GM Confessional

[MGibster]

I hate doing "funny voices" when I GM.

You monster! Way back when I ran Living Greyhawk games, there was an adventure featuring a bunch of northmen coming down in boats. I put on my best Scandinavian accent for them and most of the players got a kick out of it. One of them rolled their eyes at me and voiced his disapproval. In my all dwarf campaign, I put on my best Christopher Walken for the dwarf head of state.

 

[innerdude]

Another thing I just thought of ---

I probably started my true "GM career" later than most.

Sure, I messed around a bit as a teenager, but never actually GM'd anything remotely resembling a real campaign.

When I got back into the hobby in my mid-20s with D&D 3, I was always a player.

It wasn't until 2009, maybe, with Pathfinder 1e, that I made a real, true attempt at GM-ing. So for those of you who have been GM-ing longer than 13 years, I'm sure what I'm about to say will ring even more true.

But the longer I go as a GM, the less tolerance I feel for players who simply CANNOT, for the life of them, try anything other than their usual "schtick" as a character.

And maybe that's just normal --- the longer you play, the more you know what you like, so why should you play something you don't like?

But as a GM, it's just . . . so . . . boring to watch from our side of the table. "Oh brother, here we go again." eye roll

Oh, and one more thing --- the longer I GM, I have a harder and harder time showing tolerance for "shopping cart" play sessions.

Unless it's completely out of whack / out of alignment with the fictional positioning for whatever they're asking for to be available, I just rubber stamp that they now have what they want and move on.

And I think I've developed that attitude because as a GM, I'm just so completely over the need for players to feel like acquiring new gear is equivalent to "making progress." It's a terrible psychological holdover of "trad" / OSR play.

I really, really want players to get away from the mindset that acquiring new loot is somehow equivalent to making narrative progress. It tells me as a GM I'm failing, because it means that the players don't feel they have enough narrative control, and are trying to acquire enough "gear and loot" that they'll feel they have more narrative control than they do now.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Likewise, I get that people like what they like, but when we're talking about the same exact character for multiple campaigns, without variation in mechanics and/or personality, it starts to get old as GM. I wouldn't expect someone that likes to play casters to suddenly start playing martials, but if you're not including some variation from character-to-character, you run the risk of stagnating as a player. Not to mention, the GM is always going to always know your strategies, how you're going to react to any given situation. And that's just not as fun for anyone.

But the longer I go as a GM, the less tolerance I feel for players who simply CANNOT, for the life of them, try anything other than their usual "schtick" as a character.

And maybe that's just normal --- the longer you play, the more you know what you like, so why should you play something you don't like?

But as a GM, it's just . . . so . . . boring to watch from our side of the table. "Oh brother, here we go again." eye roll

 

[Thomas Shey]

Likewise, I get that people like what they like, but when we're talking about the same exact character for multiple campaigns, without variation in mechanics and/or personality, it starts to get old as GM. I wouldn't expect someone that likes to play casters to suddenly start playing martials, but if you're not including some variation from character-to-character, you run the risk of stagnating as a player. Not to mention, the GM is always going to always know your strategies, how you're going to react to any given situation. And that's just not as fun for anyone.

Sometimes people Just Don't Care. Stagnation, predictability, none of that matters: they've found what they like and they're going to play that until the end of time with the minimum variability the game mandates.

 

[RivetGeekWil]

There are GMs who are the same way with wanting to run every game the same way, typically the one game they're most familiar with. Even when the game wasn't designed to work that way.

 

[Jahydin]

Hmmm, I already made a thread about my lack of imagination, so no need to share that again.

Sort of relevant: One thing I have learned, despite DMing for decades, I'm a terrible player.

When I'm on the other side of the screen, I can't for the life of me follow along or patiently wait my turn. It's like my brain is more comfortable with the massive overload DMing requires, but can't handle the "easier" workload of being a player.

I have found that playing simple games on my phone (shout out to Threes!) keeps me pretty engaged, but I still space out time to time.

I feel terrible since I know the habits good players should have; my brain just doesn't want to cooperate.

 

[Andvari]

I feel terrible since I know the habits good players should have; my brain just doesn't want to cooperate.

I think I'm doing pretty good on this front as I'm currently playing in a game myself. I made a character who can and does take turns very quickly in combat. I also try to not encroach on other players' areas. Except the other players tend to be quite passive. For example, let's say we're in a burial chamber full of religious symbols and possible undead. But the cleric and paladin players sit there quietly and there is awkward silence, lol.

 

[GungHo]

I don't do funny voices. Ever. Not even if I can do the accent/voice. If I am pressed, I will make the dwarves sound like they're from Pittsburg and the elves sound like they're from Minnesota, because once I am personally annoyed, I will start breaking verisimilitude.

I sometimes prepare too little because I know my preparations will be for nothing due to my chaotic players. I used to overprepare tremendously, which was a lot of wasted time for me.

I often forget rules and make up things on the spot because my I have a quantum leap brain (swiss cheese) and limited bandwidth to memorize some of the more complex rules. I do not always remember what I made up on the spot. I do not like looking things up in front of people and feel like I am wasting their times. I am easily fooled by players who say "but didn't you say..." because I just don't have the desire to have the argument.

I will fudge dice/DCs if you're trying, but I will not fudge a single thing if you're doing something abjectly stupid, such as the below.

Another game, Deadlands (original rules), one PC decided to wander off on his own knowing there were dangerous creatures lurking about. Naturally, he get gets jumped by a Wendigo, and he is literally on his own because all the other PCs are quite far away. In the original Deadlands, you could spend an meta resource called Fate Chips (poker chips) to mitigate some of the wounds your character takes. The player character starts racking up some wounds, and I remind the player that he can spend some of those Fate Chips to mitigate damage. He decides not to, and his character is pretty close to death.

Player #2: Uh, you might want to spend a Fate Chip next time you take damage.
Wendigo Chow: Nah, mgibster isn't going to kill my character during the first adventure.
Me: Staring at Wendigo Chow with hunger in my eyes.
Player #2: You're about to die.
Me: Okay, so the lumbering beast bellows, striking you, doing X damage. Do you want to spent any Fate Chips?
Wendigo Chow: No.
Me: Allright, you go down and as the world goes black you hear the echoing howls of a raging beast grow ever more distant. Let's see what the other players are doing.

Some time later....

Me: You guys got here as quickly as you could after hearing gunfire come from the railroad coal depot, but your friend isn't to be found. You follow his tracks until you reach a grisly scene; the body of your friend lies in the snow, but portions of him are missing, as if he's been chewed on by an awfully large critter.
Wendigo Chow: <obvious hurt> What? I'm dead? Why didn't you just tell me?
Me: I thought it was more dramatic this way.

I enjoyed this story and I identified with this. Thank you.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

No, they don't care. And if they're having fun, I should be content with that. But I wish they would care a little. I'm not asking for someone that enjoys playing tanks to suddenly play a glass cannon or anything. Just to try introducing a little mechanical variance. Pick a difference species, or an adjacent class, something.

Sometimes people Just Don't Care. Stagnation, predictability, none of that matters: they've found what they like and they're going to play that until the end of time with the minimum variability the game mandates.

Absolutely. But we need new experiences to grow, which is why forcing yourself to mix things up, even if it's just for a little while, can be such a good thing.

There are GMs who are the same way with wanting to run every game the same way, typically the one game they're most familiar with. Even when the game wasn't designed to work that way.

 

[J.Quondam]

There are GMs who are the same way with wanting to run every game the same way, typically the one game they're most familiar with. Even when the game wasn't designed to work that way.

Yeah, it took me a while to drop the "system doesn't matter" conceit. Or the idea that "just because you can make a rule for it doesn't mean you should."
My gaming became a lot more flexible after that. Then, of course, the problem became finding players willing to push outside their boundaries.