GM: Table Leader

[Professor Murder]

Ideas explored in another thread gave me a thought.

Do you view being a GM as a "leadership" position?

I think it is often forced into this roll.
Examples:
GM is often the primary party for rules knowledge.
GM is often the primary rules teacher.
GM as provider of gaming location.
GM has to figure out the schedule.
GM has to be the "bad guy" and pull the game back on track when things devolve into pop culture callbacks.

Many of these and other "background" tasks (arranging food for example) should be delegated more often.

I honestly think that having to do so much in addition to devising and running the game is a factor in the GM shortage.

Thoughts?

 

[Lanefan]

You missed "GM is often the primary rules enforcer", which can present more of a "bad guy" situation than getting people back on track.

But otherwise yes, I view the GM as largely being the captain of the ship.

 

[Professor Murder]

You missed "GM is often the primary rules enforcer", which can present more of a "bad guy" situation than getting people back on track.

But otherwise yes, I view the GM as largely being the captain of the ship.

While this is true, when I say leader, I am more meaning outside the role as rules referee. I mean leader as in "primary force making the game happen."

 

[Jahydin]

Do you view being a GM as a "leadership" position?

Absolutely.

 

[S'mon]

Ideas explored in another thread gave me a thought.

Do you view being a GM as a "leadership" position?

Yes.
But a good leader knows when to delegate. Some of my favourite GMs let the players handle the rules stuff. You don't need to wear a Viking hat to be a good GM.

 

[soviet]

Yes. But in sort of a first among equals way rather than a king of the group way. Good leaders are open and collaborative anyway.

 

[pogre]

Yep, and I like it.

Also agree it is a barrier for new DMs.

 

[bloodtide]

A good GM has to be an Adult, a Baby Sitter, a Consular, A Disciplinarian, an Organizer and a Leader...and lots of other things.

Players just show up and want to play.

It's all ready hard just to GM a game. But doing all the other things above can be quite impossible for a lot of people.

 

[MGibster]

Yes.
But a good leader knows when to delegate. Some of my favourite GMs let the players handle the rules stuff. You don't need to wear a Viking hat to be a good GM.

You just need the hat to be the fun GM.

 

[kigmatzomat]

The gm has to be a leader. They have to be able to control the cadence of game play. Some level of immersion has to be maintained. And I don't mean LARP-esque immersion, I mean focus on the game as "the" reason everyone is there. No movie chats mid-game, no long tangents on why "Xth edition as the One True Game", etc.

There are a whole host of group-dynamics concepts but pretty much all of them have some theory on an "ideal" collaborative state. GMs need to keep the group somewhere close to that ideal. Because once the group goes acoherent, it's almost impossible to continue without calling a total reset.

The collaborative games are interesting, and when they are a form of emergent game based on cards or whatever, it's achievable. But random cards don't make good campaigns. Emergent, super collaborative games are like magic acts. Some people absolutely love it, Most people are fine with seeing one every year or so and a few people loathe them with the hatred of a thousand suns.

Meanwhile the vast majority of gamers are fine with a traditional GM-controlled campaign. And it makes sense. The GM has to produce NPCs on demand and needs to be authoritative on the setting. That means players knowingly cede that authority.

GMs also need to be able to break rules from time to time, either because they have NPCs with powers that need to stay secret or just because at times making a fast, decent rules call is better than a slow, immersion-destroying perfect ruling. They need to be reliable enough that players accept the rules bending as justified (or at least don't say anything until after the game to discuss potential unintended consequences).

Part of trust is occasional "hey, we didn't do things quite right last week. Here is how it's supposed to work. The target has to be at least the same CR as the thing they become. No more polymorphing the familiar into a dragon, even if you are a 14th level caster, unless you can find a CR 1/4 dragon"

And part of trust is also "I know what the RulesGuy posted about a bag of rats and that feat but, no, I am not going to allow that in the game"