GM Dilemma

[Hammerforge]

Greetings all:
Here’s a question that I thought I’d throw out there to see what people’s thoughts and experiences are. Please bear with me if this seems a bit rantish—it is, but I’ll try to keep the rant factor down to a minimum.  It is also a bit long, but I really want to express my thoughts clearly. Maybe some of you can reinvigorate my desire to GM with your own wisdom and advice.

There was a time when I loved to run games. I enjoyed the creative outlet that it provided. I loved the fact that I was always involved in the game because of the very fact that I was running it. Whether I was running combat, playing NPCs, or whatever, I was always doing something—unlike being a player, which means you often experience down time at the gaming table while you wait for others to discuss their plans/moves/actions with the GM.

Now, however, this is no longer the case. My love for running games has almost entirely faded away. I haven’t turned against DMing completely, and part of me still wants to run games in the future; but I’ve had some negative experiences that have left a pretty sour taste in my mouth. Since I promised to keep the rant factor of this post down, I’ll focus on only one negative thing, which seems to me to be the most significant.

As I see it, the biggest problem I’ve encountered while DMing is a lack of player contribution to the game. The pattern I’ve seen is that players come to the gaming table with a “Here we are now, entertain us” mindset, expecting the DM to provide a game for them that is, at the end of the day, not much different from a single-player video game: NPC speaks, PCs react; NPC attacks, PCs react; crypt entrance looms ahead, PCs react. Instead of taking the initiative to have their characters do things in and with the campaign world that their characters really would do if they were alive, they simply respond to whatever the DM throws at them with minimal role-playing (if any) and an occasional tactical decision.

Now I wouldn’t mind this so much if said players did not become critical. Sure, I would like some player contribution from time to time because it can provide me with hooks that could make the story more interesting; but if the players are happy being merely reactive and are having a good time, so be it. The trouble, however, is that some of these players have criticized me at times for being boring and/or lacking creativity and will even possibly leave a game because of this perception.

This baffles me. How can anyone blame the GM for not having fun if all they do is mechanically react to what the GM throws at them—much like clicking a mouse or pressing the fire button during a video game? The most fun I’ve ever had as a player was when I did unique things with my character, whether in combat or out—something that could never be done in a computer game. As a result, the fun I derived from any given game session was directly proportionate to the amount of initiative I took in role-playing my character. That is because—ironically—an RPG is really a lot like a computer game at least in one respect: Garbage in, garbage out. You get out of an RPG what you put into it. Should the DM, then, take seriously the charge of being uncreative from any player who doesn’t even bother to put any creative effort into his or her role-playing? The way I see it, I would have to wonder why such a player even bothered to get involved in a tabletop RPG to begin with. Wouldn’t they be happier sitting at home and playing an MMORPG or some other computer game that requires practically no creative interaction with the game world? If such players at heart really do prefer a programmed, mechanical gaming experience, how can they realistically find fault with the DM who delivers that (or seems to)?

The end result of all of this is that when I come to the gaming table to run a scenario, I often don’t feel like I am pursuing a relaxing, leisurely pastime to have fun and unwind. Rather, when I run a game I frequently feel like I am making a presentation to a group of managers in a corporate setting, apprehensively wondering whether I will perform to their satisfaction. And that is just not fun AT ALL. Why take the time to prepare scenarios, stat NPCs and populate whole areas of the game world only to have your efforts come under picky criticism? Have RPGs actually ceased to be games (for the GM, anyway)?

 

[Piratecat]

You sound really frustrated and disappointed. Have you spoken to your players about it? I'm having the opposite experience, so maybe it's something occurring within your group that can be changed by addressing it directly.

 

[Hammerforge]

You sound really frustrated and disappointed. Have you spoken to your players about it? I'm having the opposite experience, so maybe it's something occurring within your group that can be changed by addressing it directly.

This has been a general observation that I've observed with more than one group of players over time. Also, in more recent times I've made it clear what kind of game I'd be running and what I expected from players, but usually that has been ignored. But you have a good point -- maybe asking players in advance what kind of a game they want might be helpful.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

This generally depends on your players. My old 2E group all those years ago had the same problem, though we had a good game. 3E D&D did foster a sense of "player entitlement" which put a sour taste on the whole affair which I didn't see in 2E.

 

[malraux]

Without being there, its hard to offer specific advice. One thing that might help though is to explicitly work out a gaming group contract. It can include stuff like what you expect from the players, they can say what they expect from you, etc.

I'd also recommend sending out feedback forms from time to time. With any group, I try to do feedback once per major story arc or so, to help me adjust the future bit to what the players expect. Plus, asking for feedback early means that if there's a problem, it won't simmer and get worse.

 

[ExploderWizard]

-- maybe asking players in advance what kind of a game they want might be helpful.

You have solved a part of the problem at least once this is realized. Find out what types of adventures the players want to have. If you get "whatever" and an unconcerned attitude as a response then you might just have players that want to roll dice and fight things. If thats not the type of game you like to run then perhaps suggest someone else run for a change or find more interested players. Sometimes taking a break from the DM role can be just what you need to recharge.

 

[wedgeski]

Over the years, there have been times when I've become worn out trying to run games where every scrap of creativity has to come from my side of the screen. It's exhausting. Sometimes, as a DM, you just need to hand the game off to your players and sit back and enjoy the ensuing chaos.

Otherwise all I can do is parrot the advice already given: talk, and make a change if necessary.

 

[Mark]

While I am the primary DM for our group, we mix it up with other members sometimes taking the DMing reigns and also taking some weeks where we play board or card games. The breaks are good for everyone and the alternate games allow for all of us to level the playing field in regard to who is in charge or on the hot seat, depending on how it is viewed. It helps to get everyone in the frame of mind that we all contribute and it spills back over to the games when I am DMing.

 

[Janx]

It might be a factor in asking the right question at the right time.

If you're getting "whatever" responses, then you haven't asked the right question.

Sometimes it's really open questions that they won't have an answer to. "What do you want from this game?" just might not help.
Do you want more fighting?
Do you want more intrigue?
Do you want more social advancement?

Those might get you some answers you can use.


On the other side, in game, you might want to look at how you're running things.

When the party is not moving (taking too long) making something happen to force them to REACT is a good strategy.

If the party is always reacting, they won't feel like they have any Choice.

Note: "Choice" vs. "choice". Life is full of choices, not all of them are Choices (with a big C). To make a Choice is to Act, not react. Small c choices are insiginificant in the grand scheme, or are of such a nature that the logical selection is foregone. Everyday, you have a choice to continue breathing. It's a foregone conclusion that you will choose to breathe. Therefore, it's not a real Choice. Whereas, a situation forces a decision to sacrifce yourself to save others, that's a Choice.

My point then, is to make sure your game offers situations where the players must choose things that matter. To go left, or to go right, doesn't really matter. Either way the party will find a room with a trap, monster or treasure.


Here's some more tips:
pre-campaign, reach an agreement on type of game you're going to run. Either declare it, and see who comes and stays, or talk it out. BUt everybody should know how you're going to run the game, and what style.

post-game, ask some pointed questions:
what is your PC planning to do next?

what is your PCs immediate personal goal (besides more XP, and finishing the current plot)?

what is your PCs larger personal goal?


If your game had unresolved problems, the players should be telling you how they plan to solve them. This allows you to write material addressing the solution, rather than trying to plan on every eventuallity.

If you know your PCs' goals, each game should contribute to 1 or more PCs goals (try to balance it out). Consider Star Trek: TNG, where there were always 2 plots, the threat to the ship/main chars, and a second plot (often mirroring the larger plot) that was about specific characters and their goals/problems. This means, that while the party is trying to save the princess, PCs are also trying to run their business, raise in social rank, find their lost heirloom, etc.

Asking these post-game questions should also provide fodder for the next week's game, and the fodder will come from the players, not you. That's real player feedback.

 

[roguerouge]

I recommend running published adventures for a while. It allows you to recharge your batteries. It's fun. And you're less stressed by having to come up with everything for every session. Now, you can focus your energies on hooks, plot complications, and RP opportunities, rather than statting everyone out.