Be a GAME-MASTER, not a DIRECTOR

[BookTenTiger]

This is really cribbing from my series of lectures on:

Being a Dungeon MASTER, not a...

GARDENER: the players are not plants! Resist watering them and exposing them to direct sunlight.

DENTIST: despite your knowledge of trap designs and dungeon layouts, you are not qualified to extract an impacted molar at the table!

ACCOUNTANT: try to stay focused on the random treasure tables, not actuary tables!

BUTCHER: don't even think about it.

 

[Meech17]

Disappointing that this video starts by misrepresenting another DM’s good advice about GM burnout, and advertising itself with a promotional image mocking another DM. I don’t share MM’s style but it’s not nice to see this. The guy couldn’t make his point any other way?

There is a fundamental misunderstanding in the video that writing is recording what is going to happen, that a writer can only be a novelist. In truth writing is any time you put a pen to paper to fix an idea about the game. Coming up with a description of the the local forest - that’s writing. Determining the goals of the local bandit leader - that’s writing. Deciding there is a local bandit leader - also writing. Deciding the 10 options on your random encounter table - still writing. It can take a lot of time and while some DMs are able to convincingly wing it without determining these things in advance, many others are pretty transparent or really struggle to do it meaningfully. So writing some notes first helps massively and mocking DMs for preparing is a pretty snide blow.

At no point in MM’s intro clip did he say determine what the PCs were going to do. He just used the phrase tangle in a narrative thread. While sometimes these tangles are good, I’ve also seen a game bog down because one player decides to just hare off in a random direction following some scheme while the rest of the players are left twiddling their thumbs because they’re interested in the main thread. MM in all fairness does not tell his players what to do. He presents convincing scenarios for them that propel the action and create an interesting story.

Don’t force your players to do things they don’t want to. That’s good advice. I feel it could have been said plainer, and without being a douche.

Yeah, I really don't like these guys. They did a video a while back complaining about the MCDM Rpg and mentioning that is was a grift and would never amount to anything, all the while mocking James Introcaso's appearance.

While I don't necessarily disagree with some of the points made here.. Namely that the DM's job isn't to write the whole story ahead of time, and that a lot of burn out can probably be attributed to over-prep done in this area.. And the idea that the simple act of giving your NPCs goals, and desires can help make the world feel more alive... I can't take any of their content seriously because they've already tarnished their reputation in my mind.

 

[TheSword]

It’s just such a strange thing to seem to accuse Matt Mercer of? Don’t be a director like him. But nothing I’ve seen has ever suggested that he forces players to do stuff. On the contrary the players seem to be pretty much the heart of the things. Seems to be really misplaced antagonism.

 

[TiQuinn]

This is pretty much SlyFlourish territory, IMO. The prep work doesn’t have to be all consuming and there’s usually only a few things ahead of any given session that you really need to concern yourself with. Different games also have different styles. The thing is I don’t think at any point did I feel like I was ever being a director or even a novelist, yet there was still the basic framework of a story in most campaigns; it was simply an evolving story. Saying that you are presenting a story doesn’t constrain a DM to putting the players on rails or trying to meticulously direct the players like they’re actors.

 

[Meech17]

It’s just such a strange thing to seem to accuse Matt Mercer of? Don’t be a director like him. But nothing I’ve seen has ever suggested that he forces players to do stuff. On the contrary the players seem to be pretty much the heart of the things. Seems to be really misplaced antagonism.

I think we've got a disconnect in the RPG space. Much like pornography can give people unrealistic expectations of actual sex, Actual Play podcasts can give gamers unrealistic expectations of RPGs.

We see these amazing stories unfold in Critical Role, or The Adventure Zone or whatever, and say "I want to have my game also play out with a really great story."

The problem is that our tables aren't made up of voice actors, and regular actors, and people who make fun, interesting, humorous, or otherwise compelling content for a living. Our tables are made up of normal people. People who just want to have fun, and goof off with their friends to unwind after a long week.

So because our players aren't dedicated 'Yes-Anders' motivated to make the game interesting for outside listeners, the average DM may find themselves thinking "I must not be giving them enough material to work off of!" and can lead to them trying to plot out all of these interesting story beats and what not to force these kinds of narratives.

I think the problem here is that some reactionaries turn and place the blame on the folks like Mercer. "People think they have to do all this extra work, and direct their players like it's a movie, because they want their games to be more like CR! So obviously this is all Mercer's fault, and obviously he does all things which is what encourages normies to try and do it as well!"

In reality Mercer just has a very unique table, with very unique circumstances. I'd be willing to bet that if one of us normie DMs got to run a one-shot for the Critical Role team, it would be a really wild, interesting, and cinematic experience, even though we're not Mercer. I'm not saying that Mercer doesn't contribute, but he's not directing his players to perform this way. They make the game a wild and cinematic experience because that's what they want to do.

Also, I want to note.. I'm not trying to blame normal players in this situation. I don't think we should expect our players to be like the cast of CR, just like I hope they wouldn't expect us to be like Mercer. It's just that CR =/= Regular D&D.

 

[tetrasodium]

I think we've got a disconnect in the RPG space. Much like pornography can give people unrealistic expectations of actual sex, Actual Play podcasts can give gamers unrealistic expectations of RPGs.

We see these amazing stories unfold in Critical Role, or The Adventure Zone or whatever, and say "I want to have my game also play out with a really great story."

The problem is that our tables aren't made up of voice actors, and regular actors, and people who make fun, interesting, humorous, or otherwise compelling content for a living. Our tables are made up of normal people. People who just want to have fun, and goof off with their friends to unwind after a long week.

So because our players aren't dedicated 'Yes-Anders' motivated to make the game interesting for outside listeners, the average DM may find themselves thinking "I must not be giving them enough material to work off of!" and can lead to them trying to plot out all of these interesting story beats and what not to force these kinds of narratives.

I think the problem here is that some reactionaries turn and place the blame on the folks like Mercer. "People think they have to do all this extra work, and direct their players like it's a movie, because they want their games to be more like CR! So obviously this is all Mercer's fault, and obviously he does all things which is what encourages normies to try and do it as well!"

In reality Mercer just has a very unique table, with very unique circumstances. I'd be willing to bet that if one of us normie DMs got to run a one-shot for the Critical Role team, it would be a really wild, interesting, and cinematic experience, even though we're not Mercer. I'm not saying that Mercer doesn't contribute, but he's not directing his players to perform this way. They make the game a wild and cinematic experience because that's what they want to do.

Also, I want to note.. I'm not trying to blame normal players in this situation. I don't think we should expect our players to be like the cast of CR, just like I hope they wouldn't expect us to be like Mercer. It's just that CR =/= Regular D&D.

I think that bold bit extends beyond the gm screen and somewhat inverts though. A sizable chunk of folks who join my tables with 5e as their first system after watching CR as the vast majority of their non-finalfantasy RPG experience come to the table expecting the magic to just work simply because everyone showed up. When it inevitably fails to meet the bar they fantasized about they jump to laying the blame on their gm not providing enough story beats/plot/depth/etc and being too inflexible without ever considering things like "could I as a player have done more or done things differently".

 

[bloodtide]

I disagree with this video. But sure the GM does not direct the players what to say and do.

The idea that the 'dice' decide things is not most RPGs. Few DM sit there and roll dice for everything like some AI DM bot does.

The idea that the DM must sit there and let the players make the world is just odd. Sure some players like to co-dm and just make the world and then play in their custom made world.

But I sure find a lot of players that don't want to do that. They will just sit there unless the DM does anything.

 

[clearstream]

While I understand and agree with what you mean about GMs who shouldn’t make it about their own story, it is not the director’s task or responsibility to create the story either. It never was. Authors make the story, directors bring it to the screen or to the stage. A GM absolutely is a director, but it is not a playwright or writer. There are author movies where the director also happens to be the writer but even in these cases, the same person is still wearing two distinct hats.

I agree with the general sense of what you are saying, albeit wanted to observe that GM may often have a part in authoring through play. For example, when they are invited to contribute fiction by a player's appeal to an investigation move (there are many shades of these) or turned to by players to move things forward. In many modes of play, GM authors the motives and actions of adversaries.

In a RPG, the GM doesn’t create the outcome; the players take decisions and the dice decide of the outcome. The GM then puts it all in context, just like the director does not write the play or the movie script, or decides on what happens when. Director put this action and script into scenes visible for the public, which in this analogy, is exactly what the game master does.

I notice you using there the word "outcome": I feel it's right to say that players decide the outcome. One could even interpret the die roll as a binary or trinary of outcomes player has opted into at the rates offered. Of all the ways one might define player, a participant in a game whose choices determine its outcome(s) must surely be a facet. GM is a factor in the outcome, such as by how they choose to escalate a scene when the dice call for it. I would say however that one test for whether a GM contribution is judicious is whether it would determine the outcome; rather than say putting a cost on some outcomes, or offering opportunities to derail into other or as-yet-unknown outcomes.

If the above is right, one could identify GM as often a co-author but seldom (in the ideal, never?) a "player" of an RPG, where players are those participants who's choices determine the outcomes. This wouldn't close the door to GM having other functions such as the scene-framing you touch upon (although I'm not certain that scene-framing couldn't just be considered a form of co-authorship, with in mind that authors may have differentiated responsibilities) or judicial.

 

[HaroldTheHobbit]

Nowadays my campaigns is pretty sandboxy and I probably agree with the message.

But I'm not gonna waste another 15 minutes on another opinion in video format that could have been written down and read in a minute or less. Or at least give us a TLDW option so we don't have to live through all the redundant yapping. I'm old and starting to live in a constant get-off-my-lawn irritation, verging on very angry. Why do I have to sit through 15-30 minutes of talking heads on video to get someone's opinion or advice that could have been communicated effectively in a short written text?

I get that these people make money of streaming. And get that young peoples ability to focus on and understand written text longer that 256 letters is decaying like soft ice cream on a sunny beach. But pretty please with sugar on top, at least learn to condense what you want to say to the camera.

There, I'm done ranting, back to the subject.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

I feel a bit sorry for black lodge games. If this video is based on their experience then they really seem to have a very limited view of what either a GM or a director does.

I’ve been both for 30 years, and so many of the statements he makes are not at all close to my experience. A selection:

• A director is a job - nope, no more than being a GM is. I’ve never been paid for the 30+ shows I’ve directed. It’s a hobby and it’s fun
• A Director’s job is to create a story - so far from the truth that it’s clear these guys have only ever seen documentaries and never actually directed themselves. The author creates the bulk of the story; the actors create the nuances of the characters. The director is responsible for the presentation of the output and ensuring that the audience understands and enjoys it.

For a roleplaying game, there are typically a set of original authors of the system, the world and often the campaign. For roleplaying, much like improv acting, the players also have a strong authorial role. The game master may write some, much, or very little, but in any at least mildly normal game, there are many authors.

I would argue that the director’s core responsibility of making the presentation of the story as best as it can be to the audience (typically the players) is EXACTLY what a good GM does. In the video we see that called out by one of the most controlling directors of all time — a desire not to write a perfect story, but to present the story perfectly.

To me, this directorial aspect of the GM is the most important part of their role — ensuring that the players get as good a presentation of the story (that the group is writing) as possible. This means being on top of the rules, so explanations and details are mechanically correct. It means good extras (NPCs), descriptions and atmospheres. It means ensuring everyone can contribute; it means making sure pacing is right (see Hamlet’s Hit Points by Robin Laws) — so much of what a GM should do is exactly analagous to what a director does.

Before making this video, it would have been good if the writers had actually seen or tried good directing. Unless they are being deliberately untruthful, it seems like they haven’t had that experience, and if you want so say “X is (or is not) like Y” you really need to have good knowledge of both X and Y