Source
r/rpg•
malpasplace

In the game of your dreams, what does the GM/DM do?

Game Master

We all have things we hate, but what do you love and want from a GM in the design of the position within a game?

Many games have a GM or DM role. Many people write about what it takes to be a good GM in different systems. How well different systems support that position. This isn't a question of "what is a GM?"

It is more a question of what do you think the position should be in your wildest dreams?

As a player what do you want out of your GM? What would make you take up that role? What powers do you want that person to have?

Do you want them to be a conductor? Do you want them to be more of a person bringing the story collaboration together? Do you want them creating the world or do you prefer that world creation to be more collaborative with the players?

As a GM- How much meta-game do you want to deal with? Do you like meta-currencies? Are you the sort that want the game to resolve things for you, or do you prefer to be more rulings over rules?

What do people prefer the relationship between the GM and players to be in their preferred dream game?

Which bits of the positions from various games would you take if you would or are making a game of your own?

I know I am pretty late 80's traditionalist in my desires. I like it when the GM is presenting the world and I am more responding to it as a player. As a GM I love the feeling when players are taken in by what I am presenting to them, when they emotionally get involved in the story immersed in themselves as their characters. Not acting so much as pissed at the bad guy, because they are pissed. Excited at succeeding because they succeeded, in fear from what might be around the corner, or excited to explore out of curiosity that is there own channeled though the character.

I like the rules to keep things fair and honest. To help me as the GM not just dictate what happens but have the game in it. I do know I like a GM who listens to how things might run in edge cases, but that ultimately running the game is GMs province where running the character is the players.

This isn't the One Right Way, it is just my personal preferences, largely built out of playing a lot of games and the ones I prefer.

What I am interested in is other people's preferences, both to help me understand wider playstyles and what more people would want when I am Going and help me be a better GM, but also to better understand different desires that others have when they are GM-ing and I am player.

Lastly, How could games better support you as a GM? both in basic design of the game and in presentation? because I am interested in how to get more user friendly designs.

Posted Jul 12, 2022, 11:59 PM UTC

524
NondairygiantOSR-SWORD D.R.E.A.M•

As a player I want a GM who relays a living world that responds to my choices and actions. I don't want to be a character in their story. I don't really want any intentional story. I want a GM who is playing to find out what happens just like I am.

As a GM I want engaged players who set goals and make plans, not just react moment to moment. I don't care about metagaming in the traditional sense, as to me, characters are just a vessel for play. I'm not generally interested in meta currencies or any attempt to provide satisfying play through mechanical resolution as opposed to diagetic. I roll dice to handle the things that aren't fun or easy to talk through, everything else is a conversation, IMO.

10
malpasplaceOP•

Honestly, I think the diagetic aspect is one of the best things that GMs bring to a game, and, for me, hard to replicate in a GM-less or more mechanically driven system.

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
OddNothic•

I want to find a GM that isn’t me. Most things beyond that are negotiable.

6
malpasplaceOP•

Sometimes the best game, is the available game

0
sarded•

The way I tend to put it is:
I want a game where every player feels comfortable to correct one another on the rules and point to a page reference to back them up;
and I want the GM to be treated as just another one of those players.

Most games out there suck at actually guiding GMs. I saw a separate thread about 'GM procedures' and I definitely think they're sorely lacking from a lot of games that aren't PbtA, but there are other games that have solid ones - recently I've been praising Electric Bastionland a lot for including them.

2
malpasplaceOP•

Definitely agree most games suck at guiding it, which also meant to me that they leave the position sort of nebulous to forcing a GM to sort of find the game for themselves.

It was the GM procedures thread that definitely made me think wider about what exactly games demand from GMs and what players want.

I don't know Electric Bastionland, that is one I haven't personally heard of. I will have to check it out.

0
sarded•

Basically the game has explicit GM principles and moves very similar to PbtA games, and additionally, also has additional specific principles and moves for the different major regions of the game's setting. So it's always reasonably clear what the GM should be describing and introducing for the players to deal with.

2
Logen_Nein•

In the game of my dreams there is no GM, only players. Hopefully one day I can have an AI run a game for me.

2
malpasplaceOP•

One of the designs I am working on is one that is GM-less and depends more on players for the social interaction role play part. It's difficult to design. Otherwise it becomes more holodeck like which honestly I'd probably enjoy too.

1
Logen_Nein•

Holodeck is the true dream for any gamer...

1
thrarxx•

As a GM, I want to find out where the game is going. I want to respond to the actions of the players and let them discover interesting things wherever they decide to look, rather than herd them towards The Big Plot.

As a player, I want my character to be meaningful to the game. I don't want a plug&play story where it could just as well be someone else in my character's place, but one that is driven by my and the other characters' goals and choices.

2
malpasplaceOP•

One of the things I read recently was a book on immersive theater that talked about productions that allowed people to wander freely. It spent a lot of time talking about the push and pull of different spaces, and how to draw people in by choice into really pretty plot driven things.

The author made a point that it wasn't for them a sandbox of improvisation that there was a meaningful and designed experience being presented to the audience. Again a choice where they are doing a production that they are selling a certain, somewhat repeatable experience of while allowing for greater but not unlimited agency.

It often sort of reminds me of mysteries. Often you could rewrite the mystery with a different detective, and get a different variation of a story, but at a certain point your still dealing with the same prepped situations.

Prepped situations with paths that pull, I love. I love sometimes being able to talk to other people who have gone through the same campaign sources but with a different group. I love the similarities and differences and how at that point for me it really feels we have played the same game even if the outcomes were different that I don't always feel when discussing people's home-brew campaigns even my own.

I actually think that has been part of the power of D&D for all its flaws. Your Strahd and my Strahd create a wider experience group that can be shared outside the table.

1
Ianoren•

I think the PbtA GM role has been my favorite. True narrative collaboration for Players being storytelling alongside them. They know the genre so well, they contribute interesting Situations, NPCs and Color (making the setting evocative) then give the Players room to tell their parts in the story.

Another key aspect is building tension using hard and soft GM Moves deftly without taking away Player agency - this is easy to happen in some PbtA games where Players never get to proactively act, just react. I've seen stories of this with Masks where Players are just constantly putting out fires - stopping destruction, saving bystanders and sometimes literally putting out fires. They core aspect is balancing the two key agendas of: Being a Fan of the PCs and Staying True to the Fiction.

This sheet has been incredibly valuable for really understanding the key aspects of design

2
malpasplaceOP•

I would say that even for me who probably goes for a game that is less collaborationist in the storytelling, I do think any game benefits from it more than some like me would often think.

To embody a character in any sense even if you aren't out to create a narrative or allow agency beyond it does often mean that the player will bring up the character's "past experiences out side of what is currently going on in the game. Often I have seen that lead to the creation of NPCs that even in a more GM driven game that are used by the GM to the benefit of the game.

I would say I get more of a sense of wonder from often the less collaborative parts of games. It gives me more a sense of a world outside my character. Of a world outside my own head. But without that collaboration, at some point it ceases to be something I feel a part of as a player.

2
dsheroh•

As a GM, I want to create and populate a world, then play that world and its inhabitants as they react to the actions of the PCs and other NPCs. While I am loathe to say anything one way or the other about "metagaming", because it means too many different things to different people, I will say that I hate all but the most basic metacurrencies ("you can make three rerolls per game session") and I'm also not a fan of mechanics that encourage players to look at things from a perspective outside of their characters', whether that be for reasons of narrative or for reasons of "optimal play". I'm even perfectly happy to manage all rules myself for the sake of allowing players to experience my world as their characters without needing to think about rules at all, if they desire to do so.

As a player, the main thing I want is to get back into the GM seat. I get bored after a session or two of not having an entire world to juggle.

2
malpasplaceOP•

Feel you on the jumping back into GMs seat. I know it is time to stop for awhile when I am not looking forward to it, and for me, if I let that feeling build to chopping at the bit while planning something. I will be good to go.

As a player, I love being limited to the perspective of my character which includes the feeling that I know their backstory, as much as there is or can be, as they would. The GM can use that to make the world as played better though.

I like good procedures for play that the player knows. I also like players to have a basic grasp of the rules because then they can reasonably trust by verify that it is the game making things really hard for them, not the GM being an ass. That trust I find is important and easy to question when there is a lack of transparency.

I like a game that allows players to support the GM rules wise. Taking up some of the lesser booking keeping tasks especially ones that are central to the player. I have GM'd games where there were players who had a better grasp of a rules set than I did. I love being able to use that knowledge as a GM, not have it be a problem as a "rules lawyer" player.

I like games with goals, or maybe adventures/scenarios/campaigns with goals might be the better way to put it. How "optimal" a player plays should be in reaching those goals. I also find those games easier to GM and more satisfying for me to do so. Less action paralysis by players, less me trying to think of something from a blank slate as a GM.

Honestly I have played with groups that include people who prefer creating a story as part of what works for them, people who love being along for the ride and like railroad play, people who are very into the mechanics, and one into a very sandbox simulation. All in the same group. For me, I want better support to that balance of goals among players and GM than something more niche at this point to one particular play style while still maintaining some key points.

As an example of one of those points- Players have autonomy over their characters choices, for instance. Not outcomes, but choices.This means the GM or other players can't play my character while I am doing so.

I guess I would say clear design goals of what the game is, but a game that supports a wide variety of play styles.

It is ultimately more important to me that the group be the one I want, than the game demand the right group to play it.

2
dsheroh•

I like good procedures for play that the player knows. I also like players to have a basic grasp of the rules because then they can reasonably trust by verify that it is the game making things really hard for them, not the GM being an ass. That trust I find is important and easy to question when there is a lack of transparency.

That definitely is important, yes. When I've had groups ask me to take all the mechanics "behind the curtain" and out of their sight, that has only been after we've played for a while with the rules in the open, allowing them to develop trust that I'm not out to screw them over.

​

I like a game that allows players to support the GM rules wise. Taking up some of the lesser booking keeping tasks especially ones that are central to the player.

That doesn't really matter to me either way - I will double-check rules and track all the bookkeeping in my head, regardless of whether a player is also doing it or not. It's purely reflexive for me, to the point that I'm not sure I could stop doing it even if I tried. (And this is a big part of why I'm willing to run games with all the mechanics out of the players' sight. Since I reflexively process all the rules regardless, it's no extra work for me to be the only one doing it.)

​

I like games with goals, or maybe adventures/scenarios/campaigns with goals might be the better way to put it. How "optimal" a player plays should be in reaching those goals.

When I mentioned "optimal play" earlier, I was thinking more about min/maxing, charop/planning optimized builds, etc. Mechanically optimal, rather than looking for the best (in-character) route to achieve the character's goals.

2
malpasplaceOP•

I also double check in that reflexive manner, still I find oversight easier than doing.

Min/maxing it sort of depends on the game for me.

Most of the time I like it where no player can be optimized for every situation, so if they are optimizing for certain aspects it doesn't bother me. It should make them weaker elsewhere.

It does bother me when it becomes overwhelmingly easy. For me, that was a weakness of D&D 4e where a single player character could cheese the entire game. A negative for all other people at the table.

However, in games with deep mechanical character progression, I think there will always be a question of what are you mechanically building towards. Good games I think channel that behavior to be more line with other goals.

I guess I would say it often ends up as part of the "game" part that some enjoy.

And hell, I've met people in real life who are constantly trying to min/max their own lives. If the character has a similar drive, that expression can through mechanics actually meet it when done well.

1
NorthernVashista•

They start and stop the game.

1
malpasplaceOP•

...and brings people back to it, when everyone strays into real world gossip.

1
Steenan•

As a GM:

  • I want clearly stated principles I should follow and solid play procedures. In other words, the game should tell me how I should run it, instead of only giving tools to resolve things.
  • I want space to be creative. Without that, it's a board game, not an RPG for me. But I don't want to be the sole source of content. I want the rules to prompt player creative input, too.
  • I want metagame discussion. Explicit stake setting. Players choosing what benefits/advantages and complications/consequences/conditions they get, even when it's not their characters' choice. Mechanically represented character arcs.
  • I want rules that push the situation in new directions that neither I nor my players planned.
  • I want solid rules for setting up the relevant kind of situations. This covers encounter building rules in a tactical game as well as setting up an engaging social situation (like town building rules in Dogs in the Vineyard) in a game that is mostly social.
  • I don't want to, at any point, judge player performance. No rewarding "good roleplaying", "good descriptions" etc. Rewards should be based on objective criteria that everybody can evaluate.
  • I don't want to correct the designer's mistakes. If the game tells me to ignore rules when they don't work, it's a clear sign that the game has rules it shouldn't have.

​

As a player:

  • I want to meaningfully affect things. I want to shape the story, I want to decide how I approach problems, I want my choices to have real consequences. I don't want to play through the GM's pre-planned story.
  • I want rules that are rules. There is space for player and GM decisions, but rules themselves can't be ignored or changed by anybody without clear and explicit consent of the whole group. If anybody makes a rules mistake, any other person may correct them. The GM is a director, not a dictator.
  • I don't want the GM as an authority on what character is "correct", "balanced" etc. If I create a character that fits with other PCs (as they players decide) and follows the rules, I'm good to go. In other words, the rules shouldn't let me create a character too strong, too weak or otherwise invalid, in a way that the GM would have to correct.
1
malpasplaceOP•

Reasonably solid play procedures make both the players and GM happier. Good ones guarantee space for the players both from the GM and other players which I think plays into a lot of your player points.

I admit that in rules disagreements as a GM, I will often look for a consensus among everyone at the table, not unanimity but a group understanding. I have found that giving the GM enough power to say "ok we are going with this and the ability to move on over one obstinate player can be good." Basically the ability to not a dictator, but still the power to embody the will of the group to move things forward.

The problem often arrises when GMs try to shut down a discussion and dictate without the support of their group. Another place where good procedures can help tons.

2
Prince_Nadir•

He comes out of retirement to run games again.

I suggested he could do games via zoom and pick players from around the world. He declared he was a luddite and said no.

1
malpasplaceOP•

Having run games on zoom, I do find it less appealing than live but far better than no game at all. Part of that is probably that the games haven't really been developed for that but just sort of adapted to it. Better games for online play probably is one of the things I would want.

1