keeping all of my friends...
The tears of sadness in their eyes bring tears of joy to mine >:D
But seriously, I like the world building part of it. Though it is fun to watch my party almost get killed as they challenge Asmodeus's Execution to combat.
|
For a real GM,Ugh.Snow, this is contrasted with Players who are forced into GMing because of a vacuum.
This isn't a "true scotsman" statement. What delineates a "real" GM is the decision to GM even if you have the option to be a player.
I completely understand your response, I could have worded it better.
Ah, alright, I see how in the context of your entire post it should be understood that that was your meaning. My reaction, I'm afraid, was somewhat automatic. Didn't take the time to assure myself that I was reading it correctly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cheers to civility!
Thanks for all the stores and responses guys.
Good to see you're having fun where i wasn't.
^_^
** spoiler omitted **
I suppose there may be some people who GM for the power trip.
Since I have been a manager of people in the real world, managing teams of up to and sometimes more than 100 at a time, I am more than casually associated with real, actual, life-altering power.
Being a GM is just fun. I get no sense of having "power" over the players, and instead I very deliberately do all I can as a GM to give the players the actual "power" over the game.
Having been the boss for so many years, I can tell you that power trips are very over rated. People who get off on controlling people tend to be very bad bosses, and in my experience, pretty bad GMs.
Fun Reason : Because I enjoy it when people get into the worlds I create. I enjoy getting all the cogs and wheels of a world to fit in my head and all rotate at the same time without exploding. I enjoy working multiple plots and throwing out a dozen fishooks and seeing which ones my players bite on and which ones they don't for subplots.
Practical Reason : It helps me pretend to be an extrovert when I'm at work, rather than an introvert. And I'm 100% serious about this. I'm naturally an introvert (INTJ personality profile). But I have people who are shocked to hear that, even my players. And extroverts always find it easier to get promotions, to get second chances, and basically have an easier time in real life.
This. Couldn't have said it better myself.
I'll admit it.
I like being the center of attention.
I enjoy being the DM because the players never cease to surprise me. As DM, I think I know the "plot-line," but often enough, there will be one or two players who think totally outside the box, throw the railroad into a tailspin, and force me to re-evaluate the whole scenario and ad lib something that's fun, exciting, and internally-consistent. When you do it right, they don't even know they ruined the plot. But I do. And I love them for it.
** spoiler omitted **
I could have a whole conversation on this, and it's kind of on-topic, so why not?
I think the issue of impartiality — as you say: no reinforcements, no changing the variables even if it would make your life easier — is the very same thing I mentioned upthread about "real" GMing.
The awful GMPC is a closely related issue.
There are GMs who are really just players who feel they have to GM. These are the people who are prone to injecting high-drama fixes like sudden reinforcements, or GMPCs who create a total conflict of interest. They feel the pain of an unexpected loss, and they worry for the survival of NPCs like a player worries for his PCs.
This stems from an impulse not to lose the game. That's a player's impulse.
The GM craft is in many ways about learning how to make NPCs lose just right. That's what the GM does, time after time, in a great campaign. Sometimes they're allowed a very small, satisfying victory, but for the vast majority of encounters the NPCs must lose, by control of the GM. But the GM doesn't lose, the NPCs do. The GM wins by hitting the mark.
It's that impartiality that really makes the difference. A frequent error is to forget your impartiality; to feel like if the NPCs lose, then the GM loses. That lies at the heart of so many campaign malfunctions (at least, the ones I read about here).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The GM craft is in many ways about learning how to make NPCs lose just right.
Depending on what you mean here, I either sort of agree or strongly disagree. If you mean you need to craft and/or customize the adventures so that they're truly challenging, but that the PCs have all the tools they need to succeed, then I'm on board.
If you mean you need to use the "hand of god" to selectively nerf them or save them as needed to make sure they always just barely win, then I'm 100% opposed. Houstonderek once told me, "If my character doesn't exploit his advantages and use every opportunuty to survive, and that kind of behavior doesn't kill him pretty soon, then I'd walk out of that game and never come back." After consideration, I was forced to admire his stance -- I felt the same way, and still do.
As a player, I want a scenario in which I can win, if I'm clever and resourceful and bold enough. I don't want a scenario in which I will win, because then in a lot of ways I don't really care about it. People have often told me that the DM should make believe the PCs can die, but not really kill them, so the players never know the difference -- but, honestly, it's usually really obvious. Everyone thinks they're a master of deception, and hardly anyone really is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I did mean the former, as I am not a fan of active GM intervention. It's a fine line, but I much prefer all of the balance to be completed before the dice roll. About the worst thing I do in the realm of GM intervention is pre-plan the NPC's character flaws that might buy players the extra round that they need (toying with their kill, gloating, that kind of thing.) But honestly, that's a part of my process, akin to a "flaw" like in some RPGs, that allows me to overshoot the challenge in good conscience knowing I can buy the players one crucial round.
But other than that, I am with you. The players need to be challenged. I think it is easy to go too far with this and make every single combat a desperate slog... that's not really necessary, though. Sometimes the players should have the odds in their favor for plausibility's sake. Even then, if you play the numbers game and run nothing but mediocre "challenges" (CR==APL), someone in that marathon is gonna get statistically lucky and pose a challenge.
And then there's some value in lulling the players into a false sense of security. I think if I were GMing for HoustonDerek, the trick would be raising the stakes before he got bored.
At any rate, if you're changing the roll results in the middle of a game, it means you didn't plan correctly so in some sense you failed. The same way a player can fail to design a character who can weather bad rolls, you failed to design the game that you wanted.
Which brings us back to the impartiality issue, and also the thread premise. Hitting the mark is an incredibly interesting and rewarding exercise. And I get so much more out of a well-delivered game where I didn't have to fudge rolls to ensure the game I wanted... I get the most out of games that go in a totally different direction than I expected. If I succumbed to bias and rammed my preconception through with fudged die rolls, I would always get the game I expected. And that would be dull. ("Gamemasterbation")
Whoa. I guess I've been chewing on these thoughts for a while with no real outlet.
At any rate, if you're changing the roll results in the middle of a game, it means you didn't plan correctly so in some sense you failed.
Yes! Exactly that.
Kirth, Toz, any of that crew, let me know if you come to Boston. I will release homebrew for the occasion.
Kirth, Toz, any of that crew, let me know if you come to Boston. I will release homebrew for the occasion.
Ag! I was just there in the spring. Met Doodlebug Anklebiter and Gruumash for drinks at a German place and had a great time! Anyway, Boston is one of my favorite places, and I've got a bunch of family & friends there, so it's not unlikely I might end up back there before too long.
I wish I were still brewing -- I'd smuggle in a couple bottles of my famous Slithy Tove Ale ("guaranteed to make you gyre and gimble!").
Unnnnnnnnnlimited Powaaahhhh!!!
|
one reason i like to GM is due to the fact that i have about 100 characters of varying power levels i like to test out on the players in my games. i can play test them without needing to play in 100 games, and i get the satisfaction of killing some of the PC's in a "pvp situation" disguised as a BBEG encounter.
not to mention i like sculpting the world and being the person creating the challenges. seems like most GMs cant challenge my characters the way id like.
It all started because I got sick of everyone shirking the responsibility. We had rotating GM duty for decades. I got sick of games breaking down. I wanted closure. I wanted a clear narrative vision.
Then, something clicked. When you GM, you don't just control NPCs or place monsters in the path of the PCs. For a real GM, the campaign is their player-character. A good campaign inspires the same pride and fondness (perhaps even more) that a cherished PC does.
These days, I prefer to GM, and I would gladly launch yet another campaign if there were any time left over to do so.
Well put, Evil Lincoln. I get more RPG satisfaction out of "running" the world/campaign than I ever did playing a PC.
For me it's world building. I love creating new societies, languages, histories, etc. I loathe map drawing, though.
** spoiler omitted **The awful GMPC is a closely related issue.
GMPC are not all evil they are a tool like any other one that could be used poorly. but I may fall on the false sense of mortality side of this argument. But it is the nature of my players that I DM that way.
and i like my DMPCs :P
Tri's right.
A GM cannot properly have a PLAYER character. It is a conflict of interest. One cannot experience the challenge of challenging oneself. In doing so, you distract yourself terribly from your responsibilities to the players.
Sometimes having a likable NPC ally enhances the game, but it's still a non-player character because it is present to enhance the player experience. If you have an NPC that you like and you are not trying to get a player experience from it, then that's an NPC.
If you're trying to wring a player experience out of an NPC, basically running the game for yourself, then that's a GMPC and it is always bad.
Of course, I decided on this terminology arbitrarily, and it's ultimately meaningless. But I am nonetheless prepared to argue very enthusiastically on its behalf.
@TriOmegaZero: You or TOZ should upgrade to mythic. You wouldn't want to fall behind.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course, I decided on this terminology arbitrarily, and it's ultimately meaningless. But I am nonetheless prepared to argue very enthusiastically on its behalf.
I would enjoin you to change your mind, but seeing you have gained mythic power and I have not I hesitate to take the field.
Edit: I chose it as my Tier 1 GM reward, but it won't ship until next month with my next sub.
I GM so I can complain about other people GMing...just shoot a hole in the arguement of "You can not critize a GM till you have GMed yourself' BS.
I am kidding of course...I like GMing because it is fun building the world, NPCs, etc. It is also really fun watching somebody smile when they call you a basterd.
Though I like being a player a equal amount also. So I guess I do go Both Ways.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mythic toz attains the ability to split into FOUR different accounts, further confusing his enemies.
Haha, mythic toz attains the ability to split into FOUR different accounts, further confusing his enemies.
Oh, the FUN to be had!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You won't get him to budge on this. Your 'good DMPCs' are just 'normal NPCs' to him, not DMPCs, which are always bad.
ah i will not argue verbiage
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You won't get him to budge on this. Your 'good DMPCs' are just 'normal NPCs' to him, not DMPCs, which are always bad.ah i will not argue verbiage
Or nouniage, apparently.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why do you like to GM?
I've done it before, and in one of two situations, i really didn't like it, and in the other, it's still kinda new, so I'm not sure about that one.Now, i don't mean to make this into a debate form, but i would like to know-
What do you find fun about being a GM? For me, i found it to be too much work, but i was having to deal with whiny players. (No, they weren't whining about me. They were whining at each other.)Also, it feels like your interactions don't have much meaning as a GM, every charecter being short lived, with little development.
NOW-
I don't mean to turn this into an argument!
These were my experiences.
I'm just asking for yours.
I like to GM because I enjoy the fact that the players have fun (and I have fun too)! The game should be a cooperative narrative in order to ensure that no one takes over the game - GM or PC. At least those games seem to be the best and most enjoyable.
The fact that my players will go to cons or move on to other groups - sharing stories with new players about campaigns I've run, experiences they've had while sitting at my table - there is a certain thrill in that.
Or nouniage, apparently.You won't get him to budge on this. Your 'good DMPCs' are just 'normal NPCs' to him, not DMPCs, which are always bad.ah i will not argue verbiage
:P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
i like to GM because i play with my wife and kids, and RPGs are WAY more fun then monopoly or clue or chutes and ladders on family game night. as a huge plus i become closer and more in tune with my family:)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
as soon as my son can talk in a coherently way i will probably try and get him into role playing nothing like a captive audience
1. I like to hear / see what kind of ideas the players can bring to the table.
2. When I am DM, nobody can tell me that they won't allow me to play one of my homebrew races.
3. Working on the campaign setting and the story will probably help me improve my writing skills to some degree.
I have been playing with two different D&D groups for the past few years. I am running 3.5e Legacy of Fire for one, and Kingmaker for the other.
And I have to say that I still like being a player a bit more than I enjoy being the DM, and I really wished the one DM who knows how to work on the story / RP of the game (who is currently a player in my Kingmaker campaign) wasn't so restrictive when it came to homebrew races as well as certain ideas. Then again, I've been open to his ideas all the way from small reskinning of a prestige class (visible third eye on the Arclord of Nex is optional) and little edits to the Golarion timeline (Second Darkness happened 40 years ago) all the way to homebrew spells his Wizard would create (lightning variant for Flaming Sphere), so I expect him to return the favor when I get back on the player's seat.
as soon as my son can talk in a coherently way i will probably try and get him into role playing nothing like a captive audience
i have a daughter that will be in 4th grade and a 2 year old son. my daughter didn't want to leave her lil bro out so we made him a character that is run via proxy until he is old enough to do it himself:) its a blast, we even got him some really big dice he can roll without having to worry he'll choke on them. coherent language is optional (we all understand him anyway;)
as soon as my son can talk in a coherently way i will probably try and get him into role playing nothing like a captive audiencei have a daughter that will be in 4th grade and a 2 year old son. my daughter didn't want to leave her lil bro out so we made him a character that is run via proxy until he is old enough to do it himself:) its a blast, we even got him some really big dice he can roll without having to worry he'll choke on them. coherent language is optional (we all understand him anyway;)
we did the kick starter for the over sized foam dice fro the same reason i have a feeling that people will think i a tiger dad when my son knows dice learns really young lol
I like to DM cause I haven't found a DM that runs the open sandbox, by the book mechanically sound, striving for immersive realism game I want to play. So I try the DM the game I would want to be a player in.
I am a people pleaser
next question
keep them coming
|
I like to run, because no one runs the stories that I want to see. I also like to help develop characters, and create houserules to facilitate their becoming THE awesome...
I also like to test the moral fabric of characters, while rewarding Good acts and levying consequences for morally questionable ones...
Thread resurrection FTW! :)
I started GMing because I was sick and tired of table favoritism. Of course, that was back in ye olden days, and hasn't been an issue for years.
I've continued for a lot of reasons. I like to write, I like designing and worldbuilding and creating all the unknowns that the players have to solve, and I like creating something that's fun for everyone to play.
Another, related reason is that of all my friends, I seem to be one of the few who's willing to actually stick with it for more than a few months; most campaigns haven't lasted long, while I'm just too damn stubborn to let them die, even if I have to cycle in new players to keep the campaign going :)
Because I like a world to play god with (there, I said it).
Obviously, that's easy to do even without players, but I want players in my world so I can have them interact with it and introduce that external random factor into the world's story. Otherwise I'd just be writing a novel.
For that reason I tend towards narrative campaigns that head into political-level storylines at later levels.
CM1-Test of the Warlords will always have a place in my heart as the BECMI module that introduced me to the idea of the PCs having a real effect on the game world and running their own dominions. I really need to get a Kingmaker game running some time.
|
I mostly GM Pathfinder Society. I love picking up a scenario set in a particular location, burrowing through the Pathfinder Wiki and discovering all the references to the Golarion lore that's been built up since day one.
It's so cool to see a reference to restaurant in a season 3 scenario, and see it originally mentioned in an old 3.5 module for example. There's so much stuff that builds on previous things, and it's great to share that with players and give them a glimpse of the depth of what's been done before.
That, and all the groupies, obviously.
I have not had a chance to GM yet (first time in a week!) but I've been interested for a while. Like a lot of people have mentionned, I love writing and worldbuilding. GM-ing also appeals to my love of acting/improvising; I can be a dozen characters in a single night! Basically GMing appeals to most of my artistic interests.
I like to be entertained by players solving odd problems I throw at them. The intense roleplay of my more mature players is more engaging than most recent TV plotlines.
A multitude of reasons.
I like having to adapt quickly to situations thrown at me by the PCs. It's like setting some system up and adding three to six random variables in. It's entertaining for me, anyway.
I gives me a better creative outlet than my many failed novels.
I find that the people are, generally, pretty cool.
Why do I GM? Because I've been a player of a GM who was a complete and utter [censored]. I had seven 1st level characters killed in one night because the GM killed my 3rd level Paladin and insisted I had to roll up a 1st level character in a group full of 12th level characters, and then proceeded to do everything possible to screw me over.
I had another GM who railroaded the group and tried to force people to play things they didn't want to. Mind you, he wasn't the [censored] that the other GM was... and I could even see he was trying to get people to go outside their comfort zone and try something new... but it was still a big failure that didn't last long.
So. Why do I GM? I GM because I refuse to be screwed over again. I GM so that my players aren't screwed over, that they have someone compassionate and decent (even as I pull evil plot twists and have left them asking with a bewildered plaintive voice "can he do that?"). A GM who realizes the dice are a guide, not the law.
And I GM because I'm tremendously creative and this provides that creative part of me an outlet. Yeah, there's one part control freak in there as well, but you know something? My players ENJOY being in my games. And I look forward to each new game (and thank you, Paizo, for putting out Pathfinder as it reignited my passion for running games).
So yeah. That's why I GM.