The Responsibility of Fun

Storyguide Advice There is very little one can say with assurance about being a storyguide that someone else won't oppose. Truth be told, there is really no right or wrong way to be a storyguide. Basically, if you can keep the players enthusiastic about the game, you're doing a good job. Even if you're doing well, though, it's unlikely that you have no room for improvement. Some advice for storyguides follows - act on it as you will. ---Ars Magica, Fourth Edition, fourth printing (pg. 175), Atlas Games, April 2000.

Star said: I would be weary of using either of the D&D quotes that have been floating about as evidence of Wizards of the Coast's position on the subject. The variation between editions might reflect nothing more than the views of whoever wrote or edited the section - it's not quite like white wolf where the same advice is echoed in a range of products and editions over many years. I believe WotC have an archive of online articles so you might be able to find something there that'd expound on the views of whoever worked on each edition. I don't find any value in judging what a particular designer might have been thinking when writing a DMG or the like. As consumers, we're left with the results of what they say, not necessarily with the intent e.g. someone believing that it's totally on the DM to provide entertainment and whatever else that leads to in actual game play. That's what we're discussing here - the end results.

Shortland said: Headhunter Jones said: As to "flavor text," as you say, I think one of the major downfalls of many RPGs, D&D in particular, is that the sections on GMing are often presented as "tips," "tricks," or "rough guidelines" rather than firm rules that describe the role of the GM in the context of a given game. Dungeon World , for example, includes the following in its GM section: "This chapter isn’t about advice for the GM or optional tips and tricks on how best to play Dungeon World. It’s a chapter with procedures and rules for whoever takes on the role of GM." But this is likely fodder for a new topic. This lends itself to my interest in your endevour here (emphasis mine); why do your perceive the often lacking, or in some cases, not specifically defined procedures to be rigorously followed as detrimental to their system? Having looking through most of my collection today, the trend seems to be a "setting section," which is descriptive; a "system section," where all the rules and mechanics are detailed - though this is sometimes split into two sections, one for the players (the systems they'll use) and one for the GM (covering the rest); a character creation section which acts as a summary of the previous sections providing the basics of setting and system needed for character creation with some advice on how to flesh out a character; and a GM section which often includes any secret setting information and advice on how to run a game - including examples of antagonists and obstacles the players might encounter. Based on this I'd say your "rules that describe the role of the GM" are mostly in the system section(s) and that's why you're finding the GM sections to be more advice.

Headhunter Jones said: Star said: I would be weary of using either of the D&D quotes that have been floating about as evidence of Wizards of the Coast's position on the subject. The variation between editions might reflect nothing more than the views of whoever wrote or edited the section - it's not quite like white wolf where the same advice is echoed in a range of products and editions over many years. I believe WotC have an archive of online articles so you might be able to find something there that'd expound on the views of whoever worked on each edition. I don't find any value in judging what a particular designer might have been thinking when writing a DMG or the like. As consumers, we're left with the results of what they say, not necessarily with the intent e.g. someone believing that it's totally on the DM to provide entertainment and whatever else that leads to in actual game play. That's what we're discussing here - the end results. Well, to be blunt, spending any significant amount of time 'debating' the syntax and semantics of a bullet point of GM advice from a D&D book seems a pointless endevour to me. I've provided some more expansive articles on the subject in my previous posts, I hope they're of help.

Shortland said: This lends itself to my interest in your endevour here (emphasis mine); why do your perceive the often lacking, or in some cases, not specifically defined procedures to be rigorously followed as detrimental to their system? I think there most definitely is a best way to GM a given game in consideration of its mechanics relative to the game experience intended by the designers. I think that the designers should frame clearly the rules for the GM to get that game experience, then offer advice for how those might be modified and how that might affect aspects of the game. Other games already do this to great effect. I know when I sit down to play Dungeon World under any GM, I can expect a particular game experience because that game has specific rules and procedures for the GM to follow to perform his role in the game. When I sit down to play D&D under any DM where the DMG is pushed as "tips" or "tricks", it's a crap-shoot. (The number of DMs that run 4e like a 3.5e game then decide the game "sucks" is staggering. They're separate games demanding different approaches , but when the DMG is just seen as a "suggestion" instead of rules for running the game as intended by design, that's what you get.) But again, this is a topic for another thread, one I'd be happy to explore further next week!

Star said: Well, to be blunt, spending any significant amount of time 'debating' the syntax and semantics of a bullet point of GM advice from a D&D book seems a pointless endevour to me. I've provided some more expansive articles on the subject in my previous posts, I hope they're of help. Right, and we're not debating. We're gathering information to better understand where other people derive their viewpoints.

Headhunter Jones said: I don't find any value in judging what a particular designer might have been thinking when writing a DMG or the like. As consumers, we're left with the results of what they say, not necessarily with the intent e.g. someone believing that it's totally on the DM to provide entertainment and whatever else that leads to in actual game play. That's what we're discussing here - the end results. Yes, except it's not really a discussion, if our intent is to simply take the end product at face value. As consumers it is our responsibility (though some might say our option) to examine the end product, and make our own conclusions, instead of to simply accept presented opinion as canon. That is the entire purpose of having the chapter being advise - it allows you to make use of the content provided as you see fit. This strikes me seemingly odd after a discussion we had some time ago, about the flexibility of knowledge checks within a particular game - and my take away was your tendency to house rule away many checks if you felt that a) they were unnecessary or b) too much might hinge on the success or failure of said check (ie, bottlenecking). This is highly contrasted in this discussion, where you seem to be suggesting that more than flexibility, concrete structure for the GM is more desirable - whether than indicates more of a GM or Player oriented focus for generation of entertainment - though this is only an observation, and I could certainly be mistaken.

Quotes of Gary Gygax “Games give you a chance to excel, and if you're playing in good company you don't even mind if you lose because you had the enjoyment of the company during the course of the game.” “The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules.” “The worthy GM never purposely kills players' PCs, He presents opportunities for the rash and unthinking players to do that all on their own.” ----------------------------------- I felt like tossing some quotes in here for random sake. This is not to distract or sidetrack but just to relax and sound like I know stuff. Ignore my post if you want and continue your discussion about stuff. Have fun. I personally like the second quote.

Shortland said: Yes, except it's not really a discussion, if our intent is to simply take the end product at face value. As consumers it is our responsibility (though some might say our option) to examine the end product, and make our own conclusions, instead of to simply accept presented opinion as canon. That is the entire purpose of having the chapter being advise - it allows you to make use of the content provided as you see fit. And I would prefer specific rules and procedures for GMs to follow to perform their role, not wishy-washy advice. For this thread, I'm examining a particular conclusion reached by a number of DMs - DM as entertainer, responsible for The Fun - and where it comes from. I know many of you are trying to turn it into something other than that, but that's the heart of this thread. I'd appreciate everyone engaging with it on that basis.

Headhunter Jones said: I think there most definitely is a best way to GM a given game in consideration of its mechanics relative to the game experience intended by the designers. I think that the designers should frame clearly the rules for the GM to get that game experience, then offer advice for how those might be modified and how that might affect aspects of the game. Other games already do this to great effect. I know when I sit down to play Dungeon World under any GM, I can expect a particular game experience because that game has specific rules and procedures for the GM to follow to perform his role in the game. When I sit down to play D&D under any DM where the DMG is pushed as "tips" or "tricks", it's a crap-shoot. (The number of DMs that run 4e like a 3.5e game then decide the game "sucks" is staggering. They're separate games demanding different approaches , but when the DMG is just seen as a "suggestion" instead of rules for running the game as intended by design, that's what you get.) That would seem to (again, a bit off topic) be a quantifiable correct way to GM, versus having a bit of flexibility in the provided content. I'm certainly not dismissing that having guidelines - and in some cases, specific rules - are important, but I think it can be take too far. GM's are provided with rules and mechanics, which are used to arbitrate and craft the gaming experience - but in the games that I have played, having one that performs unilaterally the same from campaign to campaign is something I would have decidedly no interest in. I could point out that the number of people that play D&D 4.0 and 3.5 are staggeringly numerou s, which I'm fairly confident can lead to this "crap shoot" you're referring to. I have never met, or played with someone that runs Dungeon World, so your comparison doesn't really work for me - but regardless, the appeal is lacking. Perhaps, as a counter point, you prefer the mechanics in Dungeon world that facilitate this conclusion, in contrast to D&D 3.5/4 - which have a wide difference in game play and build between them, let alone outside systems - which is something I can certainly get behind; I have found that the same DM does not always produce the same product from system to system - but that can be as much the fault of the content or setting as say, the existence or lack of rigorous GM procedural notes. Having said that, if a GM and their players are willing to make the best out of what is provided for the purposes of the original goal, ie, to have fun - the provided GM structure, and the content of the game should have little baring in the end (as returning to my original point). Honestly, I'd love to give this discussion more of my time - but work is piling up :/

Headhunter Jones said: And I would prefer specific rules and procedures for GMs to follow to perform their role, not wishy-washy advice. For this thread, I'm examining a particular conclusion reached by a number of DMs - DM as entertainer, responsible for The Fun - and where it comes from. I know many of you are trying to turn it into something other than that, but that's the heart of this thread. I'd appreciate everyone engaging with it on that basis. Ok, look - clearly you have your opinion on the matter - which is decidedly not a debate, and we've established your goal here is to collect a list of games where it clearly (or less than clearly) states the level of emphasis on direction and development of enjoyment as it pertains to the GM. I get that. You clearly prefer systems which put the GM's function at more of an express degree of mechanics, rather than improvisation - which is also fine. Your original primary point was, however, how DM's feel regarding the balance or focus of fun in campaigns - to which the general consensus of this thread has been not, in fact, the GM or players as the sole entertainer - but rather the play between the two forces - the GM and their narrative, along with the players and their characters. That is generally what seems to be stemming from this thread, though following your second query, yes, there is discussion on core texts from various systems, and how they potentially reflect that statement. If you're no longer looking for discussion on that matter, and simply a collection of posts from rule book content, that is cool - but you did open this up originally as a discussion, which is entirely what I am responding to. I disagree with your consensus, but respect your opinion on the matter none the less. It wouldn't be my cup of tea, but I don't drink tea - so take from it (anything) what you will.

My opinion in this thread is that people's opinions on the role of GM relative to who's in charge of bringing the fun comes from somewhere . I'd like to know whether that opinion is based on what the game someone is playing says on that matter. After gathering some thoughts on the matter (and we all seem to be in agreement), I requested that people quote specific text from games they play that either support their opinion or refute it (perhaps by supporting the DM As Entertainer notion as the DMG 3.5e seems to do). That's all.

Cool. - I've always felt that the roll was mutually responsible, between players and GM. - I have never specifically and consciously read, and taken to heart that advice from any specific rule book, or system; it has entirely been derived from my observations in playing these games, and what I felt would best serve everyone involved in the process - nothing more. Being that is the extent of what I can offer to your cause, as my opinion may or may not resonate with the text presented in the systems I do play, I'm going to bow out of this thread.

Headhunter Jones said: My opinion in this thread is that people's opinions on the role of GM relative to who's in charge of bringing the fun comes from somewhere . I'd like to know whether that opinion is based on what the game someone is playing says on that matter. After gathering some thoughts on the matter (and we all seem to be in agreement), I requested that people quote specific text from games they play that either support their opinion or refute it (perhaps by supporting the DM As Entertainer notion as the DMG 3.5e seems to do). That's all. Fair enough. I'd say that my opinion on the preferable way to GM comes from experience over about 25 years of gaming, in four countries and three languages. Although all of them have been so-called Western countries, there does seem to be a consistent benefit to a flexible GM, capable of offering judgment and interpretation on the fly, without throwing the rulebook at every issue: harmony. Empathy and generosity will solve more issues than totalitarianism, and it will cause less hard feelings. And this is from someone with great respect and appreciation for consistent rule sets.

Headhunter Jones said: I requested that people quote specific text from games they play that either support their opinion or refute it (perhaps by supporting the DM As Entertainer notion as the DMG 3.5e seems to do). That's all. This is a direct copy of the text that comes close to what you are asking that is in my preferred system, This game attempts to walk the line between simple and complex, free-form and detailed. Too much detail and complexity slows the game down as players and GM spend much time leafing through the rules and little time actually playing. Free-form games with simple resolution systems demand more mental agility from the participants, and are much more dependent on the good judgment of the Game Master to maintain balance. Basic Fantasy Role-Playing Game falls between these two extremes, having rules for the most common activities and guidelines to help the Game Master judge the unexpected. That is on pg 6 of the pdf. It supports my first post in this thread the way I read it.

All game mechanics are simply mediums for roleplay. The depth of that roleplay and how the GM and players use the mechanics differ completely from game to game and group to group. "Fun" is a poor term to use in this sort of discussion, since its not quantifiable. Some GM's or players might have fun following a stringent set of rules and heavily combat oriented gameplay, while others might not need any sort of rulebook to create a game equally as fun for them. And of course all of those who's preferences fall somewhere in between. The best games I've been involved in, be it GMing or playing, are those where everyone's contributions and expectations align together comfortably. In my opinion the absolute most important, best, top, #1, component a GM can offer their players is a clear set of expectations in regards to the game offered, and the players contribution towards said game.

Fun is in the eye of the beholder

I feel it's up to everyone to make the game fun. Either through comedic characters or through dumb ass stunts. But over all mj personal favourite line was from the Dressden file books. "Who ever kills the cheer, buys the beer." usually keeps things happy for us.

The cut of my Jib... But my jib has always been that size!

Echoing the sentiments that tabletop roleplaying has always been a collaborative endeavor. The GM and players must all participate to make things fun. I've been in games with boring GMs and boring players. Either one can kill the mood.