What makes setting lore "actually matter" to the players?

[GobHag]

Do you GM much? If so, how do you feel about being a dancing monkey GM? Is that a "bad you can accept", or only when it's not you?

I don't consider myself a GM yes, but I do one-shots and playtests and short 8-16 session campaign once or twice. And I'm perfectly fine satisfying the players wants, as long as I also get some of what I want in return too. That I get to use this monster, or you bite one of these plothooks, or you fight in this area/arena.

"Yeah you can fight your dad, but is it fine if I make him an Ice Dragon'?

 

[Thomas Shey]

No need Thomas. I know your style is speaking, "for the people". And you know how little importance I place on popularity, and how much on not presenting opinions as objective truths.

I don't think the basics of my position require "truths", just logic. (Take note, @GobHag if you're genuinely interested).

Let's say you have a group consisting of a GM and 5 players. The players want something the GM doesn't.

Now, let's acknowledge with a lot of games for structural and mechanical reasons, that the GM has more investment than any individual player. Let's even say this can sometimes be 2-3 times as much (for the moment assuming he's still getting at least a player's worth of fun out of it).

What sort of logic says that even with that weighting, his preferences should outweigh all five of the other people involved? Other than tradition and "just because", what sort of rationale is there for this?

Now, he's still not obligated to do things he doesn't want to do, any more than any single player is required to play if he's not going to have fun. But its still the case where trying to argue he's doing anything but serving his own self-interest is a hard sell, and to try and sell it otherwise only makes sense when you go in with the idea the GM has--and should have--overreaching decision-making here, and if you're going to make that argument on other than practical grounds (i.e. that he just gets to by the structure of games) then one needs to make that argument, not just take it as a given.

 

[Umbran]

Do you GM much?

I GM a lot, yes.

If so, how do you feel about being a dancing monkey GM? Is that a "bad you can accept", or only when it's not you?

Hey. If you want to get anything out of this discussion, you're gonna have to stop projecting your own emotional loads onto others.

I am a service-oriented GM. I am at the table to try to make sure the players have a good time. Sometimes that means I run a very traditional game, regularly employing traditional GM's role and power. Sometimes that means I am a fan of the characters, and play to find out, and so on. I can happily run many kinds of games, to fit my player's desires.

I am NEVER a "dancing monkey".

 

[Micah Sweet]

I GM a lot, yes.



Hey. If you want to get anything out of this discussion, you're gonna have to stop projecting your own emotional loads onto others.

I am a service-oriented GM. I am at the table to try to make sure the players have a good time. Sometimes that means I run a very traditional game, regularly employing traditional GM's role and power. Sometimes that means I am a fan of the characters, and play to find out, and so on. I can happily run many kinds of games, to fit my player's desires.

I am NEVER a "dancing monkey".

I was clearly responding to @GobHag. Dancing monkey is their term.

 

[GobHag]

It's a deliberate derogatory term yes, I thought it'd be fair considering I call GMs of Micah's persuasion as 'viking hatted'

 

[zakael19]

I run games that tend to collaborate highly, on lore and other things. At the end of each session, I make sure to collect “stars and wishes” with the latter used to calibrate the game and content.

I still:

- give the jumping off point for collaborative lore or scenes, and “yes, but/no, but” as needed to shape the outcomes.

- frame scenes with authority even when I’m using a player’s answer as the basis.

- front the obstacles, challenges, and avenues to success based on prep and theme.

- provide a large amount of “ground truth” we build off in play.

- contribute my creativity and shape the conversation to a significant degree.

 

[Umbran]

I was clearly responding to @GobHag. Dancing monkey is their term.

That doesn't make it okay.

It's a deliberate derogatory term yes, I thought it'd be fair considering I call GMs of Micah's persuasion as 'viking hatted'

Being deliberately derogatory is a great way to get yourself removed from the discussion.

If you can no longer be civil, folks, leave the thread.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It's a deliberate derogatory term yes, I thought it'd be fair considering I call GMs of Micah's persuasion as 'viking hatted'

I was around during the period of the viking-hat GM; Michah's description makes him top down and traditional, but believe me there's a big difference between the two.

 

[TwoSix]

I was around during the period of the viking-hat GM; Michah's description makes him top down and traditional, but believe me there's a big difference between the two.

I've seen two strands of play over the years getting thrown into the "Viking-hat" concept. One is that the GM is going to run the setting as they see fit, with no concern if the PCs get ground up in the gears of the setting. The other (related) strand is that the GM is going to run this plot, and the PCs are going to follow along with it or be pushed out of the campaign.

I think you can definitely run a storyline-oriented campaign without being a Viking-hat, Viking-hat is just a social contract fail state of that method of play.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I've seen two strands of play over the years getting thrown into the "Viking-hat" concept. One is that the GM is going to run the setting as they see fit, with no concern if the PCs get ground up in the gears of the setting. The other (related) strand is that the GM is going to run this plot, and the PCs are going to follow along with it or be pushed out of the campaign.

I think you can definitely run a storyline-oriented campaign without being a Viking-hat, Viking-hat is just a social contract fail state of that method of play.

The term has shifted over time, then; the point with the epithet thrown toward certain kinds of GMs was that they either completely didn't care about what their players get out of the game, or actively felt like players dying was a virtue. Micah is not in either of those from things he's said; he does feel that the integrity of the setting (in a simulationist fashion) is important and will sometimes lead to PCs dying, but nothing suggests he considers that a virtue when it happens. Its just the price of doing business sometimes.

A usual giveaway is whether people make effort to ensure that its possible to avoid getting chewed up if they play intelligently and carefully (and not setting a stupid high bar to that); the real old-school viking-hats didn't care.