what do you do?" the real key, I think, is a GM skill which I don't see talked about much: being able to read the crowd! I.e., a GM can't get so caught up in playing "correctly" or sticking to some ideals on how a game should be run, or whatever the case may be, that he fails to pay attention to how his group is responding to what he's doing. Being able to sense when the players are restless, confused, bored, or frustrated and making on-the-fly course corrections is, to me, one of the most crucial--and yet overlooked--key advanced GMing techniques out there. To me, no GM can call himself a great GM if he doesn't develop this skill, at least somewhat. He can be good--but never great.

And in my opinion, having a game that is "idealistically pure" or whatever, is a poor consolation prize to having a game that's great.

 

[S'mon]

I agree, but IMO the answer to "if a combat is dragging because the opponents have too many hit points, and the resolution of the combat is pretty much assured at this point, but the mop-up is going to take several more rounds to conclude--what do you do?" is not "Monsters suddenly have 1 hp!" it's "Monsters Run Away!" or "Monsters Surrender!" Either of the latter two create interesting situations without any risk of the game turning into cardboard-facade illusionist play. 'Run Away' is a good and naturalistic default; the PCs have earned their victory, the tactical situation has changed - so not boring - but if the PCs want a TEK (Total Enemy Kill) they'll have to work for it - and run some risk too; my overly-confident Fighter, Rothgar, took a terrible mauling when he incautiously pursued some retreating enemies a few months ago; left him on 3 hp from 100-odd.

 

[Umbran]

As I've been thinking about that, I realize that my answers to a lot of the questions isn't really one size fits all.

I've frequently felt similarly - I prefer to base my decisions on some general precepts, and the situation and people at hand, rather than a dogma, or fear of some boogeyman result.

... the real key, I think, is a GM skill which I don't see talked about much: being able to read the crowd! I.e., a GM can't get so caught up in playing "correctly" or sticking to some ideals on how a game should be run, or whatever the case may be, that he fails to pay attention to how his group is responding to what he's doing.

I agree. Part of the reason you don't see this talked about is that it is a pretty fuzzy thing, difficult to get a verbal grip upon. How do you, in plain text, discuss reading a group of people?

I agree, but IMO the answer to...

is not. "Monsters suddenly have 1 hp!" it's "Monsters Run Away!" or "Monsters Surrender!"

I think a big part of Hobo's point is that absolutes... aren't. Sometimes the best answer *is* "the monsters now have 1 hp". Let us not arbitrarily take things off the table.

On this particular item, there's a pacing issue to consider. If the monsters run away, now I am probably adding a chase scene. If they surrender, I'm probably adding prisoners as a complication to the adventure. These are both creating new content, rather than getting the group further into the content you already have prepared.

Which is better? That depends. That's what Hobo's saying, at least to me - read the group, and choose, rather than follow a strict, "never to X, do Y instead".

 

[S'mon]

I think a big part of Hobo's point is that absolutes... aren't. Sometimes the best answer *is* "the monsters now have 1 hp". Let us not arbitrarily take things off the table.

Yes, I agree with his general point about knowing your group. I'm a big fan of using different approaches - I run a whole bunch of 'D&D' type games with different people that are wildly different and suit different sorts of players.

But on the specific case of me and fight dragging so monsters have 1 hp, if I'm the player and I found out the GM was doing that, I would hate it. Likewise I would hate doing it as GM, it would harm my enjoyment of the game. If it works for you and your group, fine.

 

[S'mon]

On this particular item, there's a pacing issue to consider. If the monsters run away, now I am probably adding a chase scene. If they surrender, I'm probably adding prisoners as a complication to the adventure. These are both creating new content, rather than getting the group further into the content you already have prepared.

Which is better? That depends. That's what Hobo's saying, at least to me - read the group, and choose, rather than follow a strict, "never to X, do Y instead".

Do what works both for you, and for your particular players. Eg for me, improvised content on a skeletal frame tends to be a lot better than pre-detailed content, so the flight/surrender option only ever seems to lead to good results. It might not suit some GMs or groups.

BTW I've had very good results over the past year and a half in deliberately recruiting different players to different campaigns, with an eye to who will work well together and the sort of campaign they'd enjoy. Eg I deliberately try to have my 4e Forgotten Realms game be female friendly and recruit around 50% female players for it, while my 4e Wilderlands game was a macho Conanesque Heavy Metal romp, my Pathfinder Beginner Box game is geared to younger, newer players, my 1e AD&D Yggsburgh game on Dragonsfoot is geared to older male grognards, etc. I find this makes it much less likely I'll be wrongfooted and 'read the crowd' badly, making something offensive, uninteresting, traumatic or otherwise undesirable.

 

[Desdichado]

Yes, I agree with his general point about knowing your group. I'm a big fan of using different approaches - I run a whole bunch of 'D&D' type games with different people that are wildly different and suit different sorts of players.

Even more than that; knowing your group isn't enough. What may work one session may fall flat the next--even with the same group.

I guess it's a little bit like the work that a stand-up comedian (or for that matter, a demagogue) has to do; you need to learn somehow to really be in tune to the reaction in the moment, and make course corrections immediately to accomodate those reactions. To me, that's the difference between a GM who's maybe really quite good and who tends to run decently enjoyable games, and one who's great, and who manages to hit on all cylinders more often than not, and always manage to deliver great sessions.

One GM that I've played with in more than one campaign, for instance, is a pretty good one. And he even can spot these types of problems. But, unfortunately, it seems not until after the fact. To add to this, he runs only published modules, and mostly sticks to what's written with little in the way of true improvisation. This means that while his campaigns overall are pretty enjoyable and I'm glad to be part of them when its his turn to run, any given session can bog down in a combat that is poorly balanced or executed, or in a dungeon exploration that's tedious and dull, or a puzzle that's frustrating and/or uninteresting. And while he can sometimes tell that things aren't working, but usually too late, and his fixes are usually kind of ham-handed and clumsy, and there's a lot of metagame discussion about how poorly the scenario was written or balanced or whatever as well.

Later in teh week after a session like this, he'll recognize what the problems were and assure us that he's on it, so it doesn't happen again.

But if he were truly a great GM, he'd be more in tune with the "mood" at the table at the point when things are starting to go wrong, and come up with a mroe natural seeming fix to get things back on track before they become a frustrating issue in the first place.

And I'm hardly claiming to be an expert at it, but I've been in games with GM's who were, and every session that they ever run--unless they're really tired, or off their game, or whatever, is just that much better than the sessions you get with even otherwise really quite good GMs.

Like Umbran says, it's much more of an art than a science or even a craft, so unlike many aspects of running the game, it's really kind of hard to pin down how to learn to be good at it. But the thought crossed my mind recently with the spate of recent style choices discussions I've been seeing lately. Few of those style choices are always the right choice, even with the same group. Because so much of what makes a particular session extraordinary is the mood at the table, and a great GM can manipulate that like... well, like I said--like a good stand-up comedian or a demagogue almost.

 

[S'mon]

[MENTION=2205]Hobo[/MENTION] - I agree; just tried to XP you, no luck.
I'm pretty erratic I think - sometimes I'm doing the demagogue thing and everything is brilliant, other times it can go wrong. I struggled a bit running 'Orcs of Stonefang Pass' recently, and came out with the occasional unwise "this module sucks!" type comments... - Generally when I added my own content, like the pact-bonded white dragon Ice Fang, it went really well; when I tried to stick with the 'script' it tended to plod.

 

[S'mon]

Later in teh week after a session like this, he'll recognize what the problems were and assure us that he's on it, so it doesn't happen again.

This alone probably puts him in the top quartile of GMs, BTW - don't be too hard on him. The mediocre GM is either oblivious to problems, or too lazy to care, or too authoritarian - I had one GM I was too terrified of to discuss the (Railroady) campaign with much, especially as he slapped down any suggestions pretty hard.

 

[Desdichado]

Yeah, actually I really like his games for the most part. And he's a good friend, and I have a lot of fun just hanging around with that group, even if the session itself is going terribly, which is also nice.

So I don't mean that description to be a knock on him at all, just an interesting exercise in recognizing the difference between being a good GM and a great GM.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I don't really like it when the information comes from a DMPC or some similar source. I prefer just taking a 5 minute break, grab on of the players and tell him what his character knows, that he as a player doesn't.

It's much more interesting seing the player absorb the info, and then play his character with the extra information. I might have seeded one or two players with information in this fashion and from that there is often a lot of role playing between the players, not between the players and the DM.

What I like best about DM-ing is if the game with lots of interaction between the players. Not between me (the DM) and them (the players). It also takes a big load of my shoulders and makes the game a lot more interesting for the players. This works best in a setting where the characters should be familiar - for instance a town they have stayed for a while or something like that. It doesn't work so well out in the wilderness or in a dungeon.

... there is a reason I love "The Scouring of Gate Pass", it was perfect for my playstyle.