Dismantling the Game Master

This is true, but I think it's worth mentioning that a lack of interest in sharing GM responsibilities can be for reasons other than seeking passive entertainment -- one of the big ones being a desire to explore a world from the perspective of an inhabitant of that world, with no powers of authorship and only limited access to information beyond the character's.
This is definitely true. I forget it sometimes because I am not particularly interested in immersion or inhabiting a character. It is good to be reminded, though, that for some gamers this is really important.
Speaking for myself, I GM because I enjoy the tasks traditionally associated with the GM's role, and I have no desire to outsource them.
Me too. I love GMing and while I also want my players to contribute to the improv chaos that is gaming, I am also okay taking the lion's share of that if the players happen to be more passive/receptive.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Game masters are players of RPGs*, yet their experiences are often significantly different from that of player-characters. The traditional GM supplies the setting and outcomes, while the PCs provide the (hopefully) best intentions of the main characters. Some game designers have found that no one or everyone should GM, removing the official GM-role from their games.
I've come a ways from traditional ideology on GMing to thinking about it more as collaborative. I'll ask players to narrate their characters and scenes up to a point, but I ultimately keep hold of the setting. Maybe thats neotrad?
What if the traditional GM's role were partially relegated to the PCs, making the GM's job easier and possibly more attractive to new GMs? Are PCs less likely to play a game that gives them a hand in GMing? Are there any games that already do this to one degree or another?

Off the top of my head, I can see PCs tracking combat turns, recording damage and/or conditions, doing rule look-ups, rolling dice for NPCs, or even playing enemy minions in combat. What would you do to lighten the GM's load?
VTT takes care of all that now. Back in the day, my players were all terrible at it. Couldnt concentrate, couldnt keep time, couldnt remember the rules. The only way games stayed on pace and didnt derail horribly is if I took a very firm hold of the reins. Maybe I never had the proactive types?
* You might say that GMs are the competition of PCs that qualifies RPGs as Games.
I dont see "game master" as the opposition, I see them like a master of ceremonies. They kick things off, they read the room, they know the bill, etc.. A good GM keeps thing flowing and the good times going. It doesnt have to firmly be in their sole power to do so, but things in my experience go better if they do. Shared or no GM games are certainly possible, but they take a little getting used to. For many, its very awkward. Is that tradition or routine, maybe both? Probably easier for newbs to start with no GM games then it is to convert or adapt to them. YMMV.
 

On the topic of sharing some of the GM load, we often have a rules / logistics buddy for games where there is a chunk of this. For example, when we play Savage Worlds a second person will often collect in cards after a player has had their turn, and shuffle the deck for the GM after a joker has been drawn.

Savage Worlds has an interesting rule, as well. The assumption is that the players will run any NPC allies in combat rather than the GM running both NPC allies and opposition. That can be great fun and make really big skirmishes possible.
 

Off the top of my head, I can see PCs tracking combat turns, recording damage and/or conditions, doing rule look-ups, rolling dice for NPCs, or even playing enemy minions in combat. What would you do to lighten the GM's load?
I've spent a lot of my gaming time in groups where everyone is experienced and most are skilled GMs. In those, everyone tracks their own damage and related matters, everyone jointly tracks the combat turns, and rule lookups are done by whoever isn't busy at the moment. As a GM, I'll occasionally ask players whose characters aren't present in the scene to run NPCs or enemy combatants.

In the historically informed games I like best, players can do a lot of the research and background reading, at least as a supplement to the GM. I have on occasion outlined scenarios for the GM and then played in them, and that worked just fine.
 

I have no problem passing things off to the players. One used to track initiative until I made a pole with clothespins with names on them. Now everyone knows when their turn is coming up. I have players roll damage to their PC from monsters and roll the save of the monster from their spells. I always found people like rolling more dice then less.

I have been giving them more worldbuilding. The group has a home base now and reached 9th level. I told the fighter's layer that 2d6+2 men-at-arms showed up to follow him. They are 1st level with one leading them at 3rd level. Then I let him go with it. I ask them what they are planning to do next or where they want to go, but my players are fine with where the module is going or what I have planned, even if I tell them I plan based on what you want to do.

There is some worldbuilding I flop back and forth on. The player asks what the name of the serving girl is. Part of me is thinking that she is a minor NPC who does not matter so I may ask the player what her name is. Other times I recall reading somewhere that players are amazed if I say, Hold up a second, and rustle papers until I can think of a name for the girl. Then I say, Oh, here it is- her name is Millie. Apparently, players think that one has put more time into the game and the world feels more alive. Or, now the players think that she is the secret bad guy since she has a name 'written down'.
 

I work my players like dogs. :giggle:
I use 3d printed things hung on my screen to track initiative. It's a clear visual that everyone can see. Be ready when it's your turn or we will skip you.
I don't track anything for anyone because players will call each other out "why do you have so many X?" or "that's not how that works".
I make them all look up whatever rule it is they want to argue with me about. If a player wants to do a thing, they need to know how the thing works and present the rules on demand.
I track monsters and NPC's and the world in general. I make the schedule. I write the stories and math out the combat. I make sure everyone is fed and has dice and pencils.
The players track what is important to them or i make things up to keep things rolling.

I know it sounds harsh and confrontational, but it works for us. And in the event that anyone else ever wants to DM (i'm not holding my breath), they are free to use me as their whipping boy as they need to,
 


I think it is strange that people would do ANY of the PC work for players. That is their job, not mine.
For me... it's because I'm more interested in bringing in interested players to the world of Dungeons & Dragons and having them enjoy their time with the game than I am worrying about how much work I am doing.

Being a DM is work. We all know it. We all accept it. But for me... I just don't ever calculate how much work. That doesn't matter to me. If I accept the role of DM for a particular game, then I accept I'm going to do the work-- and at that point my actual concern becomes making sure all my players (old and new) are as comfortable as can be and have as much fun as I possibly can provide for them. If that means "doing their work" for some of them? That's fine. I'll do it happily. I would much rather put in the work to provide a clean and updated character sheet for a player that has just leveled up (for example), than not do that and expect them to try and update their own sheet-- probably missing a whole bunch of stuff, and scribbling down info in all the wrong places such that when we are actually in the middle of playing later, their turns slow down to a crawl because they can't figure out their own work and what they've written down. Which then makes them frustrated and no longer enjoying their time playing.

To me, that's not a deal I wish to make. I'll take being a good host and making sure everyone enjoys themselves over worrying about how much work I'm doing, each and every time.
 

For me... it's because I'm more interested in bringing in interested players to the world of Dungeons & Dragons and having them enjoy their time with the game than I am worrying about how much work I am doing.
The key is bringing them into D&D with... not D&D. Sahdowdark. OSE. 5 Torches Deep. There are lots of introductory games that give the D&D experience and teach the basics of rolling a die and adding a number, then comparing it to another number. 5E (and Pathfinder) are both pretty bad introductory games, exactly because they assume the GM is going to do stupid amounts of work to make sure players don't run away screaming.
 

Me too. I love GMing and while I also want my players to contribute to the improv chaos that is gaming, I am also okay taking the lion's share of that if the players happen to be more passive/receptive.
I very much agree with this.

If I'm asking my players to do more work outside of them just playing their characters, then they will start learning the rules. I'm afraid they will learn some rules I don't want them to know about, because it may restrict their ability to freely play their characters.
Much like how I enjoy Johnsonville Brats, but I will NEVER see how they're made.
 

Trending content

Remove ads

Top