Finding Your GM Style: A Flowchart

Go with the flow and find your GM Style here . What does it tell you? Not surprisingly, I got Story Now/Collaborative Improv. Source

I stumbled across this same chart myself a few days ago and bookmarked it. I was considering making a revised version, as I believe it could be tightened up a bit.

The base assumptions of that thing are , ha ha waaay skewed. Meh.

I got old school / sandbox.

Meh... worthless flowchart that appears to have been made by a storygamer with a chip on his shoulder.

I like the idea of a flowchart but you're right, it's clear where the author's preferences lie. My thought was to create a similar document but without the unnecessary (and, quite frankly, somewhat condescending) commentary. Not real high on my priority list, though.

I see three... but how many should it have? And those who have posted - what result did you get?

Mine was of course "Sandbox/Old School Play". But I didn't care for some of the verbiage I had to wade through to get there. That's what I meant in my above posting. I also think he goes somewhat off-track around in the Lower Left / Left Center area... not sure yet what I'd do differently though. This is something where I would want to make actual boxes (print them out or something) and slide them around on my desk until I was happy with the arrangement. Then re-create it on the computer in an actual flowchart.

LOL! Well, I see there's no longer any need for me to work on a flowchart now. Thanks, GM Mu, for sparing me from that time sink. (I might still do it anyway, just as an mental exercise :-p)

Funny, yes. Helpful, no. When a game isn't fun, it's useful to examine why. The number one reason why games aren't fun is because the GM and the players aren't playing the same game. The GM can't or doesn't define what it is he's doing and the players can't or don't define what it is they want. Or they do and it's a complete mismatch. They play anyway and it doesn't work out. The next week, the GM is looking for new players because the "flakes" dropped out and the players are looking for a new GM because the last one "sucked." Wouldn't it be nice if we could communicate a bit better on these issues with each other so as to find compatible GMs and players such that more stable groups could be formed? Knowing what your GM style is, how to communicate it clearly, and how to recruit players who are into what you're doing is key.

Regardless of whatever humorous remarks the various flowchart symbols contain as you move through it, you'll reach a GM style. Those questions and answers that you move through include aspects of your GM style that you can communicate to your players. You and I took a relatively straight path right to Story Now/Collaborative Improv. Take the road signs on that path and communicate that to the players: We use settings/situations/backstories, but no plot or ending. The players make characters that have a reason to care about these situations. We let those reasons drive play, and the characters are the protagonists. Taken another way, the flowchart also says what our style is not. That's a good start to describing how one approaches a game - take it from there.

GM Mu said: <Awesome flowchart> Man, between this and your profile, I wish Roll20 had a "High Five" button. You will be the first person I PM to get a Wuthering Heights game off the ground.

Wuthering Heights RPG is awesome. Also the Venture Bros hack.

Awesome, I really like your profile as well.

Yeah, bit meh with that flow chart, comes across as a story gamer with chip on shoulder. It did not really work for me as i cant be bothered to wade through its attitude. Just another gamer promoting their style of gaming as the 'one true way'.

The some of the boxes in the flowchart are really vague, it actually took me to "sandbox"/old school and I do indeed run a 2nd edition sandbox campaign so I guess it's... kind... ok-ish However I find the one GM Mu posted to ring truer and explain things much more clearly in terms of "how you should run a campaign" . GM Mu said:

This is one of those things you can choose to be offended about or to take lessons from, as I did. A good takeaway is that a lot of these steps go away if you just honestly talk about your style with your players and the players talk about what they want from the game before play. The people whose desires match should be playing together; mismatches cause social issues and precipitously-ended gaming groups. Check out any "I have a problem player" or "Bad GM" thread and I bet you find the reason for it on this flowchart. We see at least weekly threads about this stuff or about "flaky" players or "power players ruining the game" or "Don't do what this GM does." People not sitting down to play the same game is where it comes from. Communicating what everyone wants clearly at the outset is the solution.

Headhunter Jones said: People not sitting down to play the same game is where it comes from. Communicating what everyone wants clearly at the outset is the solution. Agreed, and I do think a flowchart like this can be a good way to help people achieve the goal of matching themselves with those of similar play styles. However, I (and apparently others) believe this particular chart is not as good a product as it could be. No one likes to be talked down to, no matter how subtle or couched in humor it may be done. Once people sense they're being treated as less-than-equal, they tend to shut down and then are no longer receptive to whatever point is being made. So, while this chart is a step in the right direction, the author lets his personal biases creep in and thus it is only partially successful at what it sets out to do. I believe the author meant well, I don't believe he intentionally meant to put anyone off. But it's there, nonetheless. What I think would be more useful is to take this flowchart idea and attempt to make it as objective as possible, as well as remove much of the fluff text. Apart from any perceived biases, I still believe it could be made more concise. At any rate, if the author of such a project can treat ALL play styles with equal objectivity, regardless of his own personal preferences, then he might create a tool which would be well-received by everyone.

Headhunter Jones said: This is one of those things you can choose to be offended about or to take lessons from, as I did. No. Bad Headhunter. Don't even try to argue something like that as no one actually 'chooses' to be offended. Something either hurts/annoys/irritates/triggers you or it doesn't. On the topic of the flowchart, it is written in a very condescending 'talking down to someone' style, plus where I ended up was a bit confusing as well. My campaigns both 'let those relationships/beliefs/goals drive the direction of play while I improvise new situations in reaction to them' AND 'my game world follows its own internal logic, not metagame concerns! it goes on with or without the PCs!'. So I am somewhere in between Sandbox and Story Now, I suppose ^^ I do think there really ought to be something in between there as there is quite a difference between every Player collaborating and improvising -world-elements, Sandbox with Characterfocus and what apparently counts as Old-school sandbox play in this thing. Sandbox isn't just about exploring a setting (and if you don't like it boooo! or something?) imo, but thats just me...

I chose not to get offended at GM Mu's profile, even though it could very easily have been taken to be referring to me personally. I don't think you can be "talked down to" if you're comfortable with your approach and your players are having fun with your offerings. Isn't that what GM Mu essentially said with his own flowchart? There is no One True Way. If you're group is having fun, then you're doing fine. If your group is not having fun, it could be that's because you're not all playing the same game. This flowchart helps identify aspects of the style that can be communicated and points out where some problematic issues can come up so you can adjust your style or adjust your group. Where you're not seeing the difference between "old school" simulationist play and story now/collaborative improv is that in the former, the characters are just people in the imaginary setting. In the latter, they are the protagonists . This suggest a much more PC-centric focus. Based on our conversations in other threads, I'd feel very comfortable saying you're of the "old school/sandbox" approach.

Ye gods. The chart sucks the donkey because it begs the question. "Does your mother know that those D&D games you play are Satanic?" "How many years have you known that D&D is evil, and you have chosen to be a heathen?" Questions like that, toss them out.

Headhunter Jones said: I chose not to get offended at GM Mu's profile, No you didn't. You either didn't get offended or chose to hide it. The alternative, you are actually a Robot or some form of AI that can't feel emotions anyway. Headhunter Jones said: Where you're not seeing the difference between "old school" simulationist play and story now/collaborative improv is that in the former, the characters are just people in the imaginary setting. In the latter, they are the protagonists . This suggest a much more PC-centric focus. Based on our conversations in other threads, I'd feel very comfortable saying you're of the "old school/sandbox" approach. They are the protagonists in boths approaches (usually).

James J. said: Ye gods. The chart sucks the donkey because it begs the question. "Does your mother know that those D&D games you play are Satanic?" "How many years have you known that D&D is evil, and you have chosen to be a heathen?" Questions like that, toss them out. Begging the question is an informal fallacy that doesn't invalidate the argument. In any case, nothing is being "proved" here, only communicated. And in this case, what is being communicated is a need for communication on these issues to form better, more stable groups. Do you have issues with retaining players in your groups? Have you had groups disband because people stopped showing up? Do your groups of 8 become groups of 2, say, recently ? It could be because you and those players didn't sit down to play the same game. Knowing how to communicate with each other helps with that. If you do not care for the questions, perhaps you can describe the path you took through the flowchart and suggest why and how the specific bits don't apply to your approach. Lewis W. said: No you didn't. You either didn't get offended or chose to hide it. The alternative, you are actually a Robot or some form of AI that can't feel emotions anyway. I read this as uncharitable. Have you ever heard of the benefit of the doubt or the principle of charity? Perhaps you can assume going forward that I'm not lying. It makes discussion a lot more productive. I'll drop this line of discussion in any case because a mod indicates it's a good idea to do so. They are the protagonists in boths approaches (usually). Protagonism is the one of the defining features of narrativism (story now) as opposed to what is usually simulationism (old school/sandbox, as framed in this flowchart). While you can really delve into this, here's a shorter version that explains this clearly.

James J. said: "Where you're not seeing the difference between "old school" simulationist play and story now/collaborative improv" Patronizing. I'd submit, based on this and other threads, you're simply predisposed to hearing my tone as patronizing because you don't agree with my positions. How many "No Myth" potshots have you taken at me of late even in threads not discussing it? In the above sentence, I'm literally saying he's not "seeing" it because the flowchart specifically denotes a difference between the approaches such that the PCs are the "main characters" (i.e. protagonists) - see the lower right part of the flowchart. "My game world... goes on with or without the PCs" (see just to left of what I just pointed out) is a hallmark of the "old school/sandbox" approach, indicating rather clearly that the PCs aren't the "main characters." I further clarified the differences in a link provided in response to Lewis W.'s post. Do you have issues with retaining players in your groups? Yes. In fact many people here do. Does is say anything about me? No, but you do, when you are not busying yourself in instructing the locals on how to play better. I haven't said anything about you personally. I don't know you at all, only what you post. I think it's important and valuable to examine why people are having issues retaining players in their groups. Isn't it better to examine it honestly and figure out ways to make more stable productive gaming groups? If you don't want to engage in that discussion, nobody's forcing you. Have you had groups disband because people stopped showing up? Yes, in fact many people here have. I know, it's been going on for 30+ years. Long before Roll20 came around. I put forth that it's because many people aren't communicating with each other about what they want from the game and how they will get there together. Do your groups of 8 become groups of 2, say, recently ? Absolutely. Maybe you can poll them privately to find out why. Maybe you could do that for every game here that's failed. Lots of work. Don't you think it's your responsibility to do that with your own players? I don't have issues retaining players as GM because I find players that buy-in to the approach we're using and content we're exploring. I would love it if the community could have the same benefit (how many "flaky players" or "bad GM" threads do we get in a week?) and that groups I myself join as a player didn't have player retention issues. I'm not here to tell people how to play, or tell them how much better my style is. That's where we differ. I'm not telling people how to play or how much better my style is. I'm telling them how I play and how I don't play and what kind of game experience that produces. Sometimes I ask about the way they play and we debate the finer points of each so as to better understand each other's position. Sometimes people take it personally when there is no need for that and no ill intent on my part. Play how you want. When you don't get the results you want or lose players as a result of how you play, maybe it's because you haven't effectively communicated your creative agenda and gotten player buy-in on that notion. That is what this thread is about - communication so as to form better, more stable groups - which is ironically being obfuscated by objections to tone. To all: How do you communicate your style and creative agenda to players before you start a campaign?

So long thread, it was nice knowing ye....

I'll make my own flavor neutral flowchart, since multiple people saying the above is flawed isn't being heard, and their comments discounted out of hand.