Be a GAME-MASTER, not a DIRECTOR

[MGibster]

Yeah, I more or less agree with this. Having too much invested in the story coming out the way you want it is honing to make a rod for your own back.

As a GM, I'm interested in resolving the story in a satisfactory way but I can't reasonably expect the player characters to do it exactly how I might have thought it would be done. Sometimes players surprise me, mostly in a pleasant fashion but sometimes in a not so pleasant fashion. I'm usually happy just so long as it seems as though the players are invested in the game.

I was running a Trail of Cthulhu game, and the PCs came across a group of Shan, alien bugs that fly into people's heads and control their minds. The PCs figured out the Shan were just trying to leave the planet, and instead of confronting them the PCs just made a deal with them instead. i.e. The PCs sold out the humans to an alien threat because they were more concerned with another threat and didn't want any trouble with the Shan. And because the Shan just wanted to be left alone so they could work on escaping Earth, they were more than happy to cut a deal with the PCs. POOF! There went about a quarter of the campaign I had planned out. I didn't expect things to pan out that way, but they were able to get what they wanted from the Shan without a fight. I wasn't the least bit upset at the players for doing this. I probably should have given them a good Sanity loss for selling out humanity though. I didn't think about it at the time because I was so shocked at their actions.

While I do my best not to be a director, I do sometimes get frustrated when players seemingly go out of their way not to engage the adventure. I ran an Angel (of Buffy fame) campaign years ago, and I had a player who really loved dragons so I included one in the campaign. We spent sessions building up the character's relationship with Sir Kay (of Arthurian fame) with plenty of foreshadowing of a dragon to come. When the big day came and the dragon appeared, the PC pretty much said, "Nah, not interested," and went to go do something else instead. Kind of pissed me off a bit.

 

[Piperken]

I feel this video's framing of process undermines the better points raised in it: published books (i.e. w/ an independent or small press), scripts, plays, theatrical productions, limited television series, full season television series and movies don't involve the input and contribution of several, if not hundreds of people?

It's one thing to cite a Kubrick or Scorsese who're notoriously known to be dictatorial in regards to their vision, but even they couldn't deny that what ends up on the screen involves the contribution and effort of many people besides just them, yes under time pressure. It is of itself, a collaboration.

---

Who does your table consist of?
(For either side of the table.)

What kind of game are you running?
(For the player: What kind of game do you want to play?)

Having some idea of the answers to these two questions helped me navigate most of the concerns mentioned.

And, remain open to the fact that those answers can change through the course of game play.

---

Instead of being a game-master, why not, be a game... facilitator.

Words matter.

 

[Aldarc]

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.

Black Lodge Game also tends to view TTRPGs solely through the lens of "simulationism." This is to say, there have been statements I have heard in their videos to the effect that TTRPGs are meant to be simulations, which is an incredibly limited and false perspective about TTRPGs. That has made me skeptical of the value of their philosophic input about TTRPGs in other matters, and this video only strengthens that skepticism for many of the reasons you mention.

 

[clearstream]

Black Lodge Game also tends to view TTRPGs solely through the lens of "simulationism." This is to say, there have been statements I have heard in their videos to the effect that TTRPGs are meant to be simulations, which is an incredibly limited and false perspective about TTRPGs. That has made me skeptical of the value of their philosophic input about TTRPGs in other matters, and this video only strengthens that skepticism for many of the reasons you mention.

Do they offer any concrete definition of "simulationism"? I ask because some have opined that simulation is just an aspect of TTRPG... something equivalent to immersion in world and in that sense fundamental to pretending to be another self i.e. roleplaying. I've seen immersion cited more than once as one of the basic attitudes of play (particularly structured play). One could say that if one has any interest at all in exploring what it is like to be another self - particularly another self in another world - then that is simulation.

And on the other hand, there are more distinct ideas of what simulationism is under which any claim that all TTRPGs are simulations would be obviously wrong. On surface it seems reasonable to disambiguate immersion from simulation... but then there are occasional claims to some of the features one might associate with the latter when describing modes of play not intended to be identified as simulationist. I'm not advancing any theory here, just expanding on my question.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

Do they offer any concrete definition of "simulationism"? I ask because some have opined that simulation is just an aspect of TTRPG... something equivalent to immersion in world and in that sense fundamental to pretending to be another self i.e. roleplaying. I've seen immersion cited more than once as one of the basic attitudes of play (particularly structured play). One could say that if one has any interest at all in exploring what it is like to be another self - particularly another self in another world - then that is simulation.

And on the other hand, there are more distinct ideas of what simulationism is under which any claim that all TTRPGs are simulations would be obviously wrong. On surface it seems reasonable to disambiguate immersion from simulation... but then there are occasional claims to some of the features one might associate with the latter when describing modes of play not intended to be identified as simulationist. I'm not advancing any theory here, just expanding on my question.

I think there is a strong difference between immersion and simulation. I find I like games which lean towards narrative and/or gamist styles of play, and my experience is that games aimed at simulation pull me out of immersion because they regular require me to think about how the rules work for specific cases. For me, immersion is where you spend most of your time thinking as you would expect your character would think. People who like simulation spend the time and energy to internalize the rules that embody the simulation, and then achieve immersion by being able to think in the way the simulated world works. For me, the exact same is true for a gamist style game. I internalize the rules that embody the situation and so stay immersed. Immersion is really more about how easy it is to internalize rules. It doesn’t matter if they are rules intended to simulate reality, or rules meant simply to be fun.

So, for me, D&D 4E is easier to play immersively than 3.5, because the rules are more consistent and so easier to keep “at the back of my mind”. I might think “this monster is kicking our front-line fighters butts; maybe I should kick in my daily stun on it, but I’m pretty sure there’s something nastier deeper in the crypt”. The non-simulational AEDU gamist rules become part of the internal thought process. In contrast, because 3.5, like many simulationist systems, have a ton of special case rules, I often find myself considering how the rules work rather than being immersed.

Narrative games are a little bit different. When I play FATE, for example (not the most pure of narrative games, but good for this discussion),the simplicity and the aspect-based focus make immersion very easy. I almost never think about the rules, being able to think in character all the time. For narrative games, the most common way I get pulled out of thinking in character is when we need to establish a common understanding of the narrative.

In a simulationist game, it’s rare not to understand what a wall is about. The GM describes its height and your internalization of the rules mean you understand the target number you need to roll on your d20. For a gamist game, even easier, as the GM directly tells you the target number so even less need to internalize. For a narrative game, most of the time the wall is simply a scene element, which you or the GM could bring into play to do something walls do. But sometimes there’s an assumption clash and the GM needs to tell you that the wall is an obstacle needing overcoming rather than just being background.

Immersion, for me, is about thinking in character. It doesn’t need to be “thinking in character in simulationist terms”. In a gamist or narrative system, I am happy thinking in character in gamist or narrative terms.

 

[clearstream]

I think there is a strong difference between immersion and simulation. I find I like games which lean towards narrative and/or gamist styles of play, and my experience is that games aimed at simulation pull me out of immersion because they regular require me to think about how the rules work for specific cases. For me, immersion is where you spend most of your time thinking as you would expect your character would think. People who like simulation spend the time and energy to internalize the rules that embody the simulation, and then achieve immersion by being able to think in the way the simulated world works. For me, the exact same is true for a gamist style game. I internalize the rules that embody the situation and so stay immersed. Immersion is really more about how easy it is to internalize rules. It doesn’t matter if they are rules intended to simulate reality, or rules meant simply to be fun.

So, for me, D&D 4E is easier to play immersively than 3.5, because the rules are more consistent and so easier to keep “at the back of my mind”. I might think “this monster is kicking our front-line fighters butts; maybe I should kick in my daily stun on it, but I’m pretty sure there’s something nastier deeper in the crypt”. The non-simulational AEDU gamist rules become part of the internal thought process. In contrast, because 3.5, like many simulationist systems, have a ton of special case rules, I often find myself considering how the rules work rather than being immersed.

Narrative games are a little bit different. When I play FATE, for example (not the most pure of narrative games, but good for this discussion),the simplicity and the aspect-based focus make immersion very easy. I almost never think about the rules, being able to think in character all the time. For narrative games, the most common way I get pulled out of thinking in character is when we need to establish a common understanding of the narrative.

In a simulationist game, it’s rare not to understand what a wall is about. The GM describes its height and your internalization of the rules mean you understand the target number you need to roll on your d20. For a gamist game, even easier, as the GM directly tells you the target number so even less need to internalize. For a narrative game, most of the time the wall is simply a scene element, which you or the GM could bring into play to do something walls do. But sometimes there’s an assumption clash and the GM needs to tell you that the wall is an obstacle needing overcoming rather than just being background.

Immersion, for me, is about thinking in character. It doesn’t need to be “thinking in character in simulationist terms”. In a gamist or narrative system, I am happy thinking in character in gamist or narrative terms.

Your perceptions here remind me of the similar thinking around what has been labelled FKR, freeform, or ultralite RPG. That the effort of internalizing rules forms a barrier to immersion, and thus it is more immersive to have few or no rules. One question that raises is whether it would or would not be possible to play in an FKR mode with simulationist intent? And if not, what those Prussian generals (after Verdy) thought they were doing?

I wouldn't want to define simulationist as a preference for rules that are hard to internalize. Similarly, it doesn't seem right to count consistency into any difference along a simulationist axis between 4e and 3.5e, seeing as consistency is often cited as essential to simulationism. Setting aside therefore a number of unexamined assumptions about game design techniques, is it right to understand you as defining them as follows

"immersion is where you spend most of your time thinking as you would expect your character would think"​

​

simulationism is where you "think in the way the simulated world works"​

​

If that is right, you describe something quite interesting

“this monster is kicking our front-line fighters butts; maybe I should kick in my daily stun on it, but I’m pretty sure there’s something nastier deeper in the crypt”​

Isn't knowing there's something nastier deeper in the crypt thinking in the way the simulated world works? That is, it's the sort of world where nastier things lurk deeper in crypts. What I'm getting at is that it's not at all clear how one really thinks as you would expect your character to think in isolation from knowing the way the simulated world works.

One earlier conclusion I came to about the above is that perhaps your post should be read as defining immersion more in terms of player experience and simulationism more in terms of game design techniques. Making them ontologically distinct. That then begged the question, what would defining them on an equal footing look like, i.e. defining simulationism in terms of player experience?

Alternatively, you define immersion as a fundamental objective or faculty, with differing overlaid experience preferences some of which involve extra steps (that you explain as impediments to immersion). What isn't explained is why those extra steps are necessary, which I think comes down to focusing on artifacts that have been associated with them in the past, rather than the experience preferences themselves. In any case, immersion is in this case differentiated hierarchically from simulationism... which seems plausible so long as we're thinking about some form of "strong-simulationism" i.e. a palpable preference rather than simply knowing (or even I think curiousity about) how the world works. (One might see there how "weak-simulationism" could seem like part of immersion.)

 

[clearstream]

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.

I liked your thought here, and have been mulling it for my own campaign. I came up with a definition of roleplaying game directing that is a little different from yours that I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on.

Directing a roleplaying game means seeing that the tempo and skein of play prompts and responds to what you establish and do, focusing on the right facts and scenes, to overall ensure play moves forward in directions players are interested in​

Tempo is a game concept, essentially meaning the relative flow of actions over other change and resources. The "skein" I am referring to are the threads of play... the things going on that join and part and rejoin in different ways. These game facts ought to both prompt character players and respond to them.

I observe GMs to have an important job in focusing on the "right facts and scenes" which connects with your points around good presentation that makes sense. Overall, GM ensures the play moves forward... in directions players care about. I've witnessed some GM's seeming to lack an acute sense of focus or being too passive, letting play languish.

I appreciate what you mean about "as good a presentation of the story (that the group is writing) as possible) and your references to Laws' work, and wanted to air some ideas about the how. So for instance suggesting that an aspect of good presentation is accurate focus and a handle on tempo. I look forward to your thoughts as time permits.

 

[Scott Christian]

It's odd they instantly gravitate towards DM prep and the burnout it causes. My favorite tables as a player were ones the DMs put a lot of work into. My least favorites, the ones where they did a lot of improv.

Burnout is only a thing if you don't enjoy doing it. People who like being a DM often like doing all the prep. I mean, the same can be said for players: Are you tired of having to read the entire PHB just to create a character? Are you tired and burned out from having to memorize all the rules? And casters, how exhausting is it to have to know all your spells and what they do? There has to be an easier way.

The answer is, there is an easier way. Show up as a player, choose not to learn the rules or your character, and just tell the other players and DM you envision being a dragon type creature who sneaks around and also knows magic. They can make it for you, explain all the powers, and then re-explain all the powers several dozen times. (They'll need to because you have no context for it to stick to, a la, lack of knowing the rules.)

These are legitimate players, just as there are legitimate DMs that don't do any prep. The choice is always - which ones do you feel better match you and the other people at your table?

 

[Gorgon Zee]

I liked your thought here, and have been mulling it for my own campaign. I came up with a definition of roleplaying game directing that is a little different from yours that I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on.

Directing a roleplaying game means seeing that the tempo and skein of play prompts and responds to what you establish and do, focusing on the right facts and scenes, to overall ensure play moves forward in directions players are interested in​

Tempo is a game concept, essentially meaning the relative flow of actions over other change and resources. The "skein" I am referring to are the threads of play... the things going on that join and part and rejoin in different ways. These game facts ought to both prompt character players and respond to them.

I observe GMs to have an important job in focusing on the "right facts and scenes" which connects with your points around good presentation that makes sense. Overall, GM ensures the play moves forward... in directions players care about. I've witnessed some GM's seeming to lack an acute sense of focus or being too passive, letting play languish.

I appreciate what you mean about "as good a presentation of the story (that the group is writing) as possible) and your references to Laws' work, and wanted to air some ideas about the how. So for instance suggesting that an aspect of good presentation is accurate focus and a handle on tempo. I look forward to your thoughts as time permits.

Honestly, my major comment is that I agree with you. Your statement “GM ensures the play moves forward in directions players care about.” is a great summary. It implies, I believe correctly, that the GM is not setting a direction all by themselves, but is emphasizing and pruning directions the players are interested in.

And I absolutely agree about tempo. I often run investigations and so tempo for me is critical. Very easy to be boring on one hand, or have the investigation made meaningless by an action scene on the other hand.

 

[tetrasodium]

It's odd they instantly gravitate towards DM prep and the burnout it causes. My favorite tables as a player were ones the DMs put a lot of work into. My least favorites, the ones where they did a lot of improv.

Burnout is only a thing if you don't enjoy doing it. People who like being a DM often like doing all the prep. I mean, the same can be said for players: Are you tired of having to read the entire PHB just to create a character? Are you tired and burned out from having to memorize all the rules? And casters, how exhausting is it to have to know all your spells and what they do? There has to be an easier way.

The answer is, there is an easier way. Show up as a player, choose not to learn the rules or your character, and just tell the other players and DM you envision being a dragon type creature who sneaks around and also knows magic. They can make it for you, explain all the powers, and then re-explain all the powers several dozen times. (They'll need to because you have no context for it to stick to, a la, lack of knowing the rules.)

These are legitimate players, just as there are legitimate DMs that don't do any prep. The choice is always - which ones do you feel better match you and the other people at your table?

Wow, that's a pretty toxic player mindset you are calling "legitimate" there. I thought about quoting a couple particularly apt lines from smells like teen spirit summarizing that bolded bit, but it was just too reductive for how awful that player you describe is to their table. You seem to have taken comments about overprepping to meet unrealistic expectations placed on GM's then used them to justify a level of disinterest from players that shows complete disdain for their fellow players