Thomas Shey
Legend
Sure, I was just noting there's a case that's neither inexperience nor malevolence.
System matters and free kriegsspiel
Sure, I was just noting there's a case that's neither inexperience nor malevolence.
Thomas Shey
Legend
While your gig is your gig, I have to suggest some pretty big parts of the hobby game with people they do not know outside of gaming.
Campbell
Relaxed Intensity
I meet people through gaming. It's just usually through some larger social group. Either from a LARP or some other sort of gaming community. I'm part of a couple gaming clubs here in Denver. That's usually where I pull players from. Just did a meet and greet with some lovely people today from a Discord server for local gamers.
I like to mostly stay within communities and peer groups because we can set standards for behavior.
I believe most poor social behavior tends to stem from a lack of accountability. It's why I don't play Magic anymore.
I definitely understand my experiences are pretty far from normative. I try to always make sure that I only speak for myself, but I know I slip up sometimes.
Thomas Shey
Legend
I've met gamers through gaming communities, but, honestly, that didn't make me better connected with them than if I'd picked them up from an ad at a game store.
Its a thing.
Manbearcat
Legend
I have a bit of a unique experience when it comes to GM data.
I've done nothing but run games since I was 7 except in 3 instances; 2 * Pawn Stance D&D and 1 * CoC. Both of those GMs were very good (the 2 * Pawn Stance D&D was the same GM and the CoC was someone else) at the game they were GMing.
Outside of those 2 GMs, my access to GMing was as follows:
* 5 GMs (from ages 13 to 27) granted me access to their games (GM prep, GM table handling/behind the screen, and sit in on their games) for a few sessions when I was very young (7-10 years old for me). This was all D&D.
* From age 16 - 33 I was granted access to 20+ other GMed games from variations of D&D to Traveller to d6 Star Wars to VtM. Like above, I discussed the GMs' prep, sat with them and watched them GM, talked to their players after the games.
Out of those 25 + that I sat with and talked to their players, these were the notable features:
- The Traveller GM was trivially the best...but that game was brutal in its pacing and banality. The GM followed the rules, functionally exploited their prep, and the game held together. But it was rough to sit through, the cognitive workload the GM gleefully took on was crazytown, and the players were just north of tolerating the game.
- As for the rest of them? To a GM, they all used Force, overwhelmingly covertly. They fudged dice, they ignored rules/made them up, changed rules at their discretion. The results at the table were basically Ouija Board play with the players putting their hands on the planchette but the GM being the volitional force that actually moved the planchette (BUT WE'RE TALKING TO GHOSTS MAN!). About 1/3 of the players knew it and hated it, about 1/3 knew it and didn't care (or expected it because that was all they knew), and about 1/3 were passive and oblivious.
- About 1/2 of the games were brutally paced, got bogged down in this or that (from rules referencing - that was mostly irrelevant because the GM would just ignore a result at their leisure...to catastrophically long exposition dumps by the GM and GM : GM conversation where the NPCs would banter...to filtering every bit of "would my character know this" through the GM) and the imposition of story was not for the betterment of play!
- The bulk of the tables featured 1 or 2 players (sometimes more) who were well south of "happy to be there." They either couldn't find another game/GM or were held hostage by being friends/relations with the GM or some other connection (game is hosted at their house and why not play?).
- There was an overwhelming feeling of hostility and dysfunctional adversarial relationships at the table. The GM thought the players were gaming the system, weren't following their carefully placed bread crumbs/plot hooks, intentionally breaking their settings, and generally not engaging in good faith. This was absolutely true some of the time. The players that weren't passive often (though not always) had a similar sense of hostility with the GM (born of either bad experiences under this GM or being haunted by GMs they had been under in the past).
- The GMs overwhelmingly had no clue just how poor the dynamic was at their tables. They thought they were much better GMs than they actually were, they though their players were absolutely enjoying their games, they had no clue about the simmering bad blood beneath the surface of their game sessions.
Oh, and they nearly all thought that "players (and their bad tendencies and negative impact on play) are obstacles to be overcome!" I thought it was a pretty miserable outlook when I was extremely young, thought it was a miserable outlook in my 20s and 30s, and, at 44, I feel much like I did when I was 7! "Why would you subject yourself to some thing and some people that you are clearly conflicted about (at best)! If players are obstacles to be overcome...you probably need to do something else with your time!"
EDIT - Oh, quick thought. And the bulk of those later GMs thought my Pawn Stance D&D (they never played under me...we merely had conversations about my games when I was in my teens and early 20s) was "roll-playing...not roleplaying." I got that a lot back then!
I've done nothing but run games since I was 7 except in 3 instances; 2 * Pawn Stance D&D and 1 * CoC. Both of those GMs were very good (the 2 * Pawn Stance D&D was the same GM and the CoC was someone else) at the game they were GMing.
Outside of those 2 GMs, my access to GMing was as follows:
* 5 GMs (from ages 13 to 27) granted me access to their games (GM prep, GM table handling/behind the screen, and sit in on their games) for a few sessions when I was very young (7-10 years old for me). This was all D&D.
* From age 16 - 33 I was granted access to 20+ other GMed games from variations of D&D to Traveller to d6 Star Wars to VtM. Like above, I discussed the GMs' prep, sat with them and watched them GM, talked to their players after the games.
Out of those 25 + that I sat with and talked to their players, these were the notable features:
- The Traveller GM was trivially the best...but that game was brutal in its pacing and banality. The GM followed the rules, functionally exploited their prep, and the game held together. But it was rough to sit through, the cognitive workload the GM gleefully took on was crazytown, and the players were just north of tolerating the game.
- As for the rest of them? To a GM, they all used Force, overwhelmingly covertly. They fudged dice, they ignored rules/made them up, changed rules at their discretion. The results at the table were basically Ouija Board play with the players putting their hands on the planchette but the GM being the volitional force that actually moved the planchette (BUT WE'RE TALKING TO GHOSTS MAN!). About 1/3 of the players knew it and hated it, about 1/3 knew it and didn't care (or expected it because that was all they knew), and about 1/3 were passive and oblivious.
- About 1/2 of the games were brutally paced, got bogged down in this or that (from rules referencing - that was mostly irrelevant because the GM would just ignore a result at their leisure...to catastrophically long exposition dumps by the GM and GM : GM conversation where the NPCs would banter...to filtering every bit of "would my character know this" through the GM) and the imposition of story was not for the betterment of play!
- The bulk of the tables featured 1 or 2 players (sometimes more) who were well south of "happy to be there." They either couldn't find another game/GM or were held hostage by being friends/relations with the GM or some other connection (game is hosted at their house and why not play?).
- There was an overwhelming feeling of hostility and dysfunctional adversarial relationships at the table. The GM thought the players were gaming the system, weren't following their carefully placed bread crumbs/plot hooks, intentionally breaking their settings, and generally not engaging in good faith. This was absolutely true some of the time. The players that weren't passive often (though not always) had a similar sense of hostility with the GM (born of either bad experiences under this GM or being haunted by GMs they had been under in the past).
- The GMs overwhelmingly had no clue just how poor the dynamic was at their tables. They thought they were much better GMs than they actually were, they though their players were absolutely enjoying their games, they had no clue about the simmering bad blood beneath the surface of their game sessions.
Oh, and they nearly all thought that "players (and their bad tendencies and negative impact on play) are obstacles to be overcome!" I thought it was a pretty miserable outlook when I was extremely young, thought it was a miserable outlook in my 20s and 30s, and, at 44, I feel much like I did when I was 7! "Why would you subject yourself to some thing and some people that you are clearly conflicted about (at best)! If players are obstacles to be overcome...you probably need to do something else with your time!"
EDIT - Oh, quick thought. And the bulk of those later GMs thought my Pawn Stance D&D (they never played under me...we merely had conversations about my games when I was in my teens and early 20s) was "roll-playing...not roleplaying." I got that a lot back then!
Last edited:
aramis erak
Legend
I disagree. If the person is unwilling to learn, and isn't mentally disabled, that's within malevolance as far as I'm concerned.
Thomas Shey
Legend
I think you're being extremely uncharitable to suggest that "incapable" is only possible with mental disablement. Most people have blindspots, and many never manage to overcome them. In some cases with GMing it requires developing skills they simply have no aptitude for. Even with the best of intentions, all they'll do is minimize the problem areas.
aramis erak
Legend
I disagree, obviously. I'll admit that's a little bit hyperbollic; I'd say that those blindnesses you mention are mental disabilities, tho'.
A bit like being a lecturer, I think a GM needs a degree of self-confidence/self-belief in order to do it at all. The biggest limiter on number of GMs is people afraid they won't be good enough. So in practice, self-belief is the main qualifier.
Well it's like turning up to a chess club, I guess. It's fine if you're happy to hack your way through a standard D&D-ish or even CoC-ish module. But it's certainly handle-with-care if you're going to play anything at all which involves revealing or risking onseself.
