Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Terry Amburgey <xanth@****.UKY.EDU>
Subject: gamemastering
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 13:42:53 -0400
Eve wrote:

>I can't belive this. I was stunned at the whole "well, how come, if the GM's
>doesn't want (item/rule) in his game, and all the players do, why shouldn't
>the GM be considered outvited" thread, too, but I was too busy to say anything.
>
>Look. If a director makes a movie, an author writes a book; does the
audience or
>reader decide what it's about? Does the reader stand over the author's shoulder
>and shout; "No, don't kill that character! I like him!" Can you imagine the
>response? As an author, I can; I'd turn around and say, "hey, if you don't like
>it, don't read it." The GM is in charge of the world. That's what "Game
*MASTER* means. If all the players want a certain rule, and the GM doesn't,
then why
>doesn't one of those players be the GM for awhile, and the old GM can play, or
>not, as he chooses.

Interesting metaphor. I suppose I would argue that instead of a
single-authored work a good rpg would be 'shared' fiction. Something along
the lines of the 'Thieves World' series where multiple authors produced a
collaborative outcomes. Vis-a-vis movies, I would opt for the more recent
'interactive video' approach rather than the traditional mode of creating a
movie.

Where does it say that the gm is in charge of the world? [excuse my slip
back into the by-the-book mode]? Could an rpg work with a 'referee' instead?

> I can't believe we're arguing about whether the GM should be
>"all-powerful". That's the way it IS.

Female figurines with huge hooters wearing chainmail bikinis is also the way
it IS. That doesn't mean I shouldn't question the design practices of [for
example] Ral Partha.

>There's nothing wrong with suggesting
>things, or discussing things with the GM, but the end result is, the GM is
>making the game for you to play. If you don't like how he/she does it, then
>leave.

Yes, voting with your feet is always the final option.

>Are you going to argue with the writer of the adventure you're playing
>too? Call up FASA and complain that this rule sucks, and since you players
>outnumber FASA, then FASA should change?

No, we already know how this works - house rules.

>I admit that they may be open to
>suggestions, but this whole idea of "It just isn't *FAIR*"; well, I've got
>news for you.... neither is life.

Hard to argue with you here, life isn't fair.

>How many times has your GM "won"? (However you want to define it, I still
>maintain that it's not a contest, for crissake)

Yes, you've made it clear that you don't think it should be a contest [and
luckily, neither does my current gm]. On the other hand, how many [evil gm
grin] blurbs have you seen on the list? Or more explicit descriptions of
making life miserable for PC's? I haven't run into THAT many bad gm's so I'm
inclined to believe that it's posturing rather than an accurate description
of how people approach their game but who knows.

>How do you define the GM
>"furthering his own ends"? What the heck does he have to gain? He doesn't
>have any characters gaining Karma. If he wants the adventure to go a certain
>way, you can probably bet it's to make it more entertaining for *YOU*, the
>player. Goddamn that nasty GM, being sneaky and putting all that effort and
>thought in, just so you can have a better time. What a jerk.

Most of the time the MOTIVATION may be to make it more entertaining for the
PC's. But if this is true wouldn't the collaborative-authorship metaphor be
more appropriate? IMHO the single-authorship approach is part of the problem
- the 'author' decides what will be entertaining to the reader and if the
reader doesn't like it then the reader can take a hike. [time to put in some
psychology for Gurth :)] GM's can get the same ego involvement with 'their
world' as players can get with their characters.
When gm's put 'their world' ahead of fun for everyone then they start
'furthering their own ends'.

>As always and always, if you don't like it, leave. Whether it's a book, a
>movie, or a game.

I'd rather yak about bad product and how it could be better.

>If you've got a point, chances are others will be doing
>the same, and the author/director/GM will get the hint and start changing
>their product to be more acceptable to the audience.

A solid free-market approach. Are there a lot of gaming groups in your area
so that you can easily dump one campaign and join another?

>If you're just
>whining and bitching because you can't get your way and have everything
>happen that you want, then you can go off and make your own book/movie/game
>and do it just the way you want. Then everybody's happy.

I'm not sure how to respond to this one.

>
>Sorry, I'm ranting... enough for now.
>
Damn good rant though.

Terry L. Amburgey Office: 606-257-7726
Associate Professor Home: 606-224-0636
College of Business & Economics Fax: 606-257-3577
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 40506
Message no. 2
From: Terry Amburgey <xanth@****.UKY.EDU>
Subject: gamemastering
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 13:50:18 -0400
S.F. Eley wrote:
>> Why the GM? Why not the players?
>
>The players also can, and should. The GM, however, is the final arbiter of
>what rules are adopted in her game campaign. This is because she needs to
>deal with them much more than the players, and has the responsibility of
>creating and running encounters under those rules. The GM can, and should,
>get player input on rules changes, but it's not a democracy. If the players
>don't like what the GM decides, they can find someone else to GM.

Not necessarily, I've been in several [4 or 5] campaigns with rotating
referees that WAS a democracy when it came to rules and campaign development
that worked VERY well.


>> >If there
>> >was a rule that unbalanced the game somehow he could not do anything about
>> >it. Lets take the new Cybermancy rules for an example. The GM would have
>> >to allow players become "cyberzobies" if they so chose. He would
not have
>> >the option of ommiting that section.
>>
>> Exactly. If 4 PC's want to become 'cyberzombies' and 1 GM doesn't why should
>> the GM decide? Many responses to my post cite the GM's right to be creative.
>> What about PC's? Do players get the same options in creatively molding a
>> character? No, THAT'S munchkinism.
>
>As I said above, it's not a democracy. The reason is because, if it were,
>laissez-faire character empowerment would go out of control. Every player
>wants his character to excel. Of COURSE they do; it's a sensible and
>reasonable approach. Without limits set by the GM, the characters would
>rapidly develop to the point where they no longer make sense in the GM's
>gmae world. Remember, the PC's don't create the world; the GM does. The
>GM is logically the person to decide what the PC's can get away with.
>
>Players SHOULD have control over their characters, and model them by the
>players' own tastes and wishes -- within the limits of the game world, which
>is dictated by the GM. If players could have full control over everything
>that ever happens to their characters, why even HAVE a Gamemaster?
>
>BOB: "Okay, I think I'll take a week off to get that Ares MP Laser mounted
> on my cyberarm."
>GM: "Erm, you can't do that.. It's way way WAY too big and heavy.
> B'sides, you don't have the 5 million cred that it would cost."
>BOB: "So I call my buddy Doc Whistle, who used to work for Ares and runs a
> charity clinic out in Redmond. He owes me four favors; I can get this
> stuff at a discount. He'll upgade my cyberarm, too, give me the
> strength to handle it."
>GM: "Never heard of 'im."
>BOB: "Oh, it was a few years back for my character. You remember, right
> folks?"
>ALL: "Oh, yeah, yeah, of course! Wonderful guy, that Doc. Go for it, Bob!"
>GM: "The fuel cells?"
>BOB: "Prototype."
>ALL: "Prototype!"
>GM: "It'll take three weeks."
>BOB: "Five days. Doc does this all the time."
>ALL: [put to a vote] "Heck, four days!"
>GM: [growling] "I suppose the rest of you want this, too, right?"
>JIM: "Nope.. I want the rocket launcher attachment!"
>JOE: "My lasers are contained in my cybereyes instead. Superman's heat
> vision, ya know."
>SUE: "Can't hurt my Essence that much. I think I'll just research the
> Laser spell. Force 6."
>GM: [irate] "Aaaaargh! Suddenly, hostilities between the UCAS and
> Imperial Japan escalate to nuclear proportions! Seattle is bombarded
> with MIRV's.. The whole Metroplex is vaporized, and your characters
> with it!"
>JIM: "Of COURSE not. We've _always_ had contacts in the Japanese military,
> right folks? Let's see, what would we roll to get word to head for
> California.. Target Number... 3? Yeah, that sounds good. Target
> Number 3."
>GM: [heads to other room to quietly slit throat]
>
>
>Don't tell me this doesn't happen.. I've played in "no-limits" game
>environments, and it takes less than an hour for them to get either boring
>or ridiculous.
>
>
>Blessings,
>
>_TNX._

Well, all I can say is that I've played in several rotating-referee games
that were democracies and this never happened. Guess I've been relatively lucky.
Terry L. Amburgey Office: 606-257-7726
Associate Professor Home: 606-224-0636
College of Business & Economics Fax: 606-257-3577
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 40506
Message no. 3
From: Terry Amburgey <xanth@****.UKY.EDU>
Subject: gamemastering
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 13:57:58 -0400
Sascha Pabst wrote:

>If I remember right - and I think I do - nowhere was said changes to rules are
>decisions done by GMs alone. I can't speak for anyone but me, but as far as I
>know, it is done best with players and GM discussing a problem or rule to
change
>and devolp a way around the given problem. And believe me: Its WAY easier
>to work in a group for a new rule then alone!

I agree, it should be a group decision.

>> I can't belive this. I was stunned at the whole "well, how come, if the GM's
>> doesn't want (item/rule) in his game, and all the players do, why shouldn't
>> the GM be considered outvited" thread, too, but I was too busy to say
>> anything.
>
>Hm, whenever I played (be it as player or GM) it was nearly _ever_ the GM to
>introduce new items... and the players being most happy. We are two GMs in
>one group, switching from player to GM every two or three runs, and it's an
>unspoken rule that the GM decides what comes in. And no: So far no GM
>allowed things/items the other disallowed. ("Timeout... Would you come out,
>Wolfie (*other GM*)?" outside: "On this >thingy<, how did you
rule...?")
>Players have ideas of their own, that's natural (I think), but then it
>goes: Well, I look for {mechanic|weaponsmith|cyberdeck constructor|...} and
>ask him if it's possible to build..." and back is the topic at the GM.
>Someone on this list once said: "Give 'em what they want, if they insist,
>and if it is neccessary, make them regret it!" (well, not word-for-word, but
>along the tone...)

Having everyone involved requires more work than the gm-as-dictator model
but I think it works better.

>> Look. If a director makes a movie, an author writes a book; does the
>> audience or reader decide what it's about?
>> Does the reader stand over the author's shoulder
>> and shout; "No, don't kill that character! I like him!" Can you imagine
the
>> response? As an author, I can; I'd turn around and say,
>> "hey, if you don't like
>> it, don't read it." The GM is in charge of the world. That's what
>> "Game *MASTER* means. If all the players want a certain rule, and the
>> GM doesn't, then why
>> doesn't one of those players be the GM for awhile, and the old GM can
play, or
>> not, as he chooses.
>> I can't believe we're arguing about whether the GM should be
>> "all-powerful". That's the way it IS. There's nothing wrong with
suggesting
>> things, or discussing things with the GM, but the end result is, the GM is
>> making the game for you to play. If you don't like how he/she does it, then
>> leave. Are you going to argue with the writer of the adventure you're playing
>> too? Call up FASA and complain that this rule sucks, and since you players
>> outnumber FASA, then FASA should change? I admit that they may be open to
>> suggestions, but this whole idea of "It just isn't *FAIR*"; well, I've
got
>> news for you.... neither is life.
>>
>> How many times has your GM "won"? (However you want to define it, I
still
>> maintain that it's not a contest, for crissake) How do you define the GM
>
>Hm, I win nearly anytime I GM in a roleplaying game. If th players have fun,
>and I enjoy myself, and maybe someone eats his fingernails down to the palm
>for tension, then I _won_! :-) And IMHO that's the only way to win in RPGs.
>Have Fun!

I agree, this is the way that a referee should win. But is this consistent
with an 'it's my world I'll do what I want' approach to running a game?

Terry L. Amburgey Office: 606-257-7726
Associate Professor Home: 606-224-0636
College of Business & Economics Fax: 606-257-3577
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 40506
Message no. 4
From: Terry Amburgey <xanth@****.UKY.EDU>
Subject: gamemastering
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 14:07:32 -0400
S.F. Eley wrote:

>> This is not a direct response Sebastien, but your post triggered this train
>> of thought: munchkins are the larval form of game masters. Think about the
>> traits ascribed to munchkins - a desire to be 'all-powerful', they expect to
>> 'win', they're willing to 'bend' the rules or take them to absurd lengths to
>> further their own ends.
>
>For their characters. Yes. Munchkins do this, and ignore any consideration
>of whether their actions make sense.
>
>
>> Now consider recent posts by game masters on the 'fudging dice rolls' thread
>> and the 'by the book' thread - GM's claim the right to be all powerful
>> [anything less is stifling to their creativity]; they not only expect to
>> win, they fudge dice rolls to ensure it; they're not only willing to bend
>> and stretch rules, they make them up out of whole cloth to further their own
>> ends.
>> Whaddya think?
>
>I think you should try being a Gamemaster before making such blanket
>criticisms. Have you tried it? No, obviously not.. If you did, you
>would understand that the concept of "winning" is entirely, totally,
>completely meaningless from the GM's viewpoint; even more so than it is
>for players. You've just shown that you have no understanding of this,
>and even less understanding what the "ends" of a Gamemaster really are.
>
>Please try it sometime, Associate Professor Amburgey. Spend six hours some
>week designing NPC's and settings. Read and reread the rulebooks repeatedly
>to make sure you understand and can handle situations before they arise.
>THEN spend six to eight hours in a gaming session, trying to handle half a
>dozen players at once, each with their own priorities and their own agendas,
>matching their combined wit and cleverness against your own. Try to keep
>them organized, and deal with their needs one at a time. When they do
>things you couldn't possibly expect, try not to be too upset as you ignore
>everything you wrote up that week and spend less than thirty seconds
>creating new threats that will be difficult enough to be entertaining,
>without overpowering them.
>
>It's a difficult balance. And Gamemastering is a difficult job. Some do
>the job better than others, but any GM who knows what he's doing puts the
>PC's first and foremost in his mind. Everything you criticize GM's for,
>they do for the group's benefit. GM's push themselves, and push
>themselves HARD, harder than any other single player, for the primary
>purpose of entertaining the group.
>
>I don't expect you to appreciate this. You've decided you have a grudge,
>and nobody's going to change that by arguing. Perhaps you've played with
>a lousy GM; I don't know. I don't care, either. I DO care that you're
>trying to give GM's a bad image, and that you criticize them for being
>Gamemasters without making any attempt to understand their motivations.
>Some Gamemasters are "munchkinish," yes, and some are just plain clueless --
>but not for the things you hold against them.
>
>
>Blessings,

This one is tough to answer. I could tell you that I've played and refereed
a wide variety of rpg's for 17 years but all that proves is that I'm older
than dirt. Besides 'been there, done that' just seems like a dumb thing to
say. How about this - see my post to Eve.

Terry L. Amburgey Office: 606-257-7726
Associate Professor Home: 606-224-0636
College of Business & Economics Fax: 606-257-3577
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 40506
Message no. 5
From: Terry Amburgey <xanth@****.UKY.EDU>
Subject: gamemastering
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 14:35:28 -0400
Martin Steffens wrote:
>You're really frustrated about the way your GM runs the game, or else
>you like to irritate people :( .

My current gm is pretty good. I'm not averse to irritating people.

>This is starting to look like a
>personal verdetta against GM's,

No, I just want to discuss refereeing rpg's.
>and I do not like the way you phrase
>your "point of view/question".

As Eve pointed out, life isn't fair.

>As a GM I try to give my players a
>good evening/night full of fun by writing and running the adventures.
>Not because I like to kill them of, want to play God, am a notorious
>cheater, or want to "win".
>My first and most important concern is that my players like the game.
>I see myself more like an author writing a book for his audience, than
>an all-powerfull God. Of course during the game you'll have allmost
>god-like powers over the players because in fact you control the world
>and stage the action, but play "God" for a couple of games an its: exit
>players. Try it once, and you will quickly notice that you're as bound
>to the rules and gamesystem as any player is. Our urge to change rules
>is born more out of a need to improve the level of realism in our game,
>than to exert more power in the game.

As the author of the book, it's 'your' book. Maintaining the integrity of
'your' game is how gm's 'win'. The proprietary attitude of some [not all I
will grant you] gm's is one of the elements of gamemastering where I have a
different view. Think back to the fudging-dice-rolls thread. One commonly
cited situation was 'the plotline required something to happen/not happen so
I fudged the dice to make it happen/not happen'. That's how gm's can 'win' -
they've created a scenario and its gonna happen come hell/high water/bad
dice rolls.

>And about the "winning": what the heck is there to win for a GM??!!
>If he kills all the PC's? I'm never even thinking about winning when
>I'm GM-ing. If you're still roleplaying in terms of "winning and
>losing" its time to play normal games and move away from RPG's.
>The only way I "win" a game, is when my players have enjoyed
>themselves and liked the adventure.

Is it your game or the group's game? If it's your game and not the group's
then you have an agenda and a way of winning and losing.

>And I think a lot of GM's have tried very reasonably to explain the
>reasons why they "bend the rules" sometimes, but if you're still
>under the impression its wrong and cheating, so be it. I can live
>with that, as long as you're not one of my players.

Sometimes it is wrong and it is cheating and I've tried very reasonably to
explain why I hold that opinion.

>Concluding I like to say that if you don't like the way we GM's stage
>our games, stop whining and start playing something without a GM, or
>try it yourself sometimes. Then you can see how it really is to be a
>GM. As far as I can see from your posts, you don't know a thing about
>it.
>
>A highly irritated,

If you like, you and Mr. Ely, and I can compare gaming experience via
private email.
At any rate, as long as it's within the guidelines of the list, I feel free
to whine as necessary.



Terry L. Amburgey Office: 606-257-7726
Associate Professor Home: 606-224-0636
College of Business & Economics Fax: 606-257-3577
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 40506
Message no. 6
From: Eve Forward <lutra@******.COM>
Subject: Re: gamemastering
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 11:30:54 -0700
Terry writes:

>>Interesting metaphor. I suppose I would argue that instead of a
single-authored work a good rpg would be 'shared' fiction. Something along
the lines of the 'Thieves World' series where multiple authors produced a
collaborative outcomes. Vis-a-vis movies, I would opt for the more recent
'interactive video' approach rather than the traditional mode of creating a
movie.<<

I'm not saying the -game- is a single-authored work. I'm saying that the
GM is still the final arbiter of what happens. If you really think it
would be AWESOME for your character to sprout wings and fly away, but
the GM says "No", then I'm sorry, no feathers for you. I guess this
is just a fundamental point on which you and I disagree, though, and if
that's the way it is, there's nothing more to be said. There are games
(Amber, for instance, I think) where the players have a lot more to do
with the design and running of the world; perhaps you would like that more.

>>Where does it say that the gm is in charge of the world? [excuse my slip
back into the by-the-book mode]? Could an rpg work with a 'referee' instead?
<<
I don't know. Why don't you design one, playtest it, and let us know how it
goes? As for where does it say that, I should think it would be obvious as
saying "Now, don't -really- go out and kill people with guns. Just -pretend-."
Frankly I find your attitude towards GMs to be pretty ungrateful and I can
only conclude with others who have suggested you must have had a very bad
experience with one. I wonder why you kept playing with them.

>>Female figurines with huge hooters wearing chainmail bikinis is also the way
it IS. That doesn't mean I shouldn't question the design practices of [for
example] Ral Partha.<<

WHAT!? What the hell does that have to do with discussing the fundamental
workings of a system? Don't confuse the issue, please.

>>No, we already know how this works - house rules.<<

Do you object to those, too? I would hope not; having the players decide
everything that goes on has got to be the biggest house rule I've ever
heard of.

>>Yes, you've made it clear that you don't think it should be a contest [and
luckily, neither does my current gm]. On the other hand, how many [evil gm
grin] blurbs have you seen on the list? Or more explicit descriptions of
making life miserable for PC's? I haven't run into THAT many bad gm's so I'm
inclined to believe that it's posturing rather than an accurate description
of how people approach their game but who knows.<<

Great gravy. Ok, let's look at two examples;

"Ok, here's the run your Johnson wants done."
'Ok, we go do it.'
"All right, you've done it. You killed some people, here's a big chunk
of Karma and cash."
'Ok, can I buy a Banshee?'
"Sure. What color?"
'snorrrre'

Or

"Here's the run. But who's that figure in the window!"
"Drek! Get down!"
(gunfire)
"Doublecross! Get the Johnson!"
"He's getting out the back way!"
"Look out! They've got a mage!"
(various sounds of mayhem)

I have one of the most "evil" GM's I know. He is also the best GM I have ever
met. My character has been screwed over more thoroughly than any other c
character that is still alive in that game, and we lose a lot of people.
Every game is a battle of wits, every fight is a fight for our lives. But when
we win... it -means- something. It means we did a good job, we roleplayed well,
we came up with good solutions to tough problems. Our GM works hard to come
up with new "evil" things to do to us.
I think you're misinterpreting the idea of "evil GM grin". That just
means "I've come up with something new and exciting to challenge my players
with", and it's NOT a "I'm gonna get 'em!" thing, it's a "They're
gonna love
this! This is going to be exciting and fun!" See? It's for the PLAYERS.
It's EASY for a GM to kill characters. Mr. Newbie, meet Mr. Dunkelzhan. *crisp*.
The challenge is making the players excited, making them think, yes, making them
a little scared. That's part of the fun. If you don't like that, there's a
great game called Candyland that everyone wins and it only requires basic
counting skills.

>>Most of the time the MOTIVATION may be to make it more entertaining for the
PC's. But if this is true wouldn't the collaborative-authorship metaphor be
more appropriate? IMHO the single-authorship approach is part of the problem
- the 'author' decides what will be entertaining to the reader and if the
reader doesn't like it then the reader can take a hike. [time to put in some
psychology for Gurth :)] GM's can get the same ego involvement with 'their
world' as players can get with their characters.
When gm's put 'their world' ahead of fun for everyone then they start
'furthering their own ends'.<<

Players DO influence the world. They don't investigate that lead, they kill
this person or the other, they nuke Chicago. The GM has to have some
control over them, because the GM knows just -how- they will affect the world,
and it may make things difficult or impossible to continue the game. I've never
met or even heard of a GM who put "their world ahead of fun for everyone". Maybe
in the short term, but only to further long-term enjoyment. If your character
-could- just run up and nuke Chicago whenever they wanted, why bother to have
a whole game system? Just sit at home and go "boom!" to yourself.

>>A solid free-market approach. Are there a lot of gaming groups in your area
so that you can easily dump one campaign and join another?<<

No, but I'd rather not play at all than be unhappy in a game. And I'd much
rather not play at all than sit and whine about a game I don't have the resolve
to quit. And most IMPORTANTLY, if I don't like a game, and I dump it, I CAN
START MY OWN GAME AND DO IT THE WAY I WANT TO. Which is what I suggest you do;
you seem to feel you have great ideas. Why not try them?

And let us know how it goes.

Sorry again for ranting. But Terry, thanks; this is a great way for me to
blow off steam. ;)

-E
Message no. 7
From: Eve Forward <lutra@******.COM>
Subject: Re: gamemastering
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 11:41:49 -0700
>>>Hm, I win nearly anytime I GM in a roleplaying game. If th players have fun,
>and I enjoy myself, and maybe someone eats his fingernails down to the palm
>for tension, then I _won_! :-) And IMHO that's the only way to win in RPGs.
>Have Fun!

I agree, this is the way that a referee should win. But is this consistent
with an 'it's my world I'll do what I want' approach to running a game?
<<<

It's not a 'it's my world I'll do what I want' thing. It's a "Hmm, well, if
I let them kill Harlequinn then the Horrors are going to overrun everything
and that's the end of the world and the end of the game. Let's let him
dodge this time even though he failed his roll."

How can the GM -not- "cheat" by your definition? Especially if he's running
his own adventure instead of a FASA published one? He makes up the bad guys
and the happenings, he makes them as strong as he wants. Do you want him saying,
"What do you think, players? Should Joe Blow have a Combat Pool of 9 or 10?"
Where's the fun in that? Discussing rules is one thing, and I agreed previously
it's a good thing. Taking turns to GM is fine. But if you -know- that Azatlan
has already sercretly infiltrated CFS and controlls everything, and so does
every other player/GM, then it's not quite so surprising when your characters
"discover" that fact, now is it?

-E
Message no. 8
From: Terry Amburgey <xanth@****.UKY.EDU>
Subject: gamemastering
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 14:44:51 -0400
Gurth wrote:

>
>[snip]
>>Whaddya think?
>
>I think you've had too many bad experiences with gamemasters, and now you're
>generalizing and throwing in some psychology to make it all seem like you
>know what you're talking about :)
>
I don't THINK so. I tried to tally up good and bad referees and as far as I
can tell, less than 20% of my referee's have been yukky even if I count the
ones that started out bad and then blossomed over time. Of course a bad
referee can make for a truly unpleasant experience even if you bail out
quickly. As for pop psychology to make it seem like I know what I'm talking,
alas it didn't work :)
BTW congrats on both your birthday and your editorship.

Terry L. Amburgey Office: 606-257-7726
Associate Professor Home: 606-224-0636
College of Business & Economics Fax: 606-257-3577
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 40506
Message no. 9
From: Eve Forward <lutra@******.COM>
Subject: Re: gamemastering
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 11:49:28 -0700
>>This one is tough to answer. I could tell you that I've played and refereed
a wide variety of rpg's for 17 years but all that proves is that I'm older
than dirt. Besides 'been there, done that' just seems like a dumb thing to
say. How about this - see my post to Eve.<<

All right, Terry, then what I think would be good to see from you would
be a nice description of how these wonderful games of yours went. I think
everyone who's disagreed with you has brought up some good points and some
potential problems that would be faced when playing a system where the players
have as much control as the GM over the world. How did you handle these in
your game? What kinds of things happened? What were some of the characters
like? How, exactly, did these things run? Was everything pre-written and no-one
ever "cheated", and if the climatic battle was over in the first five minutes
of the game, then so be it? How about a short sample of a scene, with the parts
"done" by both players and GM's marked? I'm actually interested.

-E
Message no. 10
From: Terry Amburgey <xanth@****.UKY.EDU>
Subject: gamemastering
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 15:31:12 -0400
Duke wrote:
>> they not only expect to
>>win, they fudge dice rolls to ensure it; they're not only willing to bend
>>and stretch rules, they make them up out of whole cloth to further their own
>>ends.
>>Whaddya think?
>
>Close but no cigar. The GM is not "trying to win."
>
Here's the scenario.
Terry the altruistic gm puts in long hours developing a corporate run for
the players. The players like underworld stuff [thrill gangs, yaks, etc] and
put lots of resources into appropriate contacts etc. but I've got a neat
plotline that I thought up. They'll enjoy it. MY plotline [boy its neat,
especially after all the time I put in] requires that Boris Badguy [key npc
that I've modeled after an old PC of mine] do x in the first encounter and
then do y in encounter #7. Then one of those pesky pc's does something not
only unexpected but clever as well, and to add insult to injury, rolls an
incredible set of successes even after I point out that the sun went down
and it started raining JUST as the PC fired. What shall I do!? MY plotline
is just ruined if Boris bites the dust. Luckily I have gm dice which [when
rolled behind a suitable screen] can produce 9 successes even when rolling
only 3 dice. "The shot barely misses his head. The shadowy figure scambles
onto a BMW Blitzen hidden behind the dumpster and roars away before the rest
of you can react". I could've let the chips fall as they may but MY plotline
would've unraveled [boy its neat, especially after all that work].

What would you call it Duke? I say if it looks like a duck, and quacks like
a duck its either a duck or a free spirit.
Terry L. Amburgey Office: 606-257-7726
Associate Professor Home: 606-224-0636
College of Business & Economics Fax: 606-257-3577
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 40506
Message no. 11
From: "Victor Rodriguez, Jr" <sedahdro@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: gamemastering
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 14:33:00 EST
>Where does it say that the gm is in charge of the world? [excuse my slip
>back into the by-the-book mode]? Could an rpg work with a 'referee' instead?
In the gaming world a DM, GM, Referee are all the same thing. The term used
depends on what game system you are playing. :) But since you asked look at
pg 10 of SRII under the heading "What is a Roleplaying Game?". The
following is an excerpt from that heading:
"The person controlling the story is called the gamemaster. His or her job
is to keep track of what is supposed to happen when, describe events as they
occur so that the players (as characters) can react to them, keep track of
other characters in the game (referred to as non-player characters), and
resolve attempts to take action using the game system. The gamemaster
describes the world as the characters see it, functioning as their eyes,
ears, and other senses."
In other words the GM is in charge of his version of the world. :)
---Sedah Drol
Message no. 12
From: Terry Amburgey <xanth@****.UKY.EDU>
Subject: gamemastering
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 15:38:35 -0400
Dave wrote:

> I have to agree. When I GM, "winning" is the furthest thing from
>my mind. Usually, what I'm thinking of is: "Wow, they blew through the
>place and STOLE THE FRAGGIN OD, now what do I do??? I sometimes wish I
>DIDN'T have such CREATIVE players. But, frag, it's fun...";)
>
Great, this is as it should be IMHO. And its exactly because you didn't
fudge dice rolls or 'bend' rules so the players couldn't blow through the
place and steal the fraggin OD because you were 'attached' to having things
occur in a particular way [your way].

Terry L. Amburgey Office: 606-257-7726
Associate Professor Home: 606-224-0636
College of Business & Economics Fax: 606-257-3577
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 40506
Message no. 13
From: "S.F. Eley" <gt6877c@*****.GATECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: gamemastering
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 15:43:18 -0400
Hi Terry,

In an earlier post you said that we should ALWAYS stick to the book rules
whenever they apply. Hence, whenever possible I've cited page numbers to
answer your questions.


Terry Amburgey writes:

> Where does it say that the gm is in charge of the world? [excuse my slip
> back into the by-the-book mode]?

SRII, p. 10.


> Could an rpg work with a 'referee' instead?

SRII, p. 10:

"The person controlling the story is called the gamemaster. His or her job
is to keep track of what is supposed to happen when, describe events as they
occur so that the players (as characters) can react to them, keep track of
other characters in the game (referred to as non-player characters), and
resolve attempts to take action using the game system. The gamemaster
describes the world as the characters see it, functioning as their eyes,
ears, and other senses..."

What is your concept of a Shadowrun "referee?" How does it differ from the
definition for a gamemaster given above?


> Yes, voting with your feet is always the final option.

A-HA! We agree on something.


>>[Eve:]
>>Are you going to argue with the writer of the adventure you're playing
>>too? Call up FASA and complain that this rule sucks, and since you players
>>outnumber FASA, then FASA should change?
>
> No, we already know how this works - house rules.

But you disagree with this, neh? You're not using sarcasm to defeat her
point, you're using sarcasm as a substitute for an answer.


> Yes, you've made it clear that you don't think it should be a contest [and
> luckily, neither does my current gm]. On the other hand, how many [evil gm
> grin] blurbs have you seen on the list? Or more explicit descriptions of
> making life miserable for PC's? I haven't run into THAT many bad gm's so I'm
> inclined to believe that it's posturing rather than an accurate description
> of how people approach their game but who knows.

Why don't you ASK the people who make those blurbs?

I'll answer for myself. I say "evil grin" when something strikes me as a
particularly good idea, something that will be entertaining for the players
(and, hence, entertaining to myself). If you think "evil" is necessarily
part of the equation, you're too humorless to appreciate most of role-playing.
It's not even "posturing;" just figurative speech.



> Most of the time the MOTIVATION may be to make it more entertaining for the
> PC's. But if this is true wouldn't the collaborative-authorship metaphor be
> more appropriate?

Not really.. If my players and I build the campaign world together, that
means they already KNOW about the vampires controlling the Brotherhood of
Man, which is responsible for the metahuman disappearances after the fake
Lone Star roadblock. They already know about the insect spirit invasion,
and they already know that their first few runs were part of a devious plot
to gather the resources for a megacorp to create technoshamans.

Might as well pick up that mystery novel and read the last chapter.
Not much fun.. Maybe it works for your group, but the way my campaign
is structured, telling my players all this right now would destroy most
of the entertainment in discovering these facts. Sure, it might turn out
that they don't like my plots.. But with what they've enjoyed so far, it's
not likely.


> IMHO the single-authorship approach is part of the problem
> - the 'author' decides what will be entertaining to the reader and if the
> reader doesn't like it then the reader can take a hike. [time to put in some
> psychology for Gurth :)] GM's can get the same ego involvement with 'their
> world' as players can get with their characters.

Yes, I get involved with the world I create. Please explain why you
think this is a bad thing.


> When gm's put 'their world' ahead of fun for everyone then they start
> 'furthering their own ends'.

Agreed. "Their world" shouldn't be put AHEAD of the fun -- it's supposed to
be PART of the fun. The characters' interaction in that world is the rest
(i.e., most) of the fun.


>>As always and always, if you don't like it, leave. Whether it's a book, a
>>movie, or a game.
>
> I'd rather yak about bad product and how it could be better.

Fine.. This, of course, also entails irritating the people who like the
product and feel your reasons for disliking it are misguided.


> A solid free-market approach. Are there a lot of gaming groups in your area
> so that you can easily dump one campaign and join another?

Yes, but that's beside the point. You can easily dump one campaign and
START YOUR OWN.


>>If you're just
>>whining and bitching because you can't get your way and have everything
>>happen that you want, then you can go off and make your own book/movie/game
>>and do it just the way you want. Then everybody's happy.
>
> I'm not sure how to respond to this one.

Hmmmm.. By doing it, perhaps? Or are you one of those people who finds
complaining more enjoyable than solving problems?


> Having everyone involved requires more work than the gm-as-dictator model
> but I think it works better.

"As dictator." Stop being so absolute.


>>[Sascha:]
>>Hm, I win nearly anytime I GM in a roleplaying game. If th players have fun,
>>and I enjoy myself, and maybe someone eats his fingernails down to the palm
>>for tension, then I _won_! :-) And IMHO that's the only way to win in RPGs.
>>Have Fun!
>
> I agree, this is the way that a referee should win. But is this consistent
> with an 'it's my world I'll do what I want' approach to running a game?

YES!

Please explain why you feel that it isn't.


> Not necessarily, I've been in several [4 or 5] campaigns with rotating
> referees that WAS a democracy when it came to rules and campaign development
> that worked VERY well.

Great. That's trading off GM's. Not getting rid of them.

Once again, what do you consider the difference between "referees" and GM's?
You constantly criticize what other list members define as a GM, so you must
see some sort of difference.


>> [My post deleted]
> This one is tough to answer. I could tell you that I've played and refereed
> a wide variety of rpg's for 17 years but all that proves is that I'm older
> than dirt. Besides 'been there, done that' just seems like a dumb thing to
> say. How about this - see my post to Eve.

If you've "been there, done that" then why don't you try OFFERING SOME
SUGGESTIONS?

You don't solve. You don't constructively criticize. You question and you
attack presumptions, seemingly for the sake of attacking. This is why you're
getting such hostile responses on this thread.



> As the author of the book, it's 'your' book. Maintaining the integrity of
> 'your' game is how gm's 'win'. The proprietary attitude of some [not all I
> will grant you] gm's is one of the elements of gamemastering where I have a
> different view.

SRII, p. 10:

"... Gamemastering is not an easy task, but the thrill of creating an
adventure that engages the other players, tests both the players' gaming
skills and the characters' skills in the game world, and captures the
players' imaginations makes it worthwhile. FASA publishes game supplements
and adventures to help this process along, but good gamemasters always adapt
the game universe to suit their own style."


> Think back to the fudging-dice-rolls thread. One commonly
> cited situation was 'the plotline required something to happen/not happen so
> I fudged the dice to make it happen/not happen'. That's how gm's can 'win' -
> they've created a scenario and its gonna happen come hell/high water/bad
> dice rolls.
>
> [. . .]
>
>> [Martin Steffens:]
>> And I think a lot of GM's have tried very reasonably to explain the
>> reasons why they "bend the rules" sometimes, but if you're still
>> under the impression its wrong and cheating, so be it. I can live
>> with that, as long as you're not one of my players.
>
> Sometimes it is wrong and it is cheating and I've tried very reasonably to
> explain why I hold that opinion.

SRII, p. 196:

"Sometimes, the gamemaster may have to cheat to keep characters alive. If,
in the gamemaster's opinion, the player did everything right and just had
bad luck in rolling dice, the character does not have to die. Knock the
character out! Stick him in the hospital! Whatever! Don't let a
well-developed character die just because the player rolled a 2 when the
character needed a 3. The gamemaster can and should decide that he stays
alive long enough to get to a hospital.

"The same goes for the best NPCs. If the villain the gamemaster spent hours
designing gets hit by a lucky shot and does not resist the damage, the body
can always be buried under a collapsing building or suffer some other
disaster that 'no one could possibly survive.' A few months later, the
villain can show up, held together by glue and cyberware, ready for revenge
against the player characters."


As you can see, Associate Professor Amburgey, your "cheating" is actually
covered and supported in the official Shadowrun rule book.


> Is it your game or the group's game? If it's your game and not the group's
> then you have an agenda and a way of winning and losing.

The distinction is meaningless. The GM is part of the gaming group.


> If you like, you and Mr. Ely, and I can compare gaming experience via
> private email.

You're welcome to. I believe I'd find discussing gaming experiences with
Cugel the Clever valuable and rewarding, and you might too. Better yet,
compare said experiences on the ShadowGM list (mail
majordomo@****.residence.gatech.edu with "subscribe shadowgm" on the first
line.) It's one of said list's purposes.


> At any rate, as long as it's within the guidelines of the list, I feel free
> to whine as necessary.

And we're free to dislike your whining.


Blessings,

_TNX._

--
Stephen F. Eley (-) gt6877c@*****.gatech.edu )-( Student Pagan Community
http://wc62.residence.gatech.edu|
My opinions are my opinions. | "Nondeterminism means never
Please don't blame anyone else. | having to say you're wrong."
Message no. 14
From: Terry Amburgey <xanth@****.UKY.EDU>
Subject: gamemastering
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 15:58:29 -0400
Justin Elliott wrote
>Subject: Re: munchkins and game masters
>
>>[snip]
>>>Whaddya think?
>>
>
>Just a question, was this a serious post ( as the others seemed to have
>thought) or just a bit of light hearted humour (like I thought it was)?
>

Both. Think about the problem. I want to discuss something that I see as a
'sacred cow' [gm as dictator]. If I do a straight post, only a guru or two
responds. If I'm lighthearted and plaster it with smilies then it's totally
ignored. If I do it in an outrageous way I get the personal pleasure of
poking fun at a sacred cow, I provoke people into responding that wouldn't
have responded [or at least in the same way] ottherwise, and the only
downside is ad hominem flames. List.member.grumpy [bless his soul] flamed me
sufficiently to get a thick skin so it's cheap at the price.

I may be wrong but I suspect that if I'd done a straight single/multiple
referee post I would've never got the response from Eve that a
munchkin-as-larval-gm approach got. What say you Eve?

Terry L. Amburgey Office: 606-257-7726
Associate Professor Home: 606-224-0636
College of Business & Economics Fax: 606-257-3577
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 40506
Message no. 15
From: Terry Amburgey <xanth@****.UKY.EDU>
Subject: gamemastering
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 16:09:39 -0400
Stefan Struck wrote:

>I really wanted to say something about this thread but then I realized that
>everything was said and there's nothing left for me. *sigh*
>I just want to say that I'm feeling sorry for Terry to get stuck to such a
>bad GM.

My gm is on the list so I feel obliged to point that he's pretty good
EXCEPT HE SHOULD GIVE OUT MORE KARMA MORE KARMA MORE KARMA. Sorry, I
couldn't resist.

>As stated by other person with more fancy words, the main theme of
>the game is FUN and the GM is the person to provide it.

Whay can't it be a group effort? Fun-for-everyone and
it's-my-world-love-it-or-leave-it
seem inconsistent to me.

>I cheat a LOT in my game, sometimes I even don't look at the dice to come
>to a result but always in favour of the game (=players) and not in favour
>for me.

If the game=players, all I can say is bravo.

>And there's one iron rule in my game and all of my players know
>this rule by heart: You can get every piece of equipment or gimmick you
>like when you can pay for it and it's available but then expect one or
>two NPCs in the following gaming sessions which have this piece, too.
>And this rules works just fine. This game has to offer excitment (sp?) and
>I don't see this in wading through masses of low-level punks with your WR3
>delta grade and lots of other stuff (I don't like orkbashing in **&* either 8)
>
I agree, although not everyone likes the same adrenaline level as I do.
Terry L. Amburgey Office: 606-257-7726
Associate Professor Home: 606-224-0636
College of Business & Economics Fax: 606-257-3577
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 40506
Message no. 16
From: "S.F. Eley" <gt6877c@*****.GATECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: gamemastering
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 16:10:47 -0400
Associate Professor Amburgey writes:

> [ . . . ] List.member.grumpy [bless his soul] flamed me
> sufficiently to get a thick skin so it's cheap at the price.

Heh.. I'll do it again, too. I understand what you stated as your
motivations -- in fact, I suspected as much when I saw how you kept
yourself from getting heated. (Had you been a raving maniac on the
subject most of us would simply have ignored you.)

However, I am _strongly_ opposed to anyone deliberately provoking a
flamewar. It's rude, it ties up bandwidth, and it smells bad. Sure,
you'll get your wish.. You DID start a nice, fervent little flamewar.
But was it worth it? Not just to yourself, but to everyone else? I
felt obligated to respond to you, lest innocent young minds out there
start taking up arms against their GM's, but you made me waste over an
hour today that I would otherwise have spent writing newsfaxes for
campaign development.


Blessings (and yes, the "innocent young minds" bit was sarcasm),

_TNX._

--
Stephen F. Eley (-) gt6877c@*****.gatech.edu )-( Student Pagan Community
http://wc62.residence.gatech.edu|
My opinions are my opinions. | "Nondeterminism means never
Please don't blame anyone else. | having to say you're wrong."
Message no. 17
From: "Victor Rodriguez, Jr" <sedahdro@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: gamemastering
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 15:22:00 EST
>Here's the scenario.
>Terry the altruistic gm puts in long hours developing a corporate run for
>the players. The players like underworld stuff [thrill gangs, yaks, etc] and
>put lots of resources into appropriate contacts etc. but I've got a neat
>plotline that I thought up. They'll enjoy it. MY plotline [boy its neat,
>especially after all the time I put in] requires that Boris Badguy [key npc
>that I've modeled after an old PC of mine] do x in the first encounter and
>then do y in encounter #7. Then one of those pesky pc's does something not
>only unexpected but clever as well, and to add insult to injury, rolls an
>incredible set of successes even after I point out that the sun went down
>and it started raining JUST as the PC fired. What shall I do!? MY plotline
>is just ruined if Boris bites the dust. Luckily I have gm dice which [when
>rolled behind a suitable screen] can produce 9 successes even when rolling
>only 3 dice. "The shot barely misses his head. The shadowy figure scambles
>onto a BMW Blitzen hidden behind the dumpster and roars away before the rest
>of you can react". I could've let the chips fall as they may but MY plotline
>would've unraveled [boy its neat, especially after all that work].
>
>What would you call it Duke? I say if it looks like a duck, and quacks like
>a duck its either a duck or a free spirit.
Terry, are you trying to say that the GM "cheated" to "win" in the
above
example. I can see where you believe he cheated. But I have to ask you
have any of your character ever spent Karma to re-roll their failures, buy
extra successes, or extra dice? Think of it this way the NPC used his Karma
(which of course the amount of karma the NPC has is up to the GM) to live.
Of course if the GM would have allowed the character to kill the NPC, the
above "run" would have more than likely ended (assuming the entire plot
depended on the NPC). Killing off the main NPC early in many FASA modules
can be detrimental to the characters' health and it could be detrimental to
the integrity of the adventure. IMHO a GM cannot "cheat" in this game
system because of the uses of Karma.
---Sedah Drol
Message no. 18
From: Terry Amburgey <xanth@****.UKY.EDU>
Subject: gamemastering
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 16:26:20 -0400
Victor Rodriguez, Jr wrote:
>
>>GM's claim the right to be all powerful
>>[anything less is stifling to their creativity]; they not only expect to
>>win, they fudge dice rolls to ensure it; they're not only willing to bend
>>and stretch rules, they make them up out of whole cloth to further their own
>>ends.
>>Whaddya think?
>Terry, Terry, Terry, Terry, there is ancient saying in the gaming community:
> "the GM is always right."

One of my many flaws is an ingrained suspicion of ancient sayings or
anything that 'everyone knows'. You see an ancient saying, I see a 'sacred cow'.

>After all it is his game, and if you don't like
>it you can always leave and find another GM or GM yourself.

Why is it the GM's game and not the group's game?

>Unlike board
>games, there are no "winners" or "losers" in roleplaying games
there is only
>success and failure. The players usually have a common goal, they either
>succeed or they don't (sometimes success can lead to death and so can
>failure). I don't understand how a GM can "win".

The gm can 'win' by ensuring that the things that 'he' wants to happen in
'his' game happen. Regardless of dice rolls or rules.

>The GM is the judge,
>jury, and excutioner in his game, thus, in a way, he is "all powerful". But
>a good GM will always do his best to keep players alive, even if he needs to
>"fudge" the dice rolls to do so.

I'm enough of a hypocrite to not argue about fudging rolls to keep players
alive. What about fudging dice rolls to keep a specific plotline alive?

>BTW fudging the dice rolls could be
>interpreted as using Karma (afterall the GM as an ifinite amount of Karma).
>He will also listen to his players disputes of his version of the rules.
>And about making up rules, I have to agree with some of what you said. I
>once knew a GM, by the name of Keith, that never owned any of the books. He
>made up the rules on his own. Many of his players, thought that his rules
>were the rules to Shadowrun, until they bought books themselves. Then they
>realized that they weren't playing Shadowrun. They dubbed his version
>"Keithrun". In Lafayette, IN he is known as a major "munchkin".
I almost
>made the mistake of entering his campaign when I was first introduced the
>"Shadowrun". Fortunately I found a different GM.

The ultimate in house rules eh?

> I don't know what
>experiences you have had with "Shadorun", although it seems to me that you
>have had rather poor experieces with the game. As far as the rules of the
>game go, think of them like the Constitution of the United States, they are
>left open for interpretation and changes.:)

My experiences with shadowrun have been quite good compared with my
experiences playing
D&D. Vis-a-vis rules as constitution, I'm a strict constructionist but
that's another thread.

Terry L. Amburgey Office: 606-257-7726
Associate Professor Home: 606-224-0636
College of Business & Economics Fax: 606-257-3577
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 40506
Message no. 19
From: "S.F. Eley" <gt6877c@*****.GATECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: gamemastering
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 16:28:44 -0400
Associate Professor of Business & Economics Amburgey writes:

> >I cheat a LOT in my game, sometimes I even don't look at the dice to come
> >to a result but always in favour of the game (=players) and not in favour
> >for me.
>
> If the game=players, all I can say is bravo.

WHAT?!? You spend four posts decrying Gamemaster cheating in explicit
detail, then say "bravo" as long as it's in the players' favor? That's
the ONLY factor?

I thought you were a munchkin before, APB&E Amburgey. With this self-
contradiction you've just proved the worth of your opinion, and the worth
of debating with you. Expect no further responses from me on this subject.


Blessings,

_TNX._

--
Stephen F. Eley (-) gt6877c@*****.gatech.edu )-( Student Pagan Community
http://wc62.residence.gatech.edu|
My opinions are my opinions. | "Nondeterminism means never
Please don't blame anyone else. | having to say you're wrong."
Message no. 20
From: Terry Amburgey <xanth@****.UKY.EDU>
Subject: gamemastering
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 16:49:20 -0400
Justin wrote:
>Unlike being an author, gaming requires the GM *AND* the players to come up
>with a good story. If it is too one-sided (only the GM calling all the shots,
>or vice versa), it gets boring. Don't think that just because you are the GM
>that you carry the only vote that matters. Yes, the players have the
>responsibility to find a new GM if they don't like the one they've got, but
>just remember--when your players are gone, who will you have left to control?
>
>Gaming (unlike many books) is a group effort. Creating an interesting story is
>what it's all about. All parties involved should take an active part in doing
>so...otherwise it becomes boring pretty quick. Please don't forget that your
>players need some flexibility to be kept happy. And happiness and fun are what
>it's all about. :)
>
Darn, I wish I'd said it.

Terry L. Amburgey Office: 606-257-7726
Associate Professor Home: 606-224-0636
College of Business & Economics Fax: 606-257-3577
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 40506
Message no. 21
From: Terry Amburgey <xanth@****.UKY.EDU>
Subject: gamemastering
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 17:04:30 -0400
Stephen wrote:

>He came CLOSE to making some valid points, but didn't quite get to making
>them. The reason his comments were taken "defensively" is because he
accused
>GM's of munchkinism for doing the things that are a GM's job. Not for HOW
>they are done -- for doing them. In general, your comments were expressed
>much more sensibly.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree - I don't think it's the GM's 'job'
to make the game 'his' game and fudge dice rolls/bend rules so that 'his'
plotlines happen the way 'he' wants them to happen because it's 'his' game
[insert feminine pronouns where desired]. It doesn't HAVE to be this way,
there ARE other ways to run rpg's.

>
>> [...] Let's face it...there is a certain amount of power knowing you have
>> control over the situation--No Matter What. *You* control the destiny of the
>> players....no matter what they do. *You* can railroad the players into
>> ultimately doing what you want them to do. *You* can fudge the die roll(s)
>> that would kill the player and keep them alive instead. Not all GM's do this
>> (or any of it, for that matter), but the temptation and opportunity is
>> certainly there.
>
>This is the part I'll express limited disagreement with. If you're a GM and
>are paying any attention to the game going on around you, you're too busy to
>feel much of a power trip. I don't, at least -- I mean, you're right, there
>is power involved, but at no point do I sit up and say to myself "Wow, I'm
>powerful." Remember that the GM's power is wrapped entirely around the
>PC's.. He ISN'T free to do whatever he wants, he can only respond to the
>PCs' actions. And unless he's a complete bastard, he has much less control
>over those actions than you imply.
>
>Yes, there are people who do these sorts of things. There are bastard GM's,
>after all, and GM's who just don't pay attention. But it's only "power"
>depending on your perspective. If you're maintaining what I consider (in
>my not so humble opinion) the "right" GM perspective, you don't FEEL a whole
>lot of power. Particularly when your players have just managed to call off
>your Lone Star manhunt with very effective use of the Control Thoughts spell.
>
On the other hand, if you want YOUR manhunt to happen becuase it's essential
to the plotline that YOU authored so you fudge the dice rolls what's going on?

Terry L. Amburgey Office: 606-257-7726
Associate Professor Home: 606-224-0636
College of Business & Economics Fax: 606-257-3577
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 40506
Message no. 22
From: Terry Amburgey <xanth@****.UKY.EDU>
Subject: gamemastering
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 17:18:54 -0400
Brian A. Stewart wrote:
>
>I must concur with several others that the verbage was a bit harsh; however,
>your points are very valid. As gm's we walk a difficult line, we hold the
>fate of the game in our hands. Yes, this can give some gm's a god-complex
>and munchkinize them, but it can also be used to create Kick-ass games! |]
>Gm's who walk this line and use their influence to provide as enjoyable a
>game as possible, are to be congratulated for their creativity and inginuity
>(as should those players who continue to challenge the gm and be independant
>thinkers). $> Those gm's who thumbs are poised ready to squash the
>individual thinking pc, will hopefully (but not likely, unfortunately) not
>have players for very long.:}

Yes, the verbiage was harsh. Was it inaccurate? I wanted to point out that
the same mindset and behavior which is roundly condemned as munchkinous in
players is fervently defended as inalienable rights for game masters. If the
only way to tell the munchkin from the gamemaster is to see who is sitting
on the side of the screen with the tables, something isn't right.


>As far as munchkins are concerned, I think it is a matter of perspective.
>Cyberpunk in gerneral is munchkinistic when compared to a fantasy game
>without magic, or playing everyday people in 1995.:? The degree of power,
>for me, does not define whether a game is munchkin or not, it is how the gm
>and players utilize the rules. If a player takes a low-power game adn
>maximizes or over-maiximizes their character, that I would consider a
>munchkin. Likewise, a gm who continously throws Cuthulu style enemies at
>low-powered players I would consider a munchkin or they need to swith to
>Cuthulu where players really can die of fright (gm bursts into maniacally
>laughter, several players clutch at their chests and fall to the ground.
>The player who was geting snack from the kitchen comes in and says "Great!
>Now we have to find some more players, I wish you would stop laughing like
>that! :)). On the other hand, if everyone is high powered, then that is
>simply a higher powered game, call it munchkin if you want, I call it a
>different level of play.:?
>
It was my assertion that 'power gaming' is simply a situation where everyone
was a munchkin that earned me my initial batch of flames from
list.member.grumpy. I have no problem with power gaming and only wish I was
a better munchkin [sigh, all those karma points on attributes instead of
skills...].
Terry L. Amburgey Office: 606-257-7726
Associate Professor Home: 606-224-0636
College of Business & Economics Fax: 606-257-3577
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 40506
Message no. 23
From: Dave Stone <dstone@******.DREAMSCAPE.COM>
Subject: Re: gamemastering
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 17:18:48 -0400
On Tue, 22 Aug 1995, Terry Amburgey wrote:
> Dave wrote:
> > I have to agree. When I GM, "winning" is the furthest thing
from
> >my mind. Usually, what I'm thinking of is: "Wow, they blew through the
> >place and STOLE THE FRAGGIN OD, now what do I do??? I sometimes wish I
> >DIDN'T have such CREATIVE players. But, frag, it's fun...";)
> Great, this is as it should be IMHO. And its exactly because you didn't
> fudge dice rolls or 'bend' rules so the players couldn't blow through the
> place and steal the fraggin OD because you were 'attached' to having things
> occur in a particular way [your way].

<shrug> I pretty much get an idea for the adventure, and wing it
from there...I'm not a big 'plotline all written out' type... easier to
make up for their creativeness...

Dave
Message no. 24
From: "Victor Rodriguez, Jr" <sedahdro@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: gamemastering
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 16:43:00 EST
>>After all it is his game, and if you don't like
>>it you can always leave and find another GM or GM yourself.
>
>Why is it the GM's game and not the group's game?
What I mean by the GM's game is that it is his version of the world. In
other words, if you don't like his version of the world. Find another
version to play in.

>The gm can 'win' by ensuring that the things that 'he' wants to happen in
>'his' game happen. Regardless of dice rolls or rules.
Now I understand what you mean by "winning". But sometimes it is necessary
for the GM to use Karma to manipulate his rolls.

>I'm enough of a hypocrite to not argue about fudging rolls to keep players
>alive. What about fudging dice rolls to keep a specific plotline alive?
If keeping the plotline alive is necessary to keep the campaign going, then
yes. Of course the players do have a say in this. They can continue with
the campaign or they can drop it. i.e. "This adventure is getting us
nowhere, so our characters will quit the "run". In other words the
characters can chose whether to take the run or not, whether to continue the
run or not. But of course there our consequences for not completing a run:
less Karma, possibility for the groups street rep. going now (Johnson: Word
on the street says that you guys, broke a contract before. How can I be
sure that you won't do this to me. Sorry guys but I can't hire you, I'm
looking for someone more reliable.), and maybe it can lead to a new plotline
(Johnson that got screwed hires another team to off player characters.
Characters are now the hunted, and need to find a place to hide till the
heat goes down.)

>The ultimate in house rules eh?
Yes. Which at times can be unfortunate.

Personally, on some points I agree with you. I have a set of house rules,
which are a combination of SRI and SRII rules. But I always leave the
option of a new "house rule" modification to the players. I let them decide
whether or not to change the rule of the game or not, as long as it doesn't
affect the balance of the game. As far as fudging dice rolls, I usually
don't, unless I feel that it is necessary to keep the game alive. Most of
the time I have no specific plotline except for the goal. From my
experiences, players tend to screw up plotlines that I have spent hours
designing, so I let the players create the plotline through their actions.
All I do is put them in a situation and let them react. This IMO allows for
more player participation in my World. If the characters want to kill
somebody and succeed, I'll let them regardless of who they are, after all no
one is immortal. This doesn't mean that there won't be a negative effect on
the players. You kill the Prince of the Tir Tangier, your going to have a
lot of pissed off people on your asses and more than likely the final
outcome will be PC death.
---Sedah Drol
Message no. 25
From: Cugel the Clever <cugel@**.NET>
Subject: Re: gamemastering
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 00:03:30 +01.0
On 22 Aug 95 at 14:35, Terry Amburgey wrote:

> >This is starting to look like a
> >personal verdetta against GM's,

> No, I just want to discuss refereeing rpg's.

I read your post where you gave your reasons for phrasing the first
one the way you did. And I think its a lame excuse; you maybe you
would have gotten less answers, but they would be more constructive
than the ones you got now, so failed attempt, try again. The only
thing you'll achieve by this is that people tend to think after the
umptied "Terry against the GM" post: "delete, the guy doesn't phrase
his questions politely and he just wants to be a pain in the *ss".

> >and I do not like the way you phrase
> >your "point of view/question".
> As Eve pointed out, life isn't fair.

I know, but that has nothing to do with the rude way you accused the
GM's on the list.

> >As a GM I try to give my players a
> >good evening/night full of fun by writing and running the
> >adventures. Not because I like to kill them of, want to play God,
> >am a notorious cheater, or want to "win". My first and most
> >important concern is that my players like the game. I see myself
> >more like an author writing a book for his audience, than an
> >all-powerfull God.

> As the author of the book, it's 'your' book. Maintaining the
> integrity of 'your' game is how gm's 'win'.

Nonsense, the "book" was just a metaphore. I write the start and
think of a plot and then the players and I finish it.
It's impossible to maintain the integrity of "my" game when you work
together with your players, who give most of the input. The thing I
/can/ do is by using logic and common sense think of the ways the
players will go and prepare myself for that. But sometimes I just go
with the flow and let my players do all the work and just react to
their input. But that doesn't work all the time, so my task as a GM
cannot be just a referee, I need to guide the players most of the
time. As the book says I'm their eyes, ears and other senses. You
cannot be a referee, you'll need to add your own creativity to the
game to make it a great game.

> The proprietary attitude
> of some [not all I will grant you] gm's is one of the elements of
> gamemastering where I have a different view. Think back to the
> fudging-dice-rolls thread. One commonly cited situation was 'the
> plotline required something to happen/not happen so I fudged the
> dice to make it happen/not happen'. That's how gm's can 'win' -
> they've created a scenario and its gonna happen come hell/high
> water/bad dice rolls.

Don't continually use "black and white" examples. Live isn't black
and white, and so is gaming. I only fudge the dice when it's
absolutely going to ruin the game for my players if I don't.
And, what's wrong with that? Think of the James Bond movies;
Bond gets captured at least once every film. If you were the bad
guy you would kill him directly, not by some devious, and mostly
stupid, way. But then the film ends after 15 minutes, and the only
thing you have achieved is that your audience feels cheated. So it's
sometimes necessary to cheat in order not to cheat your players out
of an evening of fun.

> >And about the "winning": what the heck is there to win for a GM??!!
> >If he kills all the PC's? I'm never even thinking about winning
> >when I'm GM-ing. If you're still roleplaying in terms of "winning
> >and losing" its time to play normal games and move away from RPG's.
> >The only way I "win" a game, is when my players have enjoyed
> >themselves and liked the adventure.

> Is it your game or the group's game? If it's your game and not the
> group's then you have an agenda and a way of winning and losing.

I lost you completely here. WE play Shadowrun, not: I AM GM and
there are some spesky nuisances called players who want to ruin my
great story (hey, if you continue to put it in black and white, I can
do it also).
And if I want a great NPC to survive and he/she gets hosed by a lucky
shot, yes I use some of my GM-karma pool to save him/her. How would
you like it if Darth Vader stumbled over a step in part 1 and Luke
chopped his head of? I'm sure my players get al lot of satisfaction
out of killing a very old enemy (I like their manically laughter when
they do so :).

> Sometimes it is wrong and it is cheating and I've tried very
> reasonably to explain why I hold that opinion.

Perhaps, but you don't offer any alternatives, and that's my biggest
problem with your posts. Tell me what you would do if the PC's ruin
the plot in such a way that it is absolutely impossible to continue
the adventure. Would you just stop and say: "well that's it for tonight.
I know it's only 21.00, but sorry the adventure is finished. Anyone
wanna see a film?" ?

> If you like, you and Mr. Ely, and I can compare gaming experience
> via private email. At any rate, as long as it's within the
> guidelines of the list, I feel free to whine as necessary.

I think the list will do fine for now, because there is a lot of
reaction on this thread. And you're free to whine, only don't do it
all the time, and try to offer some constructive arguments to this
thread.

(Eve was right, this is great for letting of steam! :)

Martin Steffens (Cugel@**.net / bdi05626@***.rhij.nl)
Many an ancient lord's last words had been, "You can't kill me
because I've got magic aaargh."
(Terry Pratchett, Interesting Times)
Geek Code v3.0:
GLS d-(+) s+:+ a?(26) C+(++) U P? L? E? W+ N++ K? w+ O- M- V? PS+
PE- Y+ PGP t+(--) 5? X++ R+(++) tv b+++ DI? D++ G+ e++ h+(!) r y+
Message no. 26
From: Cugel the Clever <cugel@**.NET>
Subject: Re: gamemastering
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 00:03:29 +01.0
On 22 Aug 95 at 15:31, Terry Amburgey wrote:

> Duke wrote:
> >Close but no cigar. The GM is not "trying to win."

> Here's the scenario.
> Terry the altruistic gm puts in long hours developing a corporate
> run for the players.
[example deleted]
> I could've let the chips fall as they
> may but MY plotline would've unraveled [boy its neat, especially
> after all that work].
> What would you call it Duke? I say if it looks like a duck, and
> quacks like a duck its either a duck or a free spirit.

It only looks like a duck in your eyes, and I think you better get
some better glasses ;). This example has absolutely nothing to with
winning or losing. Why do you continue to call it "winning"?

The "cheating" in your example would have resulted in an evening of
fun both for you and your players. And what do they get out of it if
you play it your way? Nothing! If you got that much experience as you
told us, you should know by now that in a RPG either both the players
and the GM "win" (I would use "have a good game, but you seem to like
this term), or both "lose" (have a very short and unsatisfactory game
in my dictionary).
Even if all PC's are killed at the end of an adventure (be it by
"cheating" or not), and the GM's plotline has been followed by the
letter, you still can have a "win-win" situation if the players had a
great game.

Martin Steffens (Cugel@**.net / bdi05626@***.rhij.nl)
Many an ancient lord's last words had been, "You can't kill me
because I've got magic aaargh."
(Terry Pratchett, Interesting Times)
Geek Code v3.0:
GLS d-(+) s+:+ a?(26) C+(++) U P? L? E? W+ N++ K? w+ O- M- V? PS+
PE- Y+ PGP t+(--) 5? X++ R+(++) tv b+++ DI? D++ G+ e++ h+(!) r y+
Message no. 27
From: Duke Diener <DukeDragon@***.COM>
Subject: Re: gamemastering
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 19:03:15 -0400
Terry wrote:

>Interesting metaphor. I suppose I would argue that instead of a
>single-authored work a good rpg would be 'shared' fiction. Something along
>the lines of the 'Thieves World' series where multiple authors produced a
>collaborative outcomes. Vis-a-vis movies, I would opt for the more recent
>'interactive video' approach rather than the traditional mode of creating a
>movie.
>Where does it say that the gm is in charge of the world? [excuse my slip
>back into the by-the-book mode]? Could an rpg work with a 'referee' instead?
>...[snip]

Terry I find your reply rather offensive. While others appear ready to
concede some of your points or at least listen to what you have to say you
directly attack everyone that replies to your post. After this response I
will tie up no more band width with you.

In role-playing the GM creates the plot and the characters create the dialog.
The characters are confined to responding to the presented plot and the GM
modifies the plot based upon the supplied dialog. So if you were trying to
say that the players do have a direct imput into the storyline I could not
get that out of your post, but the input is essentially passive since they
must respond to what the GM portrays. The players cannot say to the GM "No
that is not how that happens..." and the GM cannot make the players play.

I as a GM only feel like I've "Won" if when the players leave my game they
have one of those stories that will be told over and over again. You know,
the stories you hear at every conventions.."So there I was sneaking out of
the corp, dragging my buddy who'd been toasted by the sentry gun but was
still alive. I was running low in bullets, energy, and ideas, and through
heroic effort, great thinking, and just a bit of luck I made out and saved
the day etc."

Duke
Message no. 28
From: "S.F. Eley" <gt6877c@*****.GATECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: gamemastering
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 19:30:33 -0400
Terry L. Amburgey, Office 606-257-7726, writes:

> >[S.F. Eley writes:]
> >Yes, there are people who do these sorts of things. There are bastard GM's,
> >after all, and GM's who just don't pay attention. But it's only
"power"
> >depending on your perspective. If you're maintaining what I consider (in
> >my not so humble opinion) the "right" GM perspective, you don't FEEL a
whole
> >lot of power. Particularly when your players have just managed to call off
> >your Lone Star manhunt with very effective use of the Control Thoughts spell.
> >
> On the other hand, if you want YOUR manhunt to happen becuase it's essential
> to the plotline that YOU authored so you fudge the dice rolls what's going on?


AAAAARRRRRRGGGHHHHH! Yes, yes, I KNOW I said I wasn't going to waste my
time on this thread anymore, but this level of blockheadedness is too much
for me to sit idly by.

READ MY PARAGRAPH!! I used past tense. "...have just managed to call
off..." That means THEY GOT AWAY WITH IT, you dolt! Stop twisting
everything to match your grudge, whether it fits or not.

Just to hammer the point in to the extent that it MIGHT make an impression
on you: I was citing an example from one of my runs. The shaman cast
Control Thoughts on the cops, and ran the standard "These are not the Droids
you seek..." suggestions through his head. It worked. I didn't fudge any
dice rolls. The cop who was controlled rolled Etiquette (Police) against
the other cop, and succeeded. I didn't fudge any dice rolls. They stopped
harassing the players, though the uncontrolled cop insisted on putting drone
surveillance on them and wouldn't take any drek about it. There were no
dice rolls for that part, and I didn't fudge any.

This was a clever move on the part of the player. It worked, and the PC's
were rewarded accordingly. Had the spell NOT succeeded, I might have fudged
to make it work, just because I liked the idea. (I take it you'd have said
"Bravo" to that.) In either case, it didn't make too great a difference, as
it was a street cop they confronted and not Captain Grissim, who was the one
coordinating the search. It didn't destroy of my "plots," it just bought
the players some time. Had it threatened anything, I simply would have
restructured my plot.

NOW do you get my point? And if so, will you finally stop snivelling about
it?

Yes, you've pissed me off. No smiley.


Blessings,

_TNX._

--
Stephen F. Eley (-) gt6877c@*****.gatech.edu )-( Student Pagan Community
http://wc62.residence.gatech.edu| Gray's Corollary to Clarke's Theorem:
My opinions are my opinions. | "Any technology that is distinguishable
Please don't blame anyone else. | from magic is insufficiently advanced."
Message no. 29
From: Eve Forward <lutra@******.COM>
Subject: Re: gamemastering
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 17:14:06 -0700
>> Please don't forget that your
>players need some flexibility to be kept happy. And happiness and fun are
what
>it's all about. :)
>
Darn, I wish I'd said it.<<<

Yeah, I bet you do. Except that as far as I can tell, you flip a coin before
you decide to agree/disagree with posts. Justin doesn't say anything that we
haven't said. No-one denies that the players have input, and in some cases,
quite a lot of input. If the GM just sits and narrates all evening, coming
up with the players' actions as well as his own, then that's not gaming,
and furthermore I don't think any of the GM's on here do that. But that the
GM designs and controls all the high-level NPCs (at least until the players
characters may reach that rank), all the governments, all the Totems, and
to a certain extent the level of DESTINY (if Harlequin is destined to save
the world and he dies in a freak trash-compactor accident, then what!?)...
, and that the GM's goals are for the players to have FUN, and if rolls etc
must be twisted to further that end, then so be it.
I have met one or two "dictatorial" GM's, who would not let players
do something, no matter how logical, if it would mess up his plotline. Yes,
it annoyed me, but I think I would have played happier if instead of saying;
"No, you didn't think to do that" he had rolled some dice, looked at me from
behind his screen, and said, "No, you don't detect anything." (fudging his
dice rolls). I would have gone, "Hmm, something's happening," or whatever,
kept playing, and have been properly impressed when the secret was finally
revealed, instead of being ticked off. And if we had been able to uncover
that secret then, we would have all been killed.
I agree though that if you're going to argue -in- favor of fudging
rolls for players and not for plotlines, then you're hopelessly hypocritical
and there's no point in arguing with you. I might as well go talk to a
Fundamentalist or something....

-E
Message no. 30
From: Sascha Pabst <Sascha.Pabst@****.INFORMATIK.UNI-OLDENBURG.DE>
Subject: Re: gamemastering
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 02:15:07 +0200
Cugel the Clever wrote, and I think I gotta add to this, since I
agree with him, and not only negative responses should hit the
list:

> On 22 Aug 95 at 14:35, Terry Amburgey wrote:
>
> > >This is starting to look like a
> > >personal verdetta against GM's,
> > No, I just want to discuss refereeing rpg's.
>
> I read your post where you gave your reasons for phrasing the first
> one the way you did. And I think its a lame excuse; you maybe you
> would have gotten less answers, but they would be more constructive
> than the ones you got now, so failed attempt, try again.

And, IMnajsHO there is to add: Accusing GMs (in general) to fudge dice
rolls for their own ends is not what I would call "discussion" (of course
this point of view _is_ open to discussion :-)

> The only
> thing you'll achieve by this is that people tend to think after the
> umptied "Terry against the GM" post: "delete, the guy doesn't phrase
> his questions politely and he just wants to be a pain in the *ss".
>
> > >and I do not like the way you phrase
> > >your "point of view/question".
> > As Eve pointed out, life isn't fair.
>
> I know, but that has nothing to do with the rude way you accused the
> GM's on the list.
>
Hm. If life isn't fair (a quote from "Bride of Prince" (??? Don' know
English Tile, is a book by Morgenstern, re-written by some other guy,
german Title is "Braut des Prinzen")?), this should be no excuse for
you, me, Cugel, Eve, anyone, not to be fair in discussions!

> > >As a GM I try to give my players a
> > >good evening/night full of fun by writing and running the
> > >adventures.
Hm, I GM to have fun, too... along with the players.

> > >Not because I like to kill them of, want to play God,
> > >am a notorious cheater, or want to "win". My first and most
> > >important concern is that my players like the game. I see myself
> > >more like an author writing a book for his audience, than an
> > >all-powerfull God.
>
> > As the author of the book, it's 'your' book. Maintaining the
> > integrity of 'your' game is how gm's 'win'.
>
> Nonsense, the "book" was just a metaphore. I write the start and
> think of a plot and then the players and I finish it.
> It's impossible to maintain the integrity of "my" game when you work
> together with your players, who give most of the input. The thing I
> /can/ do is by using logic and common sense think of the ways the
> players will go and prepare myself for that. But sometimes I just go
> with the flow and let my players do all the work and just react to
> their input. But that doesn't work all the time, so my task as a GM
> cannot be just a referee, I need to guide the players most of the
> time. As the book says I'm their eyes, ears and other senses. You
> cannot be a referee, you'll need to add your own creativity to the
> game to make it a great game.

And since you develop the world, the feeling to it, or at least take
a given world and develop it, you _start_ with your own creativity!

>
> > The proprietary attitude
> > of some [not all I will grant you] gm's is one of the elements of
> > gamemastering where I have a different view. Think back to the
> > fudging-dice-rolls thread. One commonly cited situation was 'the
> > plotline required something to happen/not happen so I fudged the
> > dice to make it happen/not happen'. That's how gm's can 'win' -
> > they've created a scenario and its gonna happen come hell/high
> > water/bad dice rolls.
>
> Don't continually use "black and white" examples. Live isn't black
> and white, and so is gaming. I only fudge the dice when it's
> absolutely going to ruin the game for my players if I don't.
> And, what's wrong with that? Think of the James Bond movies;
> Bond gets captured at least once every film. If you were the bad
> guy you would kill him directly, not by some devious, and mostly
> stupid, way.
I did this _once_ to one of my players. Have the bad guy capture him,
then place a bullet right between his eyes. Heck, it was no fun. The
player _did_ feel cheated!

> But then the film ends after 15 minutes, and the only
> thing you have achieved is that your audience feels cheated. So it's
> sometimes necessary to cheat in order not to cheat your players out
> of an evening of fun.
Agree!

> > >And about the "winning": what the heck is there to win for a
GM??!!
> > >If he kills all the PC's? I'm never even thinking about winning
> > >when I'm GM-ing. If you're still roleplaying in terms of "winning
> > >and losing" its time to play normal games and move away from RPG's.
> > >The only way I "win" a game, is when my players have enjoyed
> > >themselves and liked the adventure.
>
> > Is it your game or the group's game? If it's your game and not the
> > group's then you have an agenda and a way of winning and losing.
>
> I lost you completely here. WE play Shadowrun, not: I AM GM and
> there are some spesky nuisances called players who want to ruin my
> great story (hey, if you continue to put it in black and white, I can
> do it also).
> And if I want a great NPC to survive and he/she gets hosed by a lucky
> shot, yes I use some of my GM-karma pool to save him/her.
As one would save a great PC who was developed over a long, long time
and hit by a lucky shot (well, _lucky_ is just a matter of sides :-)
and would drop dead if the GM does _not_ "use some of [his/her] GM-
karma pool to save him/her." Well, I do i by fudging dices, do not use
"GM-karma pool" :-), but hey, it's easier that way :-)

> How would
> you like it if Darth Vader stumbled over a step in part 1 and Luke
> chopped his head of? I'm sure my players get al lot of satisfaction
> out of killing a very old enemy (I like their manically laughter when
> they do so :).
I just like that "Wheeew, finally" that comes up when that nasty old NPC
drops down backward some Austrian waterfall! (Hm, didn't I read that
before somewhere? Hm... :-)

> > Sometimes it is wrong and it is cheating and I've tried very
> > reasonably to explain why I hold that opinion.

> Perhaps, but you don't offer any alternatives, and that's my biggest
> problem with your posts. Tell me what you would do if the PC's ruin
> the plot in such a way that it is absolutely impossible to continue
> the adventure. Would you just stop and say: "well that's it for tonight.
> I know it's only 21.00, but sorry the adventure is finished. Anyone
> wanna see a film?" ?
>
> > If you like, you and Mr. Ely, and I can compare gaming experience
> > via private email.
I would _not_ like to see this discu... dialo... threat vanish from the
list, for the reasons Cugul will give us:

> > At any rate, as long as it's within the
> > guidelines of the list, I feel free to whine as necessary.
>
> I think the list will do fine for now, because there is a lot of
> reaction on this thread. And you're free to whine, only don't do it
> all the time, and try to offer some constructive arguments to this
> thread.
>
> (Eve was right, this is great for letting of steam! :)
:-), as I said before :-)

> Many an ancient lord's last words had been, "You can't kill me
> because I've got magic aaargh."
> (Terry Pratchett, Interesting Times)
"Archchancelor, may I say 'Yo'?"

Well, at the end, for those of you who styed with me this long, I would
like to apologize.
_Normally_ I do not quote whole series of post-answer-answer_to_answer,
but this one time I thought it necessary since I fully agree to Cugel and
disagree to Terry, and just _had_ to add some own statements, and thought
it rediculus to fetch just the lines I would comment to.
So I quoted the whole text, just deleted (most of) Cugel's signature.
Again, my apologies for this, it will not happen again (in the (very) near
future (I hope :-)).

Sascha
--
+---___---------+-----------------------------------------+------------------+
| / / _______ | Jhary-a-Conel aka Sascha Pabst | The one does not |
| / /_/ ____/ |Sascha.Pabst@**********.Uni-Oldenburg.de |learn from history|
| \___ __/ | or | is bound to live |
|==== \_/ ======| Westerstr. 20 / 26121 Oldenburg | through it again.|
|LOGOUT FASCISM!| *Wearing hats is just a way of live* | |
+---------------+-----------------------------------------+------------------+
| Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some |
| die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to |
| deal out death in judgement. -- Gandalf |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Message no. 31
From: Eve Forward <lutra@******.COM>
Subject: Re: gamemastering
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 17:27:34 -0700
>>> Many an ancient lord's last words had been, "You can't kill me
> because I've got magic aaargh."
> (Terry Pratchett, Interesting Times)
"Archchancelor, may I say 'Yo'?"

"Oook!"

(Sorry, just had to be silly there for a moment...)

-E
Message no. 32
From: Cugel the Clever <cugel@**.NET>
Subject: Re: gamemastering
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 03:44:12 +01.0
On 22 Aug 95 at 17:27, Eve Forward wrote:

> "Archchancelor, may I say 'Yo'?"
>
> "Oook!"

"Was that a 'Yo'?"

> (Sorry, just had to be silly there for a moment...)

After all those serious posts I'm inclined to agree with you ;)
"Bonsai!!!"
"Yo! Hut!"
"Yo,Yo"

Martin Steffens (Cugel@**.net / bdi05626@***.rhij.nl)
Many an ancient lord's last words had been, "You can't kill me
because I've got magic aaargh." (Terry Pratchett, Interesting Times)
Geek Code v3.0:
GLS d-(+) s+:+ a?(26) C+(++) U P? L? E? W+ N++ K? w+ O- M- V? PS+
PE- Y+ PGP t+(--) 5? X++ R+(++) tv b+++ DI? D++ G+ e++ h+(!) r y+
Message no. 33
From: Cugel the Clever <cugel@**.NET>
Subject: Re: gamemastering
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 03:44:11 +01.0
On 23 Aug 95 at 2:15, Sascha Pabst wrote:

> And, IMnajsHO there is to add: Accusing GMs (in general) to fudge
> dice rolls for their own ends is not what I would call "discussion"
> (of course this point of view _is_ open to discussion :-)

No, I don't think that should be open to discussion, it /is/ no way
to hold a discussion.

> Hm. If life isn't fair (a quote from "Bride of Prince" (??? Don'
> know English Tile, is a book by Morgenstern, re-written by some
> other guy, german Title is "Braut des Prinzen")?), this should be no
> excuse for you, me, Cugel, Eve, anyone, not to be fair in
> discussions!

The titel is probably "the Princes' Bride" and it's one of the
coolest films ever made!!! (You only want me to think that it is the
coolest film ever made... but on the other hand maybe you want me to
think that you think that I think.... *great*, it's a running gag
between my girlfriend and me :)

> > > >As a GM I try to give my players a
> > > >good evening/night full of fun by writing and running the
> > > >adventures.
> Hm, I GM to have fun, too... along with the players.

Almost forgot that one. But I was kinda afraid Terry would accuse me
of having fun at the expense of my players ;). But you're right, I'm
having fun when the story develops into something memorable, the
stuff that players use to talk about for a long time after the game.

> I did this _once_ to one of my players. Have the bad guy capture
> him, then place a bullet right between his eyes. Heck, it was no
> fun. The player _did_ feel cheated!

See what I mean, Terry? It would be the most logical thing to do for
a bad guy, but it's killing the game.

> I just like that "Wheeew, finally" that comes up when that nasty old
> NPC drops down backward some Austrian waterfall! (Hm, didn't I read
> that before somewhere? Hm... :-)

No, Watson, euuhh Sascha, you didn't :) But you can indeed almost
feel the build up tension relax when the "evil NPC" finally gets
hosed for good ("I'll put a couple of bullets in his head, just to be
sure" :), and it's one of the best moments of the game.

> "Archchancelor, may I say 'Yo'?"

"All right. Just once. Everyone can say it just once".

"Yo!"

Martin Steffens (Cugel@**.net / bdi05626@***.rhij.nl)
Many an ancient lord's last words had been, "You can't kill me
because I've got magic aaargh." (Terry Pratchett, Interesting Times)
Geek Code v3.0:
GLS d-(+) s+:+ a?(26) C+(++) U P? L? E? W+ N++ K? w+ O- M- V? PS+
PE- Y+ PGP t+(--) 5? X++ R+(++) tv b+++ DI? D++ G+ e++ h+(!) r y+
Message no. 34
From: Paul Jonathan Adam <Paul@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: gamemastering
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 00:28:58 GMT
> Yes, you've made it clear that you don't think it should be a contest [and
> luckily, neither does my current gm]. On the other hand, how many [evil gm
> grin] blurbs have you seen on the list? Or more explicit descriptions of
> making life miserable for PC's? I haven't run into THAT many bad gm's so I'm
> inclined to believe that it's posturing rather than an accurate description
> of how people approach their game but who knows.

Come on. You have to be dropped into the deep dark hole of despair... then
you look around after the "AAAAGH! We're gonna DIE!" phase, and see the
soft earth of the wall... handholds? A way out!

And once you fight your way out (which ain't easy!) you look back at the
hole and think "Hey, I climbed my way out of *that*?" Real sense of
achievement. Done that as GM, been there as player. Done right it's superb.

You have got to throw the players challenges. It has got to be difficult,
and that means Bad Things sometimes happen to characters who make
mistakes, or just get unlucky. Otherwise, there's no risk and no danger.
"Johnson gives you the job and you succeed, earning ten million newyen
and fifty Karma each. Who wants to play Junta?"

> Most of the time the MOTIVATION may be to make it more entertaining for the
> PC's. But if this is true wouldn't the collaborative-authorship metaphor be
> more appropriate? IMHO the single-authorship approach is part of the problem
> - the 'author' decides what will be entertaining to the reader and if the
> reader doesn't like it then the reader can take a hike. [time to put in some
> psychology for Gurth :)] GM's can get the same ego involvement with 'their
> world' as players can get with their characters.
> When gm's put 'their world' ahead of fun for everyone then they start
> 'furthering their own ends'.

??? There's a lot of entertainment to be had in being a small cog in a big
machine, as long as you know that's what you're getting into: cogs get
broken, and the GM in question warned me it was likely to be a high-mortality
campaign. So I started a new character rather than use one of my favourites.
The GM was, as you say, interested in how the players affected the world:
but it was a damned good game while it lasted.

Try GMing yourself and see how you get on: that's what I did when I didn't
like the feel of the game I was in. Seemed to work.

--
When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better
or for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him.

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 35
From: Paul Jonathan Adam <Paul@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: gamemastering
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 00:37:26 GMT
> >Hm, I win nearly anytime I GM in a roleplaying game. If th players have fun,
> >and I enjoy myself, and maybe someone eats his fingernails down to the palm
> >for tension, then I _won_! :-) And IMHO that's the only way to win in RPGs.
> >Have Fun!
>
> I agree, this is the way that a referee should win. But is this consistent
> with an 'it's my world I'll do what I want' approach to running a game?

Yes, it is. For instance, I introduced the "Night Warrior" rifle: basically
a Traveller gauss rifle. Absolutely lethal, completely deadly, et cetera
et cetera... except for a few minor flaws that R&D haven't *completely*
ironed out.

Now, to introduce that by democracy would have been to destroy completely
the surprise when the runners discover what a piece of crap this wonderweapon
is. They went into a fight hoping the superguns would even the odds... two
total stoppages and a battery explosion later they were running for their
lives. It led into a major run, because the results of the test program were
faked and the weapon sabotaged... et cetera et cetera et cetera.

*After* the run, we discussed the stats for the (working) weapon - anyone
who's interested can find it on Paolo's web page in my gear list - and
it became an "official" item... but none of the runners would go near it :)

The players greatly enjoyed the game: yet I had been dictatorial in imposing
the new weapon.

The GM has to be the supreme arbiter, both to keep the rules consistent and
to keep the power to surprise: the GM knows the mysteries and the yet-to-be-
revealed of the story, after all, and the players do not. That power carries
with it the responsibility to listen to your players, both with formal rules
and with "informal fiddles". Headshots, in my game, are massively lethal:
yet in general the runners avoid them. Why? Because if they do it unto others,
I do it unto them: they only call headshots in extremes (hold-out pistol
against armour jacket and form-fit, for instance...)

I agreed that rules change with my characters... and it worked. It especially
worked when a cornered NPC seriously wounded a PC with one shot from a
Streetline Special: because the NPCs know the rules too. The players accepted
that as entirely reasonable: it was exactly what they would have done.
That I consider a "good" house rule: one that is accepted as fair even when
it adversely affects the PCs.

--
When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better
or for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him.

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 36
From: Paul Jonathan Adam <Paul@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: gamemastering
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 00:49:32 GMT
> Think back to the fudging-dice-rolls thread. One commonly
> cited situation was 'the plotline required something to happen/not happen so
> I fudged the dice to make it happen/not happen'. That's how gm's can 'win' -
> they've created a scenario and its gonna happen come hell/high water/bad
> dice rolls.

It depends. Do you really want to scrub an entire, carefully-prepared
run, simply because of a few bad dice rolls?

When I GM, sometimes I tell the players something on the lines of "The
net flies from nowhere, trapping you helplessly." They accept it because
they know it's a plot element. I don't bother with the dice at all: but
the onus is on me to play fairly with them later. If you don't give them
a chance to avoid getting into the situation, make sure they have a good
way out later to take (or not) as the case may be.

--
When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better
or for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him.

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 37
From: Paul Jonathan Adam <Paul@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: gamemastering
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 00:55:34 GMT
> > I have to agree. When I GM, "winning" is the furthest thing
from
> >my mind. Usually, what I'm thinking of is: "Wow, they blew through the
> >place and STOLE THE FRAGGIN OD, now what do I do??? I sometimes wish I
> >DIDN'T have such CREATIVE players. But, frag, it's fun...";)

> Great, this is as it should be IMHO. And its exactly because you didn't
> fudge dice rolls or 'bend' rules so the players couldn't blow through the
> place and steal the fraggin OD because you were 'attached' to having things
> occur in a particular way [your way].

Unfortunately, "it depends". In one run, I was playing a samurai (an
approximation to a "proper" samurai, bushido and dai-sho and attitude aplenty)
and Johnson made several inappropriate jokes during the initial meeting, then
was downright rude when this was pointed out to him.

The GM persuaded me to go out of character by allowing him to get away with
it, and merely seethe in a corner while still accepting the run. Good thing
too, because it was an excellent run: it would have been a real waste to have
blown it out because the Johnson was an arrogant git with a loud mouth.


SPOILER SPACE - DIVIDED ASSETS








In Divided Assets, suffice it to say we did it "our way" which was to keep
the child fed, watered, and plugged into either the trideo or his Nintendo
for the duration. No conversation, no heart-to-heart, nothing. Were we
"meant" to talk to him? Yes, most of the run depended on it. Would those
two characters have cared even slightly about some rich brat's parent
problems? Not at all. It was a short run: but we wouldn't have had any
fun if the GM had made us do it "properly". Instead we got it out of the
way and did some other, more interesting, work in Denver instead.

The point? The GM may fudge dice, let bullseye bullets "miss by microns",
turn flesh wounds into massive damage, et cetera, as much as he or she wants.
As long as they do so with the intent of improving the enjoyment the players
get out of the game.

I agree wholeheartedly that a GM fiddling dice to keep a preferred NPC alive,
after the NPC was foolish enough to be captured (a role-playing result) was
so ludicrous as to be funny, ending in "I put my gun to her head and pull
the trigger." <GM rolls behind screen> "Oh, your gun jams.".

Other player - "I cut her head off with my axe." <GM rolls dice> "You
miss."

Third player - "I stuff a white phosphorous grenade inside her armour."...
You guessed it already, a dud.

And on and on and on. When the woman's security arrived, we used her as a
human shield on the way out, then tied her to the hood of our car in case
we had to ram any roadblocks. If the GM was determined to preserve this
woman, we were damned well going to get that immortality to rub off on us... :)

And we didn't let that guy GM again for a while, either.

--
When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better
or for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him.

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 38
From: Paul Jonathan Adam <Paul@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: gamemastering
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 01:13:46 GMT
> If the characters want to kill
> somebody and succeed, I'll let them regardless of who they are, after all no
> one is immortal. This doesn't mean that there won't be a negative effect on
> the players. You kill the Prince of the Tir Tangier, your going to have a
> lot of pissed off people on your asses and more than likely the final
> outcome will be PC death.
> ---Sedah Drol

We did this and the PCs are still alive :)

The trick in this case was having Kylisearn's power base prepared and ready,
to have extracted Kylisearn himself from the prison he was being held in
after he'd been kidnapped, and to run the transition to the new High Prince
very fast indeed. In short, preparation and smarts.

The High Prince is dead. Long live the High Prince.

And the PCs are *still* having fallout from that one, even though they did
it in a manner I hadn't expected and seemed *much* smarter than the way I
had thought most sensible until then. No easy ride... but the rewards were
and are large.

The secret is having PCs who look beyond "Who will <doing whatever> really
piss off?" to finding "Who would be really pleased to see that happen?
Possibly pleased enough to help us hide our tracks, or at least help us
do it?" In this case, the UCAS government... in a convoluted plotline
involving a terrorist massacre in a subway station ten years before, and
something called Project "Handyman".

Suffice it to say, "This tale grew in the telling..."

--
When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better
or for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him.

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 39
From: John IV <John.Moeller@*.CC.UTAH.EDU>
Subject: Re: gamemastering
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 22:23:22 -0600
On Tue, 22 Aug 1995, Victor Rodriguez, Jr wrote:

> >Where does it say that the gm is in charge of the world? [excuse my slip
> >back into the by-the-book mode]? Could an rpg work with a 'referee' instead?
> In the gaming world a DM, GM, Referee are all the same thing. The term used
> depends on what game system you are playing. :) But since you asked look at
[delete]

Yawn.
<snore><snore><snore><snore><snore><snore><snore><snore><snore><snore>

John IV <John.Moeller@*.cc.utah.edu>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Sometimes after an electrical storm I see in 5 dimensions. Why are the
sixty of you looking at me like that?"

--Cornfed, from _Duckman_
Message no. 40
From: John IV <John.Moeller@*.CC.UTAH.EDU>
Subject: Re: gamemastering
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 22:49:52 -0600
On Tue, 22 Aug 1995, Terry Amburgey wrote:

> >I must concur with several others that the verbage was a bit harsh; however,
> >your points are very valid. As gm's we walk a difficult line, we hold the
> >fate of the game in our hands. Yes, this can give some gm's a god-complex
> >and munchkinize them, but it can also be used to create Kick-ass games! |]
> >Gm's who walk this line and use their influence to provide as enjoyable a
> >game as possible, are to be congratulated for their creativity and inginuity
> >(as should those players who continue to challenge the gm and be independant
> >thinkers). $> Those gm's who thumbs are poised ready to squash the
> >individual thinking pc, will hopefully (but not likely, unfortunately) not
> >have players for very long.:}

I definitely agree with this. As a gm, I try to make the villains as
tough as possible without being impossible to defeat. Some gm's take
this idea too far and have the opinion that they need to defeat the
characters and "win" the game. Unfortunately, that was my first
experience with shadowrun. >:/

> Yes, the verbiage was harsh. Was it inaccurate? I wanted to point out that
> the same mindset and behavior which is roundly condemned as munchkinous in
> players is fervently defended as inalienable rights for game masters. If the
> only way to tell the munchkin from the gamemaster is to see who is sitting
> on the side of the screen with the tables, something isn't right.

Also true. But then again, gm munchkining can be useful to let the
players know when it's a good idea to give up before they get themselves
in _really_ deep drek. If the only way to tell pc's that they really
shouldn't attack Fuchi HQ is to turn them back with cyberzombies, so be it.

[delete]
> >without magic, or playing everyday people in 1995.:? The degree of power,
> >for me, does not define whether a game is munchkin or not, it is how the gm
> >and players utilize the rules. If a player takes a low-power game adn
> >maximizes or over-maiximizes their character, that I would consider a
> >munchkin. Likewise, a gm who continously throws Cuthulu style enemies at
[delete]

My point exactly.

John IV <John.Moeller@*.cc.utah.edu>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Sometimes after an electrical storm I see in 5 dimensions. Why are the
sixty of you looking at me like that?"

--Cornfed, from _Duckman_
Message no. 41
From: John IV <John.Moeller@*.CC.UTAH.EDU>
Subject: Re: gamemastering
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 23:02:14 -0600
I have a suggestion for our friend the associate professor and others who
posted against fiddling with the rules. (Please read only civility into
this post. I am _not_ trying to be sarcastic.)

If you really have a problem with everyone else's gm style, why don't you
try gm'ing yourself? You'll have a chance to try out how you think the
game should be run, and maybe you'll understand our point of view.

As for this thread (this remark is pointed at no one in particular; I
got into this thread late) let's try to keep it constructive and civil.
I did feel some heat (I don't know about anyone else, though).

John IV <John.Moeller@*.cc.utah.edu>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Sometimes after an electrical storm I see in 5 dimensions. Why are the
sixty of you looking at me like that?"

--Cornfed, from _Duckman_
Message no. 42
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: gamemastering
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 11:54:29 +0200
>Where does it say that the gm is in charge of the world? [excuse my slip
>back into the by-the-book mode]? Could an rpg work with a 'referee' instead?

CP2020 calls the GM a referee occassionally, and who cares what name you
stick onto it -- as my high school physics teacher used to say "the beast
needs a name," and I think that holds true here as well. It doesn't matter
what you call it, GM, DM(tm), referee, storyteller, that geek behind the
screen, or whatever, as long as you know what he or she does -- namely
trying to keep a game going without people argueing about it too much. Maybe
you could run an RPG without a GM (sort of like on ShadowTK I think), but
very soon arguments start to pop up, and _that_ is where you need a GM IMHO:
to resolve those disputes. Same thing as with an umpire in <insert sport here>.
Yes, the GM places the PCs in a situation, but if all goes well, I think
it's not so much a situation of the GM saying "What will you do" and the PCs
responding, followed by the GM saying "But that goes against all my plans!
You can't do that. Period." As a GM, you adapt to what your players do,
twisting the intended storyline in such a way that the players can try and
follow it even if they do something totally unexpected. Adaption is the name
of the game, and that's something you can't do without someone in a GM's
position (and never mind the name you give him/her).

>Female figurines with huge hooters wearing chainmail bikinis is also the way
>it IS. That doesn't mean I shouldn't question the design practices of [for
>example] Ral Partha.

Don't get that started again...

>>Are you going to argue with the writer of the adventure you're playing
>>too? Call up FASA and complain that this rule sucks, and since you players
>>outnumber FASA, then FASA should change?
>
>No, we already know how this works - house rules.

So now you're saying that you wouldn't call up FASA but would use house
rules instead? House rules which you dismissed last week as mostly made by
munchkin-wannabes? Or are you being sarcastic?

>Yes, you've made it clear that you don't think it should be a contest [and
>luckily, neither does my current gm]. On the other hand, how many [evil gm
>grin] blurbs have you seen on the list?

*Evil GM Grins* are a _joke_ as far as I'm concerned. (Hell, I once had an
email conversation with one of my PBEM players where she tried to out-evil
grin me so we came up with ever-eviller grins, _for_fun_...) It's _not_ IMHO
a way of the GM saying "I'm better than you" or whatever, it's just seeing
things from a different angle than the players are... As a GM you try to set
puzzles for your players, and the *evil GM grins* are usually the result of
an idea for a nasty puzzle that will hopefully take the players lots of time
to solve. I like it when my players run into difficulties they hadn't
expected, and then find a way around them.

>Or more explicit descriptions of making life miserable for PC's?

I have to agree with you on this one, there are GMs, also on this list (or
at least there used to be :), who are out to make life miserable for the
players. Like when someone says "I've got a player who walks around with 4
spell locks and IMO he is too powerful that way." This is usually followed
by 1001 methods of nuking spell locks. I don't like this style of GMing either.

>Most of the time the MOTIVATION may be to make it more entertaining for the
>PC's. But if this is true wouldn't the collaborative-authorship metaphor be
>more appropriate? IMHO the single-authorship approach is part of the problem
>- the 'author' decides what will be entertaining to the reader and if the
>reader doesn't like it then the reader can take a hike.

I encourage my players to do things by themselves, without me telling them
about it. Too bad it hasn't really worked so far (but I do have them so far
that they invent small things on the spot -- "I dive behind the potted
plant!" when I haven't told them whether or not there is a potted plant).

>[time to put in some
>psychology for Gurth :)] GM's can get the same ego involvement with 'their
>world' as players can get with their characters.

Of course they can. And why shouldn't they?

>Are there a lot of gaming groups in your area
>so that you can easily dump one campaign and join another?

There probably are, without you knowing it... I found a number in my area,
while I had thought there were very few.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I listen for the voice inside my head
GC3.0: GAT/! dpu s:- !a>? C+(++) U P L E? W(++) N K- w+ O V? PS+ PE Y PGP-
t(+) 5 X R+++>$ tv+(++) b+@ DI? D+ G++ e h! !r(--) y? Unofficial Shadowrun
Guru :)
Message no. 43
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: gamemastering
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 11:54:33 +0200
>Not necessarily, I've been in several [4 or 5] campaigns with rotating
>referees that WAS a democracy when it came to rules and campaign development
>that worked VERY well.

I don't believe in the super-democracy that many Americans seem so fond of
(I know, I'll get flamed/thwapped/etcetera-ed for saying this) -- that is,
putting just about _everything_ up for voting about it. I don't think it'd
be good for the game situation, if for every rules change someone would want
to see, it'd go "All in favor, raise your hands... [counting] Well, that's 3
in favor and one against, we accept the rules change." Maybe this is a bit
extreme but still...
Now of course you are all thinking I like to play dictator and say "These
are the new rules, and we will use them so stop whining!" No, I don't. I go
"Well, I did a bit of tinkering and came up with some rules variants. If we
don't like them or they don't work, we chuck them out again."

--
Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I listen for the voice inside my head
GC3.0: GAT/! dpu s:- !a>? C+(++) U P L E? W(++) N K- w+ O V? PS+ PE Y PGP-
t(+) 5 X R+++>$ tv+(++) b+@ DI? D+ G++ e h! !r(--) y? Unofficial Shadowrun
Guru :)
Message no. 44
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: gamemastering
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 11:55:12 +0200
>Here's the scenario.

[snip]

The problem here is that you've thought it through too much (I know, I used
to do that too, but it usually worked out, lucky me). Recently I've taken to
doing it the other way around: I have some ideas inside my head for a few
days, and think "Hey, this would be nice," and "That is a good
encounter"
and then just fake the rest -- whatever the PCs do, I can give them a reply
because there is virtually nothing set in advance.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I listen for the voice inside my head
GC3.0: GAT/! dpu s:- !a>? C+(++) U P L E? W(++) N K- w+ O V? PS+ PE Y PGP-
t(+) 5 X R+++>$ tv+(++) b+@ DI? D+ G++ e h! !r(--) y? Unofficial Shadowrun
Guru :)
Message no. 45
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: gamemastering
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 11:55:32 +0200
>The titel is probably "the Princes' Bride" and it's one of the
>coolest films ever made!!! (You only want me to think that it is the
>coolest film ever made... but on the other hand maybe you want me to
>think that you think that I think.... *great*, it's a running gag
>between my girlfriend and me :)

Not to mention a result of your limited knowledge of psychology... I've
reached the conclusion that he's a bit paranoid in a special way -- he
thinks people try to tell him other things than they actually are :)

>Almost forgot that one. But I was kinda afraid Terry would accuse me
>of having fun at the expense of my players ;). But you're right, I'm
>having fun when the story develops into something memorable, the
>stuff that players use to talk about for a long time after the game.

That is about as close to "winning" as you can get in RPGs, in my
experience. You might say "We've won!" when you completed the adventure
goal, but it's not winning like in other games, is it?

>See what I mean, Terry? It would be the most logical thing to do for
>a bad guy, but it's killing the game.

Well, like I think FASA said somewhere, if the bad guys kill off the good
guys at the first chance they get, nearly all adventure movies would be over
after 10 minutes... The same goes for RPGs...

--
Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I listen for the voice inside my head
GC3.0: GAT/! dpu s:- !a>? C+(++) U P L E? W(++) N K- w+ O V? PS+ PE Y PGP-
t(+) 5 X R+++>$ tv+(++) b+@ DI? D+ G++ e h! !r(--) y? Unofficial Shadowrun
Guru :)
Message no. 46
From: Stefan Struck <struck@******.INFORMATIK.UNI-BONN.DE>
Subject: Re: gamemastering
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 14:54:11 +0200
Terry wrote:
>
> >As stated by other person with more fancy words, the main theme of
> >the game is FUN and the GM is the person to provide it.
>
> Whay can't it be a group effort? Fun-for-everyone and
> it's-my-world-love-it-or-leave-it
> seem inconsistent to me.
>
That show that you're missing my point. My job as GM is to provide fun.
period. Not these it's-my-world-etc. stuff. Afterwards I always ask my
players if everything was alright and then I listen HARD for what they
have to say.
Bottom Line: FUN FUN FUN and when in doubt FUN (for everyone or for the
most people you can get)
bye,
Stefan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail: struck@****.informatik.uni-bonn.de
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...but there's nothing like having your friends show up with lots of guns.
-Frank Miller, The Big Fat Kill
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 47
From: Nathan Walker <NTWALKER@******.SUNYGENESEE.CC.NY.US>
Subject: Re: gamemastering
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 16:11:14 -0400
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
>I don't believe in the super-democracy that many Americans seem so fond of
>(I know, I'll get flamed/thwapped/etcetera-ed for saying this) -- that is,
>putting just about _everything_ up for voting about it.

Well, I'm going off-topic for this, but I may be able to pull it back...

America _was not_ designed to be a democracy. When Ben Franklin came out from
finishing the constitution, someone asked him what kind of a government we had.
He replied, "A Republic, if you can keep it." A republic is a form of
government where all the people elect leaders to make all the decisions for
them, somewhat like what most people on this list consider GM'ing to be.

This is major oversimplification of our government, but it's close enough.
I also do not believe in a super-democracy, and I am American. :)

A republic is kind of a balance between democracy and dictatorship. In
America, we have moved over more to the democratic type of government, but
we are still a republic.

In my mind, this is what a game should be...somewhere's between a democracy
and a dictatorship, but definately not one of those.

>>>> Nate (Who knows a little about government.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| NTWalker@******.SUNYGENESEE.CC.NY.US |
| Vax/VMS Guru (sad, but true) |
| |
| I was high on life...but then they arrested me... |
| |
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS d- s:- a--->? C++++ U->++++ P+>++++ L>++ E--- W+ N? o? K? w--- O? M--
V++>- PS PE Y+ PGP? t+++(-) 5++ X+ R++ tv+ b+ DI? D++ G++ e>++ h!>++ !r y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 48
From: "S.F. Eley" <gt6877c@*****.GATECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: gamemastering
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 16:16:08 -0400
Nathan Walker writes:

> A republic is kind of a balance between democracy and dictatorship. In
> America, we have moved over more to the democratic type of government, but
> we are still a republic.

We have? I think I missed the transition.. Was I asleep?
(Expressing my views of the state of the American government is
DEFINITELY off-topic, so I'll shut up right there.) >8->


> In my mind, this is what a game should be...somewhere's between a democracy
> and a dictatorship, but definately not one of those.

EXCELLENT analogy.. I think you hit it right on-target.


Blessings,

_TNX._

--
Stephen F. Eley (-) gt6877c@*****.gatech.edu )-( Student Pagan Community
http://wc62.residence.gatech.edu| Jesus Saves,
My opinions are my opinions. | Moses Invests,
Please don't blame anyone else. | But only Buddha pays dividends!
Message no. 49
From: Cugel the Clever <cugel@**.NET>
Subject: Re: gamemastering
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 23:53:18 +01.0
On 23 Aug 95 at 11:55, Gurth wrote:

> >The titel is probably "the Princes' Bride" and it's one of the
> >coolest films ever made!!! (You only want me to think that it is
> >the coolest film ever made... but on the other hand maybe you want
> >me to think that you think that I think.... *great*, it's a running
> >gag between my girlfriend and me :)

> Not to mention a result of your limited knowledge of psychology...
> I've reached the conclusion that he's a bit paranoid in a special
> way -- he thinks people try to tell him other things than they
> actually are :)

Who sez it was limited? I'm just not a good psychiatist ;) And you
might be subconsciously telling me the things that I think you are ;)
And I'm /not/ paranoid, I'm just preparing for 2055...


Martin Steffens (Cugel@**.net / bdi05626@***.rhij.nl)
Many an ancient lord's last words had been, "You can't kill me
because I've got magic aaargh." (Terry Pratchett, Interesting Times)
Geek Code v3.0:
GLS d-(+) s+:+ a?(26) C+(++) U P? L? E? W+ N++ K? w+ O- M- V? PS+
PE- Y+ PGP t+(--) 5? X++ R+(++) tv b+++ DI? D++ G+ e++ h+(!) r y+
Message no. 50
From: Duke Diener <DukeDragon@***.COM>
Subject: Re: gamemastering
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 18:32:35 -0400
Gurth wrote:

>The problem here is that you've thought it through too much (I know, I used
>to do that too, but it usually worked out, lucky me). Recently I've taken to
>doing it the other way around: I have some ideas inside my head for a few
>days, and think "Hey, this would be nice," and "That is a good
encounter"
>and then just fake the rest -- whatever the PCs do, I can give them a reply
>because there is virtually nothing set in advance.

I've always been very lax in planning (hell sometimes I don't even have a
world when I sit down to GM an RPG). For SR2 I generally have the goal in
mind (i.e. kidnap the scientist, steal the thingy, etc.) and the major
obsticle (i.e. another team is after the same thing, there is a vampire in
the way, again etc.). The rest I just fill in by stealing ideas from other
GMs/books/movies/dreams.

Duke
Message no. 51
From: David Hinkley <dhinkley@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: gamemastering
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 1995 02:23:48 -0700
On Tue, 22 Aug 1995, Terry Amburgey wrote:

>
> This one is tough to answer. I could tell you that I've played and refereed
> a wide variety of rpg's for 17 years but all that proves is that I'm older
> than dirt. Besides 'been there, done that' just seems like a dumb thing to
> say. How about this - see my post to Eve.
>
If you are older then dirt, then where does that leave people
like me that remember when D&D was the only RPG in town (if you had a
copy of Chainmail(TM) for the combat (yep orignal D&D lacked combat
rules). More to the point, while "been there, done that" may be a dumb
thing to say ....'been there, seen that, don't want to go that way again'
has merit (it just doesn't trip of the tounge as well). In my 19+ years
of RPG gaming I have played a lot of systems, some pure some modified to
unreconizableness with a large group of players and with GMs of all
sorts, rules fanatics, free form, game designers, script worlds and
drunks. Some games were good some bad and some were the only game in
town. While I would rather play then GM I find my self doing it more then
i would like (next week is my bi-yearly Shadowrun Game as a player, an
old friend and I rotate running a private game at Pacficon every year).
To cut to the chase the quality of the game is determined by the effort
that the particpants are willing to put into the game. The key word being
particpants..both the GM and the players. A game without players is
little better then a game without a GM. The responsiblities that each has
are different but equally important.
The GM must be prepared for the game, have worked out the main
threads of the game and the chalenges he will confront the players with.
He needs to take into account the the charactors and players skills,
knowledge and ablities while putting his game together. Please note the
ablities of the players are as important as the skills of thier
charactors (a puzzle solving game does not work with hack a slash players
any more then a senario that requires Jet flying skill with a party that
has no pilots). And lastly he needs to be ready for the of the wall
solution that ends the game (satisafactorly from the player charactors
point of view) in the first 5 minutes of the session.
The Players need to roughly understand those sections of the
rules that effect thier particular charactor, they need to be familure
with the skills, attributes and equipment of thier charactor and they
need to make an effort to learn and understand the setting of the
game(especially where it impacts thier charactor).
Both the Players and the GM need to remember that the game is a
group effort and that playing to win is a good way to disrupt a otherwise
good game.
The nice thing about RPGs is that they can survive the times that
one or more of the participants fails to live up to thier
responsbilities, that the efforts of some of the players can cover for
the lack of effort of others and that the longer the group plays
togeather the better they learn the others quirks, hot buttons and
weaknesses and as a group compinsate for them.
As to the view of GM as 'God' he is and he is not. He controlls
the weather, most of the inhabinents of the world (and thier world view)
and for much of the game he is the final arbitor of the rules and the
world. But as I said earlier a game without players is not much of a
game, I have voted with my feet more then once and I suspect i will
probibly have to do it yet again sometime in the future.
Well I think it is time to climb down of this soap box to make
room for someone else to pontificate.

David Hinkley
Message no. 52
From: James Pearley Kilbride <kilbrj@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: gamemastering
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 1995 09:48:04 -0400
On Aug 27, 2:23am, David Hinkley wrote:
> Subject: Re: gamemastering
> On Tue, 22 Aug 1995, Terry Amburgey wrote:
>
> >
> > This one is tough to answer. I could tell you that I've played and
refereed
> > a wide variety of rpg's for 17 years but all that proves is that I'm
older
> > than dirt. Besides 'been there, done that' just seems like a dumb thing
to
> > say. How about this - see my post to Eve.
> >
> If you are older then dirt, then where does that leave people
> like me that remember when D&D was the only RPG in town (if you had a
> copy of Chainmail(TM) for the combat (yep orignal D&D lacked combat
> rules). More to the point, while "been there, done that" may be a dumb
> thing to say ....'been there, seen that, don't want to go that way again'
> has merit (it just doesn't trip of the tounge as well). In my 19+ years
> of RPG gaming I have played a lot of systems, some pure some modified to
> unreconizableness with a large group of players and with GMs of all
> sorts, rules fanatics, free form, game designers, script worlds and
> drunks. Some games were good some bad and some were the only game in
> town. While I would rather play then GM I find my self doing it more then
> i would like (next week is my bi-yearly Shadowrun Game as a player, an
> old friend and I rotate running a private game at Pacficon every year).
> To cut to the chase the quality of the game is determined by the effort
> that the particpants are willing to put into the game. The key word being
> particpants..both the GM and the players. A game without players is
> little better then a game without a GM. The responsiblities that each has
> are different but equally important.
> The GM must be prepared for the game, have worked out the main
> threads of the game and the chalenges he will confront the players with.
> He needs to take into account the the charactors and players skills,
> knowledge and ablities while putting his game together. Please note the
> ablities of the players are as important as the skills of thier
> charactors (a puzzle solving game does not work with hack a slash players
> any more then a senario that requires Jet flying skill with a party that
> has no pilots). And lastly he needs to be ready for the of the wall
> solution that ends the game (satisafactorly from the player charactors
> point of view) in the first 5 minutes of the session.
> The Players need to roughly understand those sections of the
> rules that effect thier particular charactor, they need to be familure
> with the skills, attributes and equipment of thier charactor and they
> need to make an effort to learn and understand the setting of the
> game(especially where it impacts thier charactor).
> Both the Players and the GM need to remember that the game is a
> group effort and that playing to win is a good way to disrupt a otherwise
> good game.
> The nice thing about RPGs is that they can survive the times that
> one or more of the participants fails to live up to thier
> responsbilities, that the efforts of some of the players can cover for
> the lack of effort of others and that the longer the group plays
> togeather the better they learn the others quirks, hot buttons and
> weaknesses and as a group compinsate for them.
> As to the view of GM as 'God' he is and he is not. He controlls
> the weather, most of the inhabinents of the world (and thier world view)
> and for much of the game he is the final arbitor of the rules and the
> world. But as I said earlier a game without players is not much of a
> game, I have voted with my feet more then once and I suspect i will
> probibly have to do it yet again sometime in the future.
> Well I think it is time to climb down of this soap box to make
> room for someone else to pontificate.
>
> David Hinkley
>-- End of excerpt from David Hinkley

I will agree with you here Mr. Hinkley. I have been playing RPG`s for only
about 7 years as mostly player and a little GM`ing. If Players don't like
what the GM is doing it don't do no good. If the GM doesn't like what the
players are doing then it don't do no good. I have played AD&D, Shadowrun,
Ars Magica, War Hammer and most of Palladiums offerings. I have to say by
far Shadowrun offers the best way for GM`s and Players to stay in sinc. I
have had a lot less trouble with players going off were the GM`s didn't want
them in Shadowrun and a lot less times when an adventure didn't fit what the
characters wanted or didn't mind doing. Well see ya all later..

James P. Kilbride
AKA Narn Marcof the Elvish Matrix Magi of Magnificance

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about gamemastering, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!