"They Should Pay Me For This..."

So recently, the Doc and I have been in discussion to start an on-line Traveller campaign…in fact, he’s already made a character and named his ship. But I’m having a difficult time getting jazzed for the project.

Especially considering I just re-read MechWarrior and can’t help making an un-favorable comparison with the Traveller universe. For the record, I believe I prefer Traveller’s over-all system to MW, but for whatever reason, I find MW’s background to be much more compelling. I’m not sure why…perhaps it’s the lack of aliens.

Outside of serious space opera like Flash Gordon or Star Wars (in which all the main characters are human anyway), I find intelligent alien life to be the corniest, hokiest (and most boring) part of any Science Fiction RPG. Doc, on the other hand, LOVES aliens…he prefers Farscape and Star Trek to Firefly and Star Wars and was telling me how much fun he had in his last Traveller game playing a “cat-person.”

When I told him I wanted to run a “human-only” Traveller universe, he was NOT pleased (though his character is human). I HAVE relented (it IS Traveller, after all…the encounter of strange new life is expected), but it doesn’t instill in me a burning desire to play, I’m afraid.

Which reminds me of something I wanted to write about last week. Over at Grognardia, J.M. talked about the referee as being a player, too…something I totally agree with. There are capital P “Players” that sit opposite the GM(s), but everyone at the table, including the GM is a “player” of the game. And as a player it is important that the GM have fun, too.

So...Why the hell would anyone want to be a GM?

Assuming you capitulate to the demands of your players (as I am doing with the alien thing), and assuming you are not breaking one of the Big GM Commandments:

Thou shall not railroad your players into your plot.
Thou shall not raise thy NPCs to a place of prominence above the PCs.
Thou shall not allow external strife to influence in-game events.


…assuming, in other words, that you are not a person who GMs for the sake of getting your jollies playing Master with the Players as Slaves…well, if all you’re doing is playing “Santa Claus,” facilitating everyone else’s fun, why the hell would you want to do it?

Because “someone has to?”

Because “it’s your turn?”

Because you’re the guy (or gal) that “knows the rules the best?”

Ridiculous…all of these reasons.

Now for Mr. Maliszewski, he enjoys the surprise of seeing “what happens next,” partly due to player innovation, partly due to random dice roll…I guess you’d call this the Wide-Eyed-Curiosity motivation. When I was a DM, I enjoyed challenging (aka “beating on”) the players: putting them in situations/scenarios to see how they react…call this the Saw IV or Sadistic-Overlord motivation. Of course ,nowadays I’m also interested in teaching the game to newbies…call that the Mentor-to-Grow-the-Hobby motivation. But is that fun? Or rather, is it ENOUGH fun?

Maybe not, as I struggle to find motivation to start up a new campaign. Oh, I’ve often thought about posting a “gamers wanted” sign down at the local hobby shop, and I’ve thought of a couple-few games I’d love to try out. But I still haven’t done so. It’s a LOW PRIORITY. Which means it’s not all that important to me. Which perhaps means it takes a special kind of masochist to be a game master, and I’m just not cut out for it anymore.

I look at JM’s Dwimmermount campaign and I see a couple things going on that fire him to continue:

- A serious study of the hobby’s roots (an in-depth analysis)
- A teaching of the game to his own children

I am far less interested in empirical observation than James (note my half-assed theories spewed all throughout this blog), and I have no children of my own (yet!). I search through the blog-o-sphere for other long-term RPG campaigns and I see the connecting thread is that the players are long-term friends, and gaming is just ONE of the things they do together. Otherwise, both on-line and face-to-face “pick-up” games tend to dissolve just as quickly as they start.

Could it be that the lack of glue to hold a group’s cohesion comes from a lack of interest/motivation on the part of the GM?

Maybe. Certainly, when I have been a capital-P PLAYER in these on-line games, the ONLY reason I ever walked away from a game was because the GM was a douche that didn’t know the rules. Otherwise, I always had fun as a player, rockin’ and a-rollin’ with my character. It was the DM/GM that would eventually walk away.

Is being a good GM/referee a truly thankless task? Is being a good Dungeon Master supposed to be “its own reward?”

I have acted as referee for my nephews playing Warhammer 40,000 on multiple occasions, and I can tell you that while being a ref greatly facilitates the fun of the players (providing that “impartial-voice-of-reason-and-rulings”), I would much prefer to be “in the game” and kicking ass than sitting on the sideline with a whistle.

Is it an age thing? I mean umpires and field referees for sports are often ex-players that just don’t have the stuff to play at their prior level (they "got old"), and so referee as a way of staying in the game, in addition to finding a practical application for their experience and knowledge of a sport and its rules. But RPGs (and war games) are NOT age restrictive in the same way as athletic sports…a player can be 85 years old and still roll dice and write down how many arrows he’s expended at a group of orcs. The only issue age might have is calling it an early night…and that “negative impact of age” will only be amplified if the octogenarian is relegated to the role of GM/referee.

It’s a quandary. RPGs need a referee to be effective (games like Polaris not withstanding). Referees, to be good at their job, need to set aside their personal expectations and attachments in favor of the players’ fun. So what’s to keep the ref at the table, besides some sense of duty or obligation.

I really don’t know. Money maybe? Once upon a time, I considered a scheme to become a “professional game master,” but quickly discarded the idea. Setting aside the issue of how the hell you’d get anyone to pay you in the first place (and would they pay up front? Would there be a “money-back guarantee” if their characters died?”), I could see no way to charge enough for the time, energy, and preparation one would need to expend to be a pro-GM. That is, no way one could charge enough AND get people to accept the bill.

And anyway if you started charging people for the service/act of being a GM would that suddenly turn gaming from a fun hobby into work?

But is it fun NOW to be a GM? Or is it already work (just without the cash)?

Ah, well, I’m not really looking for answers to these questions, I’m just musing. Running games IS fun, after all…that’s why people do it. And some folks (myself included) are “control freaks” anyway, better suited to being on the GM-side of the screen than the player (where we’ll question and second-guess and “rules lawyer” to our detriment).

Of course, even knowing THAT doesn’t get me super-fired-up to run Traveller. At least not with aliens.

; )

Player Versus DM Expectations

Not-so-hot-on-the-heels of some other posts, I figured I better put some of these thoughts down before I forget them...

A couple days ago, I posted about un-finished dungeons...basically, regarding my poor track record of ultimately completing or "cleaning out" pre-packaged adventures. The comments generated a lot of food for thought for Yours Truly.

Later I read this post over at Father Dave's regarding the thief...a post I think is fascinating for its implication in adventure/dungeon design. Today, I was reading about Chgowiz's wife's encounter with a smoke dragon...and how it nearly led to despair and a throw-up-your-hands-and-dice moment at the table.

I kinda' wanna' tie all this stuff together.

In designing an adventure module for publishing (still sharpening that axe, folks!) I've been going over a lot of the do's and don't's I think it's important to consider. Certainly I don't want to repeat bad trends of the past or do something that doesn't result in a fun adventure romp for players. But let's look at expectations for a second.

While I am a big believer in background "creative agendas" I believe few, if any people, actually come to a game table with an initial attitude that can be described as narratavist or gamist. I think it's fairly safe to say that MOST people sit down at the gaming table wanting #1 to have fun and #2 to escape a bit from the humdrum of "everyday life." Once they've had THOSE needs met, similar to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs...only THEN do they start looking to meet these secondary creative agendas.

In other words, if they're not getting the fun and the escape, they never bother to worry about the other stuff.

Now I think that these primary goals (of which escape is probably secondary to fun except for folks with slightly skewed psyches...for whatever reason) are fairly explicit in the text of earlier versions of Dungeons and Dragons...especially B/X D&D. But they sure seem to get lost in later versions, which instead extoll slightly different objectives, perhaps based on the perceived need of their target gaming community. Game balance, in whatever form that phrase rears its ugly head, is considered to be paramount IN ORDER TO HAVE FUN, according to the rules...and this is a justification for the extensive and intricate rules of editions like the 3rd and 4th edition.

But game balance is NOT required to have fun...thinking so is an F'ing illusion, folks. Balance is only an important component of fun (and not even a necessary one!) in games focused on the GAMIST aspect of play, where players want to be on an equal and level playing field.

And again, it's not even necessary of gamist play, as some players prefer an even GREATER challenge, with the odds stacked against 'em. For example, I've ALWAYS been drawn to the idea of the doughty halfling warrior, sticking it to the big guys, ever since I saw the illustrations in the DMG in the "random dungeon section." Look at that little guy go! THAT's the character, I want to play!

[sorry, I don't have a copy of my DMG with me at the moment...I'll post an image later if I can find one]

So putting aside the whole discussion of whether later edition characters (or earlier edition for that matter) are balanced against each other, look at the advice given to DMs in adventure design as to how to balance encounters in adventure design: basically, it boils down to "make sure you have a little something of everything for all character types." There should be some undead, for example, for clerics, or some challenges that can only be overcome using a thief's skills. There should be some fighting for fighters and some places where a magic-user comes in handy, and perhaps a few instances where character racial abilities (like elves ability to find secret doors) come in handy.

Gross!

To me, this feels plainly contrived. Not only THAT, it also ends up limiting players' choice as they are suddenly required to take "a little bit of everything" with them into the dungeon. If they don't, they face potential dead ends (as Father Dave found). What's more, you get that "last-person-to-arrive-takes-the-class-no-one-wants" mentality that Frothy Friar talks about, most often seen (by both him and me at least) with the cleric.

[actually, in my old campaigns the "last picked" role was probably split equal between clerics and thieves...and these weren't even D4 hit dice thieves!]

Frankly, to a player this sucks. Like it or not, one of a player's first two needs on the Gamers' Hierarchy of Needs pyramid is having fun. BEFORE "meeting the challenge." And if I get forced into a role because it's necessary based on a game design meant to cater to the possibility or expectation of a mixed group of adventurers, than you just chopped a chunk off my free will, and part of my enjoyment just went with it!

So let's talk about a DM's expectations and "hierarchy of needs." Are they different? Somewhat. I think DMs want to have fun, too, but instead of the fun of escaping into the shoes of a different person, they get the fun of "playing God;" being a creator of worlds, in other words.

And here's where there can be a bit of a disconnect.

While certainly the DM seat attracts an egomaniacal variety of individual [note: Me as Exhibit A, blogging my little blog thoughts] that's not the point of the Role of DM. It really ain't. World creation, or reality creation, or story creation...whatever you want to call it...is a collaborative effort between DM and players.

It's got to be, otherwise you aren't playing an RPG. Instead you're doing a play with improvised lines and some dice rolls.

And while I LOVE the theater (actor, remember?) it's not anything theatrical that attracts me to RPGs. REALLY. Like many, I am drawn to the escapism part (which is also something that draws me to acting) which to me is fun...but there is no urge to talk in funny voices or dress up in costume, at least when I am acting as a player (as a DM I will use different voices to distinguish between different NPCs in conversation). I do like imagining myself as an "adventurer" (whether heroic, roguish, or an outright villain makes no nevermind to me) and exploring a fantasy setting. I don't think I'm alone in this, either.

The DM's role, sometimes forgotten, is one of facilitator. What the DM does is facilitate this world/story/reality creation. Adventures are designed, settings are written, NPCs and obstacles placed...and then there is acting as adjudicator and referee for the players as they explore the game world. This exploration, in collaboration with everyone at the table, is what CREATES the shared environment. NOT the DM alone.

When a DM "puts on airs" and thinks he or she is wholly responsible for world creation they are deluding themselves. Pure and simple. If you want to author a world, write a book, don't play an RPG. If your players abandon your game, all the background and backstory in the world means nothing.

AND (this is the important part) if you DO allow players free reign in your carefully designed game (in other words, if you're a good and competent DM that doesn't force your players down your own linear story arcs, etc.), they are going to muck it all up. They will go "off book." They will want to push the game and exploration into areas you haven't detailed or thought of. They will not "do what you want them to."

It's like the talk of these huge ass adventure modules. The DM may make some giant, ambitious adventure...that frankly bores the hell out of the players. At least if the players intend their characters to do more than explore that single adventure over the life of the campaign.

Now I already said in the earlier post that some modules, like B2 and X1, are excluded from my bile on the subject as they are intended to be something of introductory campaigns. They provide an extensive setting for characters of the requisite levels to explore in order to learn the Basic and Expert rules.

Other module sets, like the Slaver series (A1-4) and the GDQ series ARE, in fact, actual campaign settings. They are designed to take place over many, many game sessions as adventurers plumb the depths of their multi-dungeon scenarios. When running through one of these, your players are pretty much committed to the long haul. The same is true for the Desert of Desolation (I3-I5) series and even I1:Dwellers of the Forbidden City (if played as simply its original, tournament "rescue the prisoners scenario" the adventure is short-and-sweet, otherwise it provides an extensive sandbox for campaign game play).

But other "one-off" modules are simply ridiculous.

Let's look at I6: Ravenloft. Garbage. This is billed as a single adventure...and one from which there is no escape for the players until it's completed (killer fog!). How many encounters are there in this module?

103. Of 45 modules I reviewed for "# of numbered encounters" only one other module had more: X3: Curse of Xanathon with 107 by the somewhat inconsistent Douglas Niles.

As a DM prepping a game or a player slogging through one, that's a nightmare. By contrast, B2 only has 64 encounters (outside the Keep) and X1 has 51...both of these can provide multiple sessions of gameplay and multiple levels of advancement. What if someone is holding to a strict "no more than one level gained per adventure completed" rule? After weeks of exploring Ravenloft you get one level? That's a shit-load of work for little pay-off, in my opinion.

[the idea of a high-level magic-user vampire isn't even very original...Q1 had the moody gothic vampire world with the 15th level magic-user vampire in 1980, folks]

Compare that to adventures like S1 and S2. The Tomb of Horrors has 33 numbered encounter areas, White Plume Mountain has 28. Those are nice little adventures that can be finished in one or two sessions. These are good examples of single adventures, as opposed to a campaign setting.

Just as with "world creation" DMs and designers can go over-board with adventure/module design. Except for campaign settings (like the Stonehell Dungeon mega-dungeon, for example) it's generally unnecessary to have too much wedged into an adventure. Usually, the players are not looking for anything beyond their basic objectives (unless understanding a dungeon's "history" is required for resolving a particular "puzzle" or challenge). The rest of that shit is superfluous. It's design masturbation.

So with a little time and energy, I could probably boil all these thoughts down into some Great Commandment of Adventure Design. However, I'm not going to do that right now. Instead I'd like to let this post stew a bit while I work on an actual writing project (the aforementioned adventure module I'm doing) and give readers a chance to weigh in and comment on the thoughts expressed here. These I will later distill into some Commandments (don't even know how many yet!) so feel free to try your hand at your own...or blow me out of the water if you disagree with anything written! Ha! I'm feeling a little rambunctious this morning, I guess.

Probably the smell of the NFL play-offs in the air.

: )