Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
What is the GM's Job?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7486035" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>The role of the GM depends on the RPG in question. I'll give three examples, and then draw some conclusions.</p><p></p><p><strong><u>Examples</u></strong></p><p></p><p><strong>1.</strong> In classic dungeon-crawling D&D, the GM's job (as set out in rulebooks like Gygax's PHB and DMG, an Moldvay Basic) is to (i) draw up a dungeon map, (ii) write up a catalogue-like description of dungeon contents, paying particular attention to how said contents are sensitive to dungeoneering adventurers (eg how treasure might be found and extracted; how creatures will respond to adventurers; etc), and (iii) adjudicate - as a referee might - action declarations made by players in respect of their PCs' dungeon-crawling efforts.</p><p></p><p>Challenges that such a GM might confront: (a) the players try to play PC motivated by something other than dungeon-crawling, who start declaring actions that are hard to adjudicate having regard to what the GM did at (ii) above; (b) the players want to experience the gameworld as something closer to a "real world" than a site for adventure, which again puts pressure on the GM's work at (ii) above; (c) getting the balance right between leaving the players free to declare what their PCs do, and making assumptions about what the PCs do that are essential to the progess of the game (eg it's generally bad refereeing to assume a player who says "I look at the chest" also has his/her PC open it; but it's generally acceptable to assume that a player who says "I lie down to sleep" has openee up his/her bedroll and climbed into it).</p><p></p><p>I'll pick up on (c) again below.</p><p></p><p><strong>2.</strong> In Call of Cthulhu, the GM's principal job is to invent an imaginary situation involving cultists (or similar sorts of adversarial NPCs) trying to bring about some "supernatural" consequence that will be adverse to human wellbeing (and especially human sanity), and to concoct a series of clues that might gradually lead investigators to notice, then unravel, and then somehow respond to this threat. During actual play, the GM has to present the clues to the players, by way of appropriate narration of the circumstances in which their PCs find themselves; and to evoke the increasing sense of threat and accompanying dread, especially by use of the sanity mechanics and associated narration.</p><p></p><p>Challenges that such a GM might confront: (a) the system mechanics work at cross purposes to the GM's responsibilities (eg they feel to yield the outcome of the PCs finding clues; they fail to evoke the sense of increasing threat and dread); (b) the players try to play PCs who are indifferent to threats to humanity or to the loss of their sanity.</p><p></p><p>It's no surprise that many CoC variants (eg Trail of Cthulhu) take steps to reduce the risk of (a) by better aligning the system mechanics with the GM's task.</p><p></p><p><strong>3. </strong>This example could esily draw on a range of RPGs, but I'll use one I've been GMing recently: Prince Valiant. In this system, the GM has three main responsibilities: (i) to narrate fiction in a way that establishes and reinforces a reasonable light-hearted and romantic approach to Arthurian and comparable mediaeval stories (eg damsels in distress, but in a rather PG-rated fashion; freedom-loving woodsfolk whose desire for justice can be achieved by revealing the iniquities of a particular noble without; a mixture of cheerful and surly peasants, but nothing that makes the fundamental injustices of a feudal society appear front-and-centre; robber knights who where there villainy on their surcoats; etc); (ii) to provide the players with clear opportunities, in the play of their PCs, to engage in adventure that fits these tropes, with the outcomes of their choices (in story and "moral"/thematic terms) being clear upfront; (iii) to adjudicate the system mechanics, which will reveal whether the choices the players make for their PCs succeed or result in failure - which, given the nature of the system and its light-touch approach to consequences, may often be temporary rather than lasting.</p><p></p><p>Challenges that such a GM might confront: (a) s/he runs out of ideas that fit the basic premise of the game, leading to repetition or pastiche that may start to border on parody (eg how many knights guarding a ford and insisting on a joust to permit crossing can a campaign handle without descending into farce?); (b) the players get unlucky enough in their dice rolls that the failures of their PCs begin to undermine the light-hearted tone of the game with excessive grittiness; (c) as a variant of (b), the GM misjudges the maths of the system and sets difficulties that are too high, with the same result of more failure than the tone of the game can handle; (d) whether because of the operation of (b) and (c), or for some independent reason, the players start to push against the tropes and theme of the game (eg playing the PCs as opportunistic mercenaries, or ruthless killers, etc).</p><p></p><p>The game design itself seems to show some awareness of risks (b) and (c), as it builds in the idea of a GM-orchestrated "rescue" (eg by Sir Lancelot) for PCs who find themselves out of their depth and confronted with drastic or deadly failure (especially in a combat context); but it doesn't address how this sort of GM decision-making is meant to fit with the role and responsibility of the players in making choices for their PCs.</p><p></p><p><u><strong>Some conclusions</strong></u></p><p></p><p>The GM has a quite different job in each of these three RPGs. There's no reason to think that a GM who is good at one will be very good at the others. In my own case, I think I do a reasonable job of GMing Prince Valiant and other RPGs that work in a similar way; but I'm not so good at classic D&D and think I'm not too good at the CoC-style either (though I've got less experience with that). To try and elaborate this point, I'll hone in on two different aspects of the GM's job across these systems.</p><p></p><p><strong>Creation/"storytelling:</strong> In classic D&D, the main creative ability requires is thinking up clever dungeon designs and ingenious monster lairs and tricks/traps. Opinions differ on which of Tomb of Horrors, White Plume Mountain, Labyrinth of Madness, etc are good examples of this genre, but they all exemplify the basic idea of what is required. In play, the GM's main duty is to describe the situation (eg a corridor, a room, an altar the PCs are searching, etc) in a way that is fair (ie not leaving out details that are important if the players are to deal with the situation properly) but doesn't give everything away or preempt player choices (eg in ToH the GM shouldn't describe the effects of the green devil mouth unless the players declare that a PC sticks something into it). This is closely related to challenge (c) above, because a GM who is seen to railroad players (especially railroading them into unhappy consequences) isn't doing his/her job properly. (Eg with the bedroll example, if the GM has decided - whether by fiat, or as the result of an encounter check, or whatever - that there is a scorpion in a PC's bedroll, how should s/he narrate the outcome of the declaration "I lie down to sleep"? Different tables will expect this to be handled in different ways.)</p><p></p><p>In CoC, the biggest creative challenge (I think) isn't in coming up with the plot, which can generally be lifted from a book or movie (with appropriate variation if necessary) without too much trouble. It's in narrating the events of play so as to maintain and develop the sense of threat and dread. It's easy to imagine someone being a teffific D&D referee and yet not being very good at this.</p><p></p><p>In Prince Valiant, the creative challenges are twofold: coming up with the initial situation, and then narrating its unfolding/resolution as the players engage it via their PCs. There's less need for CoC-style "evocative narration", because most of that sort of flavour is going to be delivered by the players choices about what their PCs do.</p><p></p><p><strong>Adjudicating mechanics:</strong> in classic D&D this is all about fairness as a referee. The mechanical system itself is not super-important, because it's not something that the players are expected to actively engage. Rather, it's a way of working out what happens when they interact with the dungeon elements. A lot of adjudication can take the form of simply reading things off the fiction (eg "I poke the floor with my 10' pole" "OK, a trapdoor opens revealing a 5' square rather deep pit" "I jump over it" "OK, you're a healthy reasonably strong relatively unencumbered adult, so that's no problem").</p><p></p><p>In CoC adjudication is quite secondary. If the players don't learn the clues the game grinds to a halt, which generates a degree of pressure to fudge rolls/results in any event. (As noted, some aspects of Trail of Cthulu are a direct response to this issue.) Generally, in CoC, if the mechanics are invoked the stakes are low (eg what happens when a PC gets in a bar fight?; does the police officer help without needing to be bribed?; etc) whereas at the high stakes moments outcomes tend to be automatic (I've already talked about clues; at the resolution of the adventure, if the PCs have learned the right spell then they can disrupt the ritual and a roll would be anti-climactic, whereas if they haven't then the monsters are summoned and its game over, at least for that secnario; etc).</p><p></p><p>In Prince Valiant the mechanics are important in a way that they're not in CoC, because outcomes of key player decisions are resolved by reference to them. And there is less direct adjudication of the fiction than in D&D, because the game is less about puzzle-solving and more about twists and turns in the unfolding story. This makes system itself more important than in classic D&D or CoC - eg it has to be able to resolve all the action declarations that might come up in a romantic Arthurian adventure (and it does this by being rather simple in both stats and dice rolls, and offering a single comprehensive approach to resolution regardless of the precise nature of the stakes and the opposition).</p><p></p><p>I think it's obvious that a GM could be good at the creative part of classic D&D but pretty bad at the creative part of CoC or Prince Valiant. I think it's obvious that a GM could be good at adjudicating Prince Valiant but not so good at adjudicating classic D&D (and I put myself in that category).</p><p></p><p><strong>TL;DR:</strong> the idea that there is some singular job that the GM has isn't tenable when one looks at the variety of RPGs out there. And probably nothing is more apt to produce RPG suckitude than a GM who brings a skillset well-suited to one sort of RPG to the GMing of a different sort of RPG.</p><p></p><p>(Player expectations are also pretty important, and I've pointed to some possible pressure-points in my examples, but I've left them to one side because they're not the main topic of the thread.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7486035, member: 42582"] The role of the GM depends on the RPG in question. I'll give three examples, and then draw some conclusions. [B][U]Examples[/U][/B] [B]1.[/B] In classic dungeon-crawling D&D, the GM's job (as set out in rulebooks like Gygax's PHB and DMG, an Moldvay Basic) is to (i) draw up a dungeon map, (ii) write up a catalogue-like description of dungeon contents, paying particular attention to how said contents are sensitive to dungeoneering adventurers (eg how treasure might be found and extracted; how creatures will respond to adventurers; etc), and (iii) adjudicate - as a referee might - action declarations made by players in respect of their PCs' dungeon-crawling efforts. Challenges that such a GM might confront: (a) the players try to play PC motivated by something other than dungeon-crawling, who start declaring actions that are hard to adjudicate having regard to what the GM did at (ii) above; (b) the players want to experience the gameworld as something closer to a "real world" than a site for adventure, which again puts pressure on the GM's work at (ii) above; (c) getting the balance right between leaving the players free to declare what their PCs do, and making assumptions about what the PCs do that are essential to the progess of the game (eg it's generally bad refereeing to assume a player who says "I look at the chest" also has his/her PC open it; but it's generally acceptable to assume that a player who says "I lie down to sleep" has openee up his/her bedroll and climbed into it). I'll pick up on (c) again below. [B]2.[/B] In Call of Cthulhu, the GM's principal job is to invent an imaginary situation involving cultists (or similar sorts of adversarial NPCs) trying to bring about some "supernatural" consequence that will be adverse to human wellbeing (and especially human sanity), and to concoct a series of clues that might gradually lead investigators to notice, then unravel, and then somehow respond to this threat. During actual play, the GM has to present the clues to the players, by way of appropriate narration of the circumstances in which their PCs find themselves; and to evoke the increasing sense of threat and accompanying dread, especially by use of the sanity mechanics and associated narration. Challenges that such a GM might confront: (a) the system mechanics work at cross purposes to the GM's responsibilities (eg they feel to yield the outcome of the PCs finding clues; they fail to evoke the sense of increasing threat and dread); (b) the players try to play PCs who are indifferent to threats to humanity or to the loss of their sanity. It's no surprise that many CoC variants (eg Trail of Cthulhu) take steps to reduce the risk of (a) by better aligning the system mechanics with the GM's task. [B]3. [/B]This example could esily draw on a range of RPGs, but I'll use one I've been GMing recently: Prince Valiant. In this system, the GM has three main responsibilities: (i) to narrate fiction in a way that establishes and reinforces a reasonable light-hearted and romantic approach to Arthurian and comparable mediaeval stories (eg damsels in distress, but in a rather PG-rated fashion; freedom-loving woodsfolk whose desire for justice can be achieved by revealing the iniquities of a particular noble without; a mixture of cheerful and surly peasants, but nothing that makes the fundamental injustices of a feudal society appear front-and-centre; robber knights who where there villainy on their surcoats; etc); (ii) to provide the players with clear opportunities, in the play of their PCs, to engage in adventure that fits these tropes, with the outcomes of their choices (in story and "moral"/thematic terms) being clear upfront; (iii) to adjudicate the system mechanics, which will reveal whether the choices the players make for their PCs succeed or result in failure - which, given the nature of the system and its light-touch approach to consequences, may often be temporary rather than lasting. Challenges that such a GM might confront: (a) s/he runs out of ideas that fit the basic premise of the game, leading to repetition or pastiche that may start to border on parody (eg how many knights guarding a ford and insisting on a joust to permit crossing can a campaign handle without descending into farce?); (b) the players get unlucky enough in their dice rolls that the failures of their PCs begin to undermine the light-hearted tone of the game with excessive grittiness; (c) as a variant of (b), the GM misjudges the maths of the system and sets difficulties that are too high, with the same result of more failure than the tone of the game can handle; (d) whether because of the operation of (b) and (c), or for some independent reason, the players start to push against the tropes and theme of the game (eg playing the PCs as opportunistic mercenaries, or ruthless killers, etc). The game design itself seems to show some awareness of risks (b) and (c), as it builds in the idea of a GM-orchestrated "rescue" (eg by Sir Lancelot) for PCs who find themselves out of their depth and confronted with drastic or deadly failure (especially in a combat context); but it doesn't address how this sort of GM decision-making is meant to fit with the role and responsibility of the players in making choices for their PCs. [U][B]Some conclusions[/B][/U] The GM has a quite different job in each of these three RPGs. There's no reason to think that a GM who is good at one will be very good at the others. In my own case, I think I do a reasonable job of GMing Prince Valiant and other RPGs that work in a similar way; but I'm not so good at classic D&D and think I'm not too good at the CoC-style either (though I've got less experience with that). To try and elaborate this point, I'll hone in on two different aspects of the GM's job across these systems. [B]Creation/"storytelling:[/B] In classic D&D, the main creative ability requires is thinking up clever dungeon designs and ingenious monster lairs and tricks/traps. Opinions differ on which of Tomb of Horrors, White Plume Mountain, Labyrinth of Madness, etc are good examples of this genre, but they all exemplify the basic idea of what is required. In play, the GM's main duty is to describe the situation (eg a corridor, a room, an altar the PCs are searching, etc) in a way that is fair (ie not leaving out details that are important if the players are to deal with the situation properly) but doesn't give everything away or preempt player choices (eg in ToH the GM shouldn't describe the effects of the green devil mouth unless the players declare that a PC sticks something into it). This is closely related to challenge (c) above, because a GM who is seen to railroad players (especially railroading them into unhappy consequences) isn't doing his/her job properly. (Eg with the bedroll example, if the GM has decided - whether by fiat, or as the result of an encounter check, or whatever - that there is a scorpion in a PC's bedroll, how should s/he narrate the outcome of the declaration "I lie down to sleep"? Different tables will expect this to be handled in different ways.) In CoC, the biggest creative challenge (I think) isn't in coming up with the plot, which can generally be lifted from a book or movie (with appropriate variation if necessary) without too much trouble. It's in narrating the events of play so as to maintain and develop the sense of threat and dread. It's easy to imagine someone being a teffific D&D referee and yet not being very good at this. In Prince Valiant, the creative challenges are twofold: coming up with the initial situation, and then narrating its unfolding/resolution as the players engage it via their PCs. There's less need for CoC-style "evocative narration", because most of that sort of flavour is going to be delivered by the players choices about what their PCs do. [B]Adjudicating mechanics:[/B] in classic D&D this is all about fairness as a referee. The mechanical system itself is not super-important, because it's not something that the players are expected to actively engage. Rather, it's a way of working out what happens when they interact with the dungeon elements. A lot of adjudication can take the form of simply reading things off the fiction (eg "I poke the floor with my 10' pole" "OK, a trapdoor opens revealing a 5' square rather deep pit" "I jump over it" "OK, you're a healthy reasonably strong relatively unencumbered adult, so that's no problem"). In CoC adjudication is quite secondary. If the players don't learn the clues the game grinds to a halt, which generates a degree of pressure to fudge rolls/results in any event. (As noted, some aspects of Trail of Cthulu are a direct response to this issue.) Generally, in CoC, if the mechanics are invoked the stakes are low (eg what happens when a PC gets in a bar fight?; does the police officer help without needing to be bribed?; etc) whereas at the high stakes moments outcomes tend to be automatic (I've already talked about clues; at the resolution of the adventure, if the PCs have learned the right spell then they can disrupt the ritual and a roll would be anti-climactic, whereas if they haven't then the monsters are summoned and its game over, at least for that secnario; etc). In Prince Valiant the mechanics are important in a way that they're not in CoC, because outcomes of key player decisions are resolved by reference to them. And there is less direct adjudication of the fiction than in D&D, because the game is less about puzzle-solving and more about twists and turns in the unfolding story. This makes system itself more important than in classic D&D or CoC - eg it has to be able to resolve all the action declarations that might come up in a romantic Arthurian adventure (and it does this by being rather simple in both stats and dice rolls, and offering a single comprehensive approach to resolution regardless of the precise nature of the stakes and the opposition). I think it's obvious that a GM could be good at the creative part of classic D&D but pretty bad at the creative part of CoC or Prince Valiant. I think it's obvious that a GM could be good at adjudicating Prince Valiant but not so good at adjudicating classic D&D (and I put myself in that category). [B]TL;DR:[/B] the idea that there is some singular job that the GM has isn't tenable when one looks at the variety of RPGs out there. And probably nothing is more apt to produce RPG suckitude than a GM who brings a skillset well-suited to one sort of RPG to the GMing of a different sort of RPG. (Player expectations are also pretty important, and I've pointed to some possible pressure-points in my examples, but I've left them to one side because they're not the main topic of the thread.) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
What is the GM's Job?
Top