Be a GAME-MASTER, not a DIRECTOR

[Umbran]

... Even if the player writes a whole paragraph, it is still minimal effort. The player says "a beast" then shrugs and walks away. The DM then has to do all the work. But everyone wants to give the player equal credit, for just about zero work or effort.

I'd guess so they can blame the players too if the game is not "fun".

So, again....the player says a couple words, but the DM must do all the work to fill in everything.

So if I'm following, you as GM do very little...even nothing. You have the setting in the book, and the players add in their random things...that you flesh out and create.

I guess this is a "player lead" game? It does not seem all that fun for the DM though. The players just say "make this" and then DM bows and says "yes player".

(emphasis mine)

This doesn't read much like it is about how to play a game.

In this, there seems to be a lot of concern about who does "work", who gets credit, and then some stuff that looks like it is about dominance ("bows and says 'yes player'").

This reads as full of grievances that aren't really about theory or process of play, or playstyle. This reads as more about being about relationships, some of it in a transactional sense (work and credit).

I think this is part of why this all gets confusing. Some are talking pretty highfaluting about theory of play, while others seem worried about being taken advantage of or subjugated on a personal level while playing the game.

 

[tetrasodium]

With respect, it was Bloodtide's original statement. I opened with "If, as you say, the players own their PCs, and the DM everything else..."

The point I was making is that no logic or path was given to take us from the start ("Players own PCs, GM everything else") to the end (having "share" mean "anything").

And you aren't spelling it out, either, which doesn't help. This discussion feels like there's resistance to the idea that people who play a game together are sharing elements of that play with each other.

Having one kid own the sandbox, and the other own the Tonka trucks does not somehow make the meaning of "share" weirdly undefined. How we share stuff is, again, a kindergarten-level thing. Why is it a problem here?

If other discussions (which seem to center much own ownership, rather than the nature of sharing) matter so much, I remind you that sharing does not need to change ownership - it can be a temporary agreement to allow use (a social-contract license, if you will: you can use it, but don't intentionally break it, etc.). At that sandbox, when kids go in for supper, the ownership of the trucks and sandbox have not changed. They were lent out to each other for a while to use, but when Sally goes home, she can take her trucks with her and the kid with the sand then doesn't have them to use.

Perhaps the "social contract license" thing gives some people pause? Admittedly the terms of social contracts are often unstated. Well, then state what you want to be part of it in Session Zero, and make sure the others agree!

F'rex, in the sandbox, there's a level of wear and tear that may happen to a truck - scratches to the paintjob from sand and all, that is allowable, but wholloping a truck with a cinderblock is probably out....

If Sony and Marvel can work out how to share Spider-Man, you can work out how you share game stuff with your players.

I feel like I did spell it out when I talked about how backgrounds and backstory has evolved to being part of the PC by. I assumed that it was accepted that the previous state was a secondary additional thing some(or even many) players might talk on for their enjoyment while accepting that there is no mechanical weight to support it if it clashes.

The other thread was indeed about "ownership", but many of the examples in it were of players using that to veto the gm or growth of the world building.

Wrt the "resistance to the idea [of sharing]" comment I wouldn't ascribe that level of belligerence when a simple misunderstanding rooted in poorly phrased rules setting bad expectations

 

[Umbran]

Wrt the "resistance to the idea [of sharing]" comment I wouldn't ascribe that level of belligerence when a simple misunderstanding rooted in poorly phrased rules setting bad expectations

Having looked again at bloodtide's post (and this isn't intended to be personal - it is merely the clearest example) I don't think this has to do with rules. It reads like has to do with the nature of the underlying interpersonal relationships of people at the table, and the resulting levels of trust.

There is an adage in software development - a software tool will not fix a fundamentally broken process.

The analog in RPGs is probably: Rules don't establish or fix relationships - only people can do that. Rules assume and support relationships. So, successful play (for whatever definition we might have for that) relies on picking rules that fit your people and relationships.

I see a lot of game theory discussions miss this fact. In theory discussions, the game group itself is like the, "spherical cow in a vacuum," that we joke about in physics - while we allow that there's variation in gamers, when we actually get to talking about how the game operates, the group is assumed to be perfect.

At which I laugh. Like this: "Ha! Hahaha!"

 

[hawkeyefan]

@hawkeyefan once the initial content or path has been determined how much continued creative input does the player have outside of their traditional character actions?
Can they expand more?

Yes, very much so. Almost all of the "quests" or goals that the PCs have strived for have come from something the players wanted in some way. Yes, I had input at different points, but it's almost always them deciding what to do, or responding to the dice telling us.

For example, the Beast in the forest from the Ranger's background kidnapped a young child from a hunting party. This was something I decided would happen as the result of a die roll made at the start of Spring. Each season, you make a roll to see how established threats progress or not. The Beast's threat progressed, so I decided the next step was for it to steal a child. It actually had some minions do it.

They managed to recover the child before the minions could get it to the Beast. Now, in my head, I had some ideas about why the Beast may want a child... but I wasn't committed to them. One of the players, I think the one who played the Lightbearer (a sun cleric), made a Know Things roll and succeeded, so I was prompted to tell them what was special or different about this child than others. So I explained that the child had bright green eyes, called "Forest Eyes" by locals, which hints at fey blood in their family history.

The dice play a big part at times in when information is established, and how.

Also, another fundamental element of play is that the Steading Sheet lists many improvements that can be made to the town, and all the things needed to make such improvements. So at any point, if the players aren't sure what to do, or don't have any pressing matters, they can always pursue one of the improvements. So for example, the impriovement of having a herd of horses requires building a stable, which means you have to obtain X amount of lumber, and then the horses, and a trainer. So all of those elements can lead to an adventure on their own.

There's no shortage of things to do that the players can select, if they don't have something more immediate to deal with.

So, for instance PCs use a map they acquired to seek an entrance to a long last tomb but say they fail that skill challenge to progress the story
(a) The traditional response would be players would have to think of an alternative way of finding this entrance via DM decides;
(b) The modern approach would be, instead of an outright fail resulting in a No, the DM adds a cost to continue, the Say Yes, but approach; or
(c) The players provide creative input for a path forward which the DM must accept as having a reasonable chance of success by letting the dice decide.

Is (c) on the table as that continued creative player input?

EDIT: And if yes, do the players amongst themselves decide which input will be established by vote/unanimously, the table (including the DM) or just the first person to come up with an idea?

There are many ways you can handle this. There's no "story" in the sense that if the PCs don't succeed, the game just grinds to a halt. There are always other things to pursue, and as GM, it's my job to make sure that interesting things happen as a result of a failure. The results of a roll should never be "nothing happens". So if they fail to use the map to find the tomb, that means I introduce a complication of some sort. It means the situation becomes dire or more difficult. It doesn't have to mean "you don't find the tomb, game over".

 

[AnotherGuy]

They managed to recover the child before the minions could get it to the Beast. Now, in my head, I had some ideas about why the Beast may want a child... but I wasn't committed to them. One of the players, I think the one who played the Lightbearer (a sun cleric), made a Know Things roll and succeeded, so I was prompted to tell them what was special or different about this child than others. So I explained that the child had bright green eyes, called "Forest Eyes" by locals, which hints at fey blood in their family history.

Okay so that idea was created on the spot and the game is exclusively that kind of input by the DM, that continuous pressure of delivering instant content which flows as a result of the dice. And the players have a front row seat as to how the bacon is made, so to speak.
It feels quite daunting to have to go through that session after session.

I think in all my years of RPGs there has only ever been one session where I ran something completely off the fly because I had absolutely NOTHING prepared, and the players never knew. There were only 3 players that session, so it moved particularly fast with little to no combat. It was an amazing session, the players enjoyed it, but I feel I was incredibly lucky that it worked. It has been close to 2 decades since that session.

 

[tetrasodium]

Having looked again at bloodtide's post (and this isn't intended to be personal - it is merely the clearest example) I don't think this has to do with rules. It reads like has to do with the nature of the underlying interpersonal relationships of people at the table, and the resulting levels of trust.

There is an adage in software development - a software tool will not fix a fundamentally broken process.

The analog in RPGs is probably: Rules don't establish or fix relationships - only people can do that. Rules assume and support relationships. So, successful play (for whatever definition we might have for that) relies on picking rules that fit your people and relationships.

I see a lot of game theory discussions miss this fact. In theory discussions, the game group itself is like the, "spherical cow in a vacuum," that we joke about in physics - while we allow that there's variation in gamers, when we actually get to talking about how the game operates, the group is assumed to be perfect.

At which I laugh. Like this: "Ha! Hahaha!"

Fair assessment of what I didn't think was all that spherical of an overweight cow. A software tool certainly won't fix a fundamentally broken process, but not so much the other way around with what would otherwise be a smoothly functional process. A bad software tool can trivially break a process that should be too simple to break. I'll be more explicit with examples for the kinds of poorly phrased rules setting bad expectations in ways that break down under your post 157 division without the spherical cows that were only vaguely gestured at before.

While there are many less clearcut examples, I'll pick the most clear & obvious of them... Compare the TCoE139 Session zero text to the 2024phb Pg33 sidebar on the same topic. The former is presented in a way that describes one side of the GM screen with absolutely no obligations or responsibilities whatsoever while the latter presents guidance towards collaboration to the individuals presented with zero obligations & responsibilities. A similar but less starkly contrasted shift is present throughout the rest of chargen. That shift is especially prominent in areas like background/backstory that was presented as both part of the PC that belongs on the character sheet as well as a thing where there is zero expectation of preemptive collaboration. It's not hard for a player (especially newer ones who are excited to enjoy the same results as the professional actors making a for profit liveplay presentation).

Sticking with the software analogies... Under those conditions it's easy for the player owns PC GM owns everything else division you noted in 157 to breakdown with a segfault type mess when the player has been mislead to believe that collaboration is one way because the GM needs to open the world for PCs to interact with or there can't be a game & the player incorrectly assumes that everything made unilaterally in isolation on their character sheet☆ is something exclusively owned by them as a player.

☆ or things N steps removed from a vague reference like the specific creature & its unstated motives in that PC killed a monster/beast backstory example someone made earlier in the thread.

 

[pemerton]

It feels quite daunting to have to go through that session after session.

One way to think of it - in my view, at least - is this:

When you play a RPG, you keep having to think of things to have your PC do. That's not daunting, though - it's the fun of playing the game.

And so for the GM it's the same.

I don't know Stonetop in any detail, but is suspect that - like Apocalypse World or Dungeon World - it has ways of supporting the GM in that respect (in the same way, for instance, that a PC sheet might support a player).

 

[Hussar]

This has probably been covered, as I've only read the first page or so of this thread, but, wanted to get this down while I was thinking about it.

You, the DM, are ABSOLUTELY the director. You can't not be the director. ALL information about the world passes through you. You are the source of motivation and actionable information for the players. Everything you say and don't say to the players will influence every action they take.

It's impossible not to be the director in an RPG..

Note, obviously in less Trad style games, that shifts further and further onto the players, sure, but, even then, each player is still being the director. They are the source of the actionable information and how they present that information will have a huge impact on how the table reacts. There's no way to avoid being a director.

And frankly, any DM who tries to avoid being a director is doing a disservice to the players.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Okay so that idea was created on the spot and the game is exclusively that kind of input by the DM, that continuous pressure of delivering instant content which flows as a result of the dice. And the players have a front row seat as to how the bacon is made, so to speak.
It feels quite daunting to have to go through that session after session.

Honestly, the idea of it is more daunting than the reality. Especially the more you do it… you get more comfortable with it, and so do the players.

I think in all my years of RPGs there has only ever been one session where I ran something completely off the fly because I had absolutely NOTHING prepared, and the players never knew. There were only 3 players that session, so it moved particularly fast with little to no combat. It was an amazing session, the players enjoyed it, but I feel I was incredibly lucky that it worked. It has been close to 2 decades since that session.

Two things on this.

First, the way the game’s played isn’t hidden from the players. They’re aware and actively involved. One of the principles of play in Stonetop (which as @pemerton cited, is derived from Apocalyose World via Dungeon World) is “ask questions and build on the answers”. So throughout play, I’m constantly asking the players for input, and then using that input.

Second, in between sessions, I still give a lot of thought to play. I think about what I think would be an interesting idea. I think about the characters Instincts and goals. I may even do a little prep… I keep track of active threats and their progress. If I know what the next session will involve, I may jot down some thoughts or NPCs or similar ideas. But I don’t treat any of these ideas as being set in stone. Nothing’s set until it’s introduced in play. Until then, I hold onto my ideas loosely, so I can change them if some better idea presents itself.

It’s a shift in how things are done, but overall it’s not any easier or harder than the traditional method. I fond it challenging at times, but also rewarding. And given how involved the players are, it’s just a very fun and engaging way to play for the whole group, so it’s totally worth it.

 

[bloodtide]

This, to me, is very telling. Because based on your respective posting histories, I would guess that @hawkeyefan's Stonetop game is as serious, if not more serious - in theme, in tone, in the way play unfolds and the way participants engage with the fiction and the play about that fiction - than your D&D play.

I say random and casual and you make the huge jump to the random words: "not serious". So, how? Do you really equate random = not serious and/or casual? It's like you read the text and jump to what you think I sorta kinda meant to your point of view. Why? How? Lets just assume I'm not some type of amazing wordsmith typing to say eleven different things with each typed word. Maybe just go with what is typed.

Part of what leads me to make that conjecture is that you don't seem able to envisage players playing seriously. Without more, that would probably be enough for me to infer that your RPGing is not all that serious.

I'm a very serious gamer.

I think this is part of why this all gets confusing. Some are talking pretty highfaluting about theory of play, while others seem worried about being taken advantage of or subjugated on a personal level while playing the game.

I'm not one for all the theories. I'm about reality.


I think it's lot about the game play........

I see the talk of the DM doing very little or nothing and asking the players to continuously tell the DM what to do in the game play. This saves the DM from a lot of work, as the players will come up with all the ideas. And it has the feeling that if you give the players exactly what they tell you to give them, then the players will like the game more and have fun. The main idea seems to be to make sure the DM can never be a "tyrant" and put their badwrongfun ideas in the game: everything must be player lead. The players are Batman (batmen) and the DM is Alfred. Or the players are the Avengers and the DM is Jarvis(the human butler, not the AI).

As presented though.....this means you can only have a simple game play. Players just say simple and direct things like "goblins over there with a chest of gold" most of the time. And the DM nods and says "yes player". Then the character go over there and find goblins with a chest of gold. And this is hours of game play.

It would seem to be rare to the extreme for a player to say "uuuummmmm, I want six noble houses all competing to reassemble the six fragments of a lost artifact for some mysterious reason". And even if a player did, this is impossible to create in a second. For this the DM will likely need several hours to create all of this and even more hours to make it a complex adventure. But....of course....if the DM does this they will be creating it all from THEIR ideas. The player input was just that one line. But anything the DM makes up is badwrongfun....

And this would be a mess to just improv on the fly. You can't just 'improv' six random noble family names any time a player asks 'what are the six noble family names'. You have to write them down and keep track of them. Same with family member NPCs. You can't just have random names every round. And the same goes for an adventure log: you need to keep track of what happened. So, you have to have a lot of details, and more each hour of play.

And to have a complex game, you need to have a web of connections between all the pieces of information. That is what makes it complex. But to have that complexity, you have to have written down saved details, notes and content. All made by the DM alone, with sure some vague input from the players. This is not possible in a player lead game where each moment a player is just saying "DM make this for me" and the DM does without question.