Game Masterhood

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

May 9, 2018

Hoo boy, it was a long, exhausting weekend. As you know if you read the read the Megadungeon Monday post. Yesterday. Tuesday. I know. I’ve come a long way in the past few months, but I’m not perfect. At least, not perfect regarding running a site. I’m perfect in a lot of other ways, though. I like to think it balances out.

Anyway. Last week turned out to be a very long, chaotic week. Lots of crap. I don’t want to talk about it. But one of the things that happened is that I decided to see how the ole Twitter thing was doing. And, man, it’s still mostly a garbage fire. And, after two days, I was ready to get right the f$&% back out of Twitter. And then something happened that made me remember why Twitter wasn’t completely reprehensible. It trashed all of my ideas for a feature article and made me address a topic by providing me with a fascinating conversation. One that actually made me think about things. And one that even taught me a few things. I know. I’m f$&%ing amazed too. Who thought there was anything left for me to learn.

It all started with an innocuous little invitation. It came from this dude, Bill Allen World. He runs the YouTube Channel Bill Allen World and also works with another YouTube Channel called Initiative Coffee. They post a series of those insipid, live streamed games I find unwatchable. One of them involves playing with f$&%ing teenagers. But they seem to actually put some effort in, and the quality is pretty damned good. If not for the fact that I’m watching a bunch of people play a game of D&D when I could be running a game of D&D myself – and probably better – I’d be a fan. So, call this a grudging recommendation.

Anyway, Mr. World asked me if I’d be interested in appearing as a guest player in one of their games. And I responded the way I usually do when someone asks me to play in a game. I pointed out that I am far too creative and clever and cunning and witty and handsome to be a player. That’s why I’m a GM. But we talked about whether I could act as an allied, temporary NPC who joins the party and who is statted up like a player-character. World seemed amenable to that. So maybe it’ll happen. Who knows. That is not quite the point.

The point is, several other Twits jumped on me to point out that players can be just as creative and clever and cunning and witty as GMs. And they also pointed out that being attractive is irrelevant. But that’s something unattractive people always say. And I reminded those unattractive Twits that if players really were smart and creative, they’d be GMs.

Trust me, there is a really important point in here. One that is worth writing a few thousand words of bulls$&% analyzing. And one I didn’t realize was so important until I was sitting in a coffee shop two days later pretending I was actually interested in some story from a game they had played in about a fight with some dragons and Tiamat on the upper layer of the Nine Hells or some s$&%. I don’t know. I wasn’t really listening. Nothing bores me more than people telling me stories about their characters. Except maybe GMs telling me about their campaigns.

Anyway…

One particularly tenacious little player who felt slighted by the implication that GMs are, by their nature, smarter and more creative than she, she decided to make a big fight out of the whole thing. And, as an example, she cited a friend of hers she considered to be an extremely creative and clever player. Because, you know, a single, anecdotal, nameless person who might as well be “her girlfriend from Canada” is always a compelling counterargument. But she then pointed out that this player also frequently ran games.

That is to say, her evidence that GMs are NOT inherently smarter or more creative than players was a clever and creative GM who happened also to play the game sometimes.

Yeah. I know.

But here’s the deal. The crux of her argument – and, look, I swear this not just me recounting a semantical argument that started with a bit of obvious trolling – the crux of her argument was that playing and GMing were things you did. Activities. Actions. When you’re playing the game, you’re a player. And when you’re running a game, you’re a GM. And that just ISN’T how it works.

Once a GM, Always a GM

Here’s the deal – and I have to assert, once again, that there is a very important, meaningful lesson for GMs and players at the end of this discussion, even if it sounds like semantical nonsense right now – here’s the deal: once you become a GM, you are, forever after a GM. You can go back and play games, sure. But you’ll never, ever NOT be a GM. GMing is something you are. And it can’t be taken from you. It’s kind of like earning a degree. Once you’ve got that Ph.D., you have earned the right to be called doctor forever. Even when you’re not doing surgery or smashing subatomic particles into each other. Another example is that I am an accountant. I am not currently working as an accountant these days. But I can still call myself an accountant. And I can account whenever I want.

Now, my argumentative little player friend called this whole thing a load of semantic nonsense, and highly subjective to boot. And you may be thinking the same thing. You are probably thinking this is all just an elaborate way for me to rationalize a bit of trolling. Well, two things can be true at the same time, can’t they? It’s both.

The point I was trying to make was that I was pretty sure – and the reason I’m saying “pretty sure” is tied into the learning experience I had – I was pretty sure that GMs actually see the game differently. Becoming a GM changes you. It changes your outlook on the game in a fundamental way. Once your perspective has shifted, you can’t go back. What I didn’t know at that moment was how little I understand the full ramifications of the change. I didn’t realize how much it transformed people. And I didn’t realize the actual details of the transformation.

Part of the reason is that I have always been a GM. I went from knowing nothing about D&D to being a GM over thirty years ago. Thanks to an older cousin, I had heard of Dungeons & Dragons. But I knew nothing about it. I wanted to, though. So, I convinced my parents to take me to the B. Dalton Bookstore at the local mall, and I used some gift money or allowance or whatever to buy Frank Mentzer’s Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set. Now, through the 1970s and 1980s and 1990s, there were several Basic D&D sets. This was the 1983 version, revised by Frank Mentzer, in a red box with a Larry Elmore cover. Having now seen every Basic D&D box ever made and also many beginner products from other RPGs, I can say I learned from the absolutely best introductory gaming product ever made. The runner-up prize goes to Fantasy Flight Games’ various Star Wars Beginner Games. Those are pretty damned good.

Anyhoo, I read through the whole thing. It taught me how to play and how to the run the game and even how to build my own dungeon. I kidnapped three of my friends, ran them through the game, and that was it. I was a GM.

So, I have no idea what it feels like to be a player. At least, not firsthand experience. Over the many years I’ve been running this game, I’ve introduced A LOT of people to gaming – to playing and to game mastering – and I’ve listened carefully to them about their experiences. And I’ve also talked to A LOT of other gamers about their experiences. And I’ve run games for players and for GMs and for mixed groups of players and GMs. And I know – I ABSOLUTELY KNOW – that players and GMs approach the game differently.

At least, once they really are GMs. Which raises a very interesting question.

Graduating Yourself

Right now, if we accept the premise that there really is a difference between players and GMs, we have to ask when does someone actually BECOME a GM. Because I can also tell you that running one game is not enough to make you a GM. Even running several sessions isn’t enough sometimes. And it’s not like there’s a certification process to rely on. So, when does someone BECOME a GM? Well, I’ll tell you my answer. But I’ll also tell you that I know now that it’s wrong. I didn’t know it three days ago.

My answer is pretty simple: it’s the point at which you identify yourself as a GM. Or rather, it’s the moment when you realize there’s a difference between running games and being a GM. It’s the moment when you say, “I’m a GM” instead of “I’ve run a few games.” Now, that’s a dangerous thing to rely on. Because anyone can identify themselves as something. But it isn’t the act of self-identification that actually makes the GM a GM. It’s the realization that there IS an identity there at all.

If we go back to my argumentative little player, she didn’t recognize that there was an identity behind being a GM. She just figured you run games or you play games. Whatever you’re doing at the time, that’s the verb you use. And lots of people who’ve run just a few sessions think the same way. That’s why, when you ask them if they’re a GM, they don’t say “yes” or “no,” they say, “I’ve run a few games, but I mostly play.” Or they say, “well, I do both.”

One day, though, after you’ve run some number of games – and it could be as few as one – something in your head clicks. On that day, you become a GM. That’s the day your perspective shifts. You see the game differently. You may not know what is different and you may not know why you suddenly see the difference. Hell, you may not even know that it happened. Not consciously. But, very suddenly, you start calling yourself a GM.

And that – as I was trying to explain to this stubborn player – was also why she couldn’t see the difference. Because she’d not experienced it firsthand. Of course, she also refused to listen to me or anyone else telling her that yes, after you become a GM, you see things differently. And you can never go back. And that is how all of this exploded.

A Thousand Different Experiences

Now, at this point, I was both frustrated and curious. Frustrated because someone had called this whole discussion – which had an important point beyond the trolling, which I ALWAYS DO – semantic, subjective, arbitrary nonsense. And curious because I didn’t have all of the experience I needed to really figure the whole puzzle out. So, I did the only thing I could think of. I put the question out to all of my followers on Twitter. Actually, I put a couple of questions out. First, there was a simple “yes/no” poll directed at GMs asking them if they thought the transition from player to GM had personally transformed them. That was just to make sure I wasn’t imagining it. And though there weren’t as many responses as I’d have liked – given I was doing this over a weekend – the answer was overwhelming “yes.” GMs knew that GMing had changed them.

The other two questions basically amounted to “how did GMing change you” and “what differences do you see between players at your table and GMs who are players?” I read and retweeted every answer I saw. Though it was a busy weekend and I probably missed a bunch. And, while everyone agreed there were differences, no one agreed on what those differences were or how they had changed or whether those changes had even been entirely negative or positive.

As far as the personal transformations go, I got pretty much everything I expected to get and a few things I didn’t expect to get. On the positive side, the most common response was just an increased level of respect for the game and increased selflessness in playing. Players-turned-GMs were more respectful of the GM and the way the particular GM wanted to run the game. And they were less focused on their character’s role in the story and more focused on bringing other players into the game. They tend to “go along” with the story more, changing their character a bit to suit the game as necessary. They also just tended to be less argumentative. Let’s just call that all “respect and selflessness.” That seems to be the good side of everything.

On the neutral side, some players-turned-GMs said they had an increased ability to assess the style of a game and decide whether they were a good fit. They were more able to recognize that a game wasn’t “for them” and were more likely to walk away from a game that didn’t suit them.

On the negative side were a few player-turned-GMs who admitted they had a decreased tolerance for, what they termed “bad GMing.” They were less willing to put up with whatever behaviors they thought had a negative impact on the game from a GM. And more than a few were intolerant of inexperienced GMs. That is, they didn’t distinguish between GMs who were “bad” from GMs that were simply “learning.” And my, that’s interesting. A few of those intolerant player-turned-GMs were willing to address issues with their GM to make them better GMs. I guess that’s more a neutral behavior. It could be a very good thing if done properly and I’ve certainly done my share of coaching. But it can also be a very bad thing if the coaching is done poorly or if the coach is mistaking a style choice for an outright mistake.

And that, by the way, is important to recognize. Perspective and competence are not the same things. You might be better able to recognize something is going wrong at a game table after you’ve run a few games yourself, but that doesn’t mean you’re good at handling the problem the right way. Having keen eyesight does help you find and track your target, but you can still be a bad shot with a gun. The two things feed each other, but they aren’t completely dependent on each other, and you can have one without the other.

The same thing happened with the observations about the differences between players and GM from players-turned-GMs. Actually, this was really emotionally polarizing. Some GMs LOVE having experienced GMs as players at their table. Others HATE it. A few do go either way. And I suspect it comes down to the number of experiences they’ve had. Someone who has only run for a small number of GMs and has had a few bad experiences will extrapolate that running for GMs is a bad experience. Someone who has had good experiences the few times they’ve run games for GMs will extrapolate that running for GMs is a good experience.

I suspect the truth is that every GM is different, just as every player is different, and any GM can create a good or bad experience as a player. The more GMs you run games for, the more you recognize that and the less firmly you can say that’s always good or always bad to run games for GMs. But that doesn’t mean you still can’t tell the difference between players and GMs-who-are-playing.

Those who love running games for GMs cited that the GMs-who-are-playing have that “respect and selflessness” thing I already mentioned. That isn’t a big surprise there. Though a few did mention that the “respect and selflessness” thing wasn’t always good. And, actually, I find myself falling into that camp.

See, I have had GMs at my table who are trying to “help” by bending their character to what they think are the whims of the game. You know, “going along with” whatever they think my plan is. That actually kind of f$&%s me up because I’m very responsive to my players and alter my plans based on what the players decide to do. I often dangle multiple story hooks to see where the players want to go next. And I use their choices to guide my future plans as I learn what my players want. If I have a player who is trying to figure out my plan and play along, that really screws everything the f$&% up. So, does the GM-as-player who tries to play mediator between my plot and party, trying to convince the party not to resist my plans or go the wrong way. Nothing screws me up more than a player who isn’t behaving like a player.

I have pulled aside GMs-as-players and – privately – grabbed them by shoulders and shook the hell out of them while screaming “I DON’T NEED YOUR HELP AND THIS GAME DOESN’T NEED TWO GMS! JUST PLAY THE DAMNED GAME!”

In fact, for better or for worse, I have had to say to a lot of GMs-as-players that I just want them to play the damned game like a player. That’s kind of how I knew there was a difference. Because there’s been a definite pattern over the years.

But back to other people’s responses. The other major complaint that many GMs had about running for GMs-as-players was the backseat GM. Or, worse, the front seat GM who tries to grab the wheel. Those are folks who are either “trying to help” or they think you’re doing something wrong and they need to fix it. How they act varies. Some state their case like a rules lawyer and get passive-aggressive when they don’t get their way. Others just “help” you or the other players by reminding them of rules or making calls or answering questions before you have a chance to.

Now, I am willing to listen to anyone at my table if they think I’ve done something wrong, unfair, or bad for the game. But I have limited patience for anything beyond a single, polite statement of disagreement, a judgment call, and then moving the f$&% on.

So, some GMs have had one too many experiences with GMs-as-players turning themselves into either helper-GMs or super-rules-lawyers. And those both suck. And I’m totally onboard.

I had one response that stood out. The responder said that he would no longer run games for inexperienced GMs because they were always “backseat GMs” but he loved running for experienced GMs because of the general “respect and selflessness” thing. And I found that response to be very apt. I don’t necessarily believe that the important factor is the level of experience. But I do think it’s at least close to the reality that running a game for GMs is different than running games for players, but whether it is better or worse depends on the GMs.

Moreover, there is a correlation between the quality of the GM and the quality of the GM-as-player. That is, people who are very good GMs seem to make good GMs-as-players. Poor GMs make poor GMs-as-players. And I think that point is super important. But I didn’t realize that until after I was leaving a coffee shop. So, let me get back to the story and add the last piece of the puzzle.

Blah Blah Tiamat Blah Teleport Blah Blah Damage Resistance

All of this crap went down over the weekend. And, after I fired off the poll questions, I also recognized that I had a hell of a lot to do and not a lot of time to do it. So, after reading through the initial flurry of responses, I put Twitter on f$&%ing lockout. This is something I have to do occasionally. Partly because Twitter is a goddamned dumpster fire most of the time and partly because I’m addicting watching a good dumpster and roasting marshmallows and laughing my a$& off about how worked up people can get.

So, when I see I am spending too much time staring into the flames and eating marshmallows and when I have a lot to do, I delete my Twitter client from Windows and my Twitter app from my phone. I remove all of my login info from my web browser and delete my bookmark for the Twitter site. Basically, I make sure that seeing Twitter will take just enough steps that I can talk myself down and get back to work.

Now, it just so happens that a couple of frienemies of mine was in town over the weekend. I mean that in the sense that they are paying supporters of this site and also in the sense that I have had repeated interactions with them over the years that were not awful and even positive enough that I was willing to have more interactions. I know some people use the word “friend” for that person, but that implies a certain level of “caring what happens to the other person.” I don’t want to give false impressions here.

Anyway, we – The Tiny GM and I – ended up in a café with The Carpe DM and Jules FX. Carp had just made some kind of point about emotional engagement and then failed to prove he had any understanding of how to emotionally engage me by sharing a long, detailed, blow-by-blow account of something that had happened in some game he’d played in. It involved Tiamat and teleporting into dragon stomachs or some s$&%. And I was trying hard not to fall asleep and, as a result, smack my head on the table and give myself a concussion. I’ve had too many interactions end that way, and I’m starting to suspect I might have some serious blern dermage and kumquat flapping purple hjewhi;lk,,.

Suddenly – possibly realizing he was losing me – Fishy asked me about the Twitter interaction. Specifically, he asked me what I thought caused the transformation. If I really thought GMs changed as part of the process of becoming a GM, what was it, did I think, actually caused the change. And, eager to be the one talking instead of the one pretending to listen and seizing the chance to forestall another gaming war story, I proceeded to think out loud. Because I hadn’t really thought about it.

But what I have been thinking about a lot lately is parenting. See, I’m not a parent yet. And, for a long time, I didn’t want to be a parent. I had a host of reasons why I didn’t want to be a parent. They don’t matter right now. What matters is that I’ve been thinking a lot about it lately. Because Tiny and I have a long-term plan that includes creating some kids and giving them a good life. And so, a lot of my personal plans have changed because those plans have to include providing stability for a family.

The reason it popped into my head is that everyone who is not a parent has been told by parents how different “it” is when you’re a parent. Whatever “it” happens to be. But, honestly, as I started talking, I realized there was a parallel between parenting and GMing. One that actually also explains the moment when you really become a GM.

Responsibility.

The thing is, players can be selfish. I’m not saying that all players are selfish. They aren’t. But they can be. They don’t have to worry about anything other than showing up and having a good time. Someone is taking care of them. It’s like being a kid. And even if you aren’t selfish – even if you’re a good, caring, kind kid who wants the best for everyone – there’s still a safety net. If you fail to take care of everyone around you or fail to take care of yourself, someone is there to handle it. You have parents and teachers and all sorts of other caretakers.

But when you become a GM, you eventually have to confront the fact that you own the game. You’re responsible for it. No one is going to clean up after. If you drop the ball, no one is going to recover your fumble. That game reflects on you. The players are looking to you. You are looking to yourself to do your best. If the game goes well, you’re going to take pride in that. If not, you’re going to beat yourself up.

But there’s more to being a parent – and a GM – than just being responsible. It’s the worst kind of responsibility. Because you don’t really have control. You can do everything right, put the game first, and give it your all, and that game can still go bad. Players can bring bad moods and bad attitudes. A bad string of die rolls can frustrate the players and put everyone on edge. Or your ideas – as good as they – might not work in practice. They just might not click for your players. Or, for all of your effort, you might not be very good at it. You might be inexperienced and need practice. Or you might just not be very competent.

Being a GMing is about understanding that you are fully responsible for something that you have only partial control over. And all of the effort and all of the drive to do your best might not be enough. It could still fail. And that’s still going to be YOUR failure. Because you’ll never know if it failed because of you or in spite of you. Honestly, if it succeeds, you’ll never know if it succeeded because of you or in spite of you.

And, really, that’s what it really means to take responsibility. It means you are going to do everything in your power to make something work, you may not have all the power you need, but you’re going to own the outcome regardless.

Admittedly, GMing is a lot less pressing than parenting. When a game goes bad, four people wasted four hours not having fun. The worst-case scenario – the WORST – is that some friendships end up ruined. That can happen from a bad game. I’ve seen it. Hell, I’ve lost friends thanks to this stupid game. But that’s still less than the worst-case scenario of failed parenting, which involves… well, look, I don’t have to say it.

But the parallels are still there. And those parallels also explain the moment when someone REALLY becomes a GM and also explain why people can GM without becoming a GM. Or become a GM and turn into an absolute nightmare to fellow GMs.

The Other Side of Parenting

Now, admittedly, I kind of had the part about ownership and responsibility figured out. And that explains all the “respect and selflessness” stuff. Once you have a game of your own, you know what that means. You’re a kindred spirit with every other GM out there who struggle with the same responsibility as you. And, because you became a parent out of love for the game, you love all games. You want to protect all of those innocent, helpless games. You want them all to have good lives and grow up to be strong, responsible… okay, I may be losing my focus here.

But becoming a GM and becoming a parent also have something else in common – they come with a level of power. They come with authority over other people. And authority also changes people. Power can corrupt. And GMing offers a sense of complete power over the game. And that has a lot of effects.

For example, people with power start to assume they know how to use it best. Power mixes badly with arrogance. Just look at me. See, once you start exercising your own power over your own game, you start to assume you know what’s best. And when you see other people raising their games badly, you feel compelled to step in. Maybe you do it politely, with the best of intentions. Or maybe you just parent other people’s games whenever they aren’t looking. Either way, it isn’t right.

And when things start to go wrong, that authority – that power – can become absolutely poisonous. Remember that things can go wrong in spite of all of your best efforts, but you’re still responsible? Well, if you take that responsibility seriously and things really do go wrong, you can start to wield your power desperately, trying to rescue your game. You can get overprotective and overcontrolling. You figure you have absolute authority and absolute responsibility. Not only should you be able to fix anything, but you also have to do anything you can to fix everything.

The truth is that becoming a GM – like becoming a parent – hands you a bunch of responsibility and a bunch of authority. But everyone is going to react to those things differently. The core of who you are determines how you’re going to react to those things. And how you react determines the type of GM – and the type of GM-as-player – you’re going to be. Of course, like anything, you can learn from how you react. And you can grow. Unless…

The GM Who Doesn’t Count

GMing – like parenting – is a two-part thing. It involves both responsibility and power. And, while you can be given power, you have to accept responsibility. And, of the two, the more important one is the responsibility. That’s what enables you to learn and grow. That’s why you read my website.

Imagine, for example, the young player who became a GM too soon. She had dreams of all the great games she was going to play. But suddenly, she’s got a game of her own. So, she tries to live out her dreams through her own game. She doesn’t care what her players want or what’s best for them. She creates the game she wants to play and plays vicariously through her players. She’s got her players performing in beauty pageants and commercials as a toddler. She pushes them hard. She robs them of their…

Okay, you know what I’m saying. And maybe we should dispense with the parenthood metaphor before this gets too awkward. Because I have a feeling I can draw a lot of really ugly, uncomfortable parallels if I try.

The point is, it is possible to become a GM for the wrong reasons. It’s possible to start running games and accept the power of it without accepting the responsibility that comes along with it. You abuse power for your own selfish pleasure. Or you do it because you can’t figure out how to get out of it, but you hate every minute of it, and you take that resentment out on your players. Or you blithely ignore the responsibility, enjoy the fun parts, and ignore or avoid the hard parts.

None of that, by the way, is the same as being fully accepting the role and being bad at it. It might seem like it on the surface. The GM who runs the game their own selfish way because they are living out their own dream game and don’t care what the players want looks exactly the same as the GM who genuinely thinks the players will absolutely love whatever dream game the GM has in his head. At the table, those games are the same. The difference is that that second GM can grow. If the players can somehow make the GM see that the game isn’t making them happy, the GM will actually care. And try to do better. It may not be easy to make the GM see that. And the GM may not be good at fixing it. But the second GM will try.

It’s accepting responsibility for the game that makes you capable of growth. You love your game, you want it to succeed, and you love your players. But not in a gross way. So, insofar as you’re capable of recognizing your mistakes and learning from them, you will. The person who never accepts responsibility for the game, who runs the game because they love the power or because they landed behind the screen and can’t get out from behind it and don’t want to be here? Those GMs can’t grow. Not until they first recognizing the responsibility that comes with running game. And accept it.

And that’s the moment when you become a GM. When you fully accept responsibility and ownership for the game you’re running – even though you don’t have full control over every aspect of it and even though you may not be good at running it – if you call yourself a GM and MEAN IT, you are one.

Every Race is About Running a Circle

Now, I realize the logicians out there are recognizing that this whole mess has become a circular argument with a No True Scotsman fallacy at its heart: becoming a GM changes you because you don’t really count as a GM until you’ve been changed. Me? I don’t care so much. Partly because I’m still happy to call it a win because my argument is, at least, consistent with its own premises. But mostly because I don’t think the change is the important part anymore. I mean, I do think it’s important. But I’m not willing to die on that hill.

Fine, becoming a GM doesn’t have to change you. And it won’t automatically change you. You have to accept the change. Just like being a parent doesn’t have to change you. You have to let it change you. And that change is entirely about accepting personal responsibility for your game or your little pooping, drooling rug rat. I’ll let that go. But you absolutely cannot be a good GM if you don’t accept that responsibility. You’ll never grow. You’ll never improve. Morally speaking, you should not be a GM if you refuse the responsibility. And if I had the power, I’d take your title from you if you tried. But I don’t have that power. And your game is your problem.

But the moment you do take ownership of the game, you’re never the same gamer again. You could still be an a$&hole though.

Next week, I’ll go back to talking about campaign types or finish making that dungeon or something. I promise. It’s been a weird week. Sorry.


Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

35 thoughts on “Game Masterhood

  1. I’m surprised you didn’t take this to a ‘and much like children, players don’t know what’s best for them, and part of being a good GM is not letting them eat nothing but candy for dinner’ place. (and how knowing that as a GM makes you a more complacent player)

  2. Well, the GM is the one responsible for how much “candy” is in the “house” so if the players are eating too much “candy”, and they consistently have “candy” choices in front of them instead of healthy game choices sometimes, that still falls under the GM responsibility. If the GM gives healthy options next to “candy” options and they choose the “candy” they’re just playing the game like they want.

    Dispensing with all the “candy” and “health” nonsense, they can only play what the GM puts in front of them. At the end of the day, they’re playing a game.

    Let them eat cake.

    • Which is why I give my players +5 swords of ultimate awesomeness after their first fight with a goblin. (◔_◔)

    • Kind of depends on your interpretation of jos comment.

      I saw the metaphor here as a good one to describe dealing with success (candy) and failure (healthy, bitter food).

      Never let them fail and you take something from the players.

      Doesn’t mean they’ll be happy at you thrashing their “brilliant plan”.

  3. I love GMing, but I want to play too! I had kids specifically to mold them into GMs worthy of my characters.

    • I can already see their emerging personalities.
      The girl (currently 3) will play a witch, necromancer, or mind-manipulating wizard/psion and be a killer GM.
      My boy (18-months) will ALWAYS play a big, dumb, ever-smiling paladin and will be a “yes, and..” push-over GM.

  4. Last Christmas season I went to an annual get together of college friends. This was the first year where most of us were parents and everyone brought their kids (ranging from newborn to 4 years old). Everyone in the group are good people and good parents, so it was cool to be able to relax and crowd source the childcare. No matter who’s kid needed something, there was always someone available to help. Which meant any given person could go off and have an adult conversation for awhile without needing to worry about their own kid constantly.

    Having a group of good gms play together seems like it could be just as great. If there’s a rules question, you can trust them to help you out while you worry about more important things. People know to take care of their uncertainties when it’s someone else’s turn and to keep one ear attentive in case they need to refocus on the game while they’re looking up the details of that one spell that might help them out here. Everyone knows that the person running the game has final say, but that they can also help the game run smoother under that umbrella.

    It all makes sense to me, and was a fun thing to ponder on. Thanks for the thought!

    • This is basically how my group functions. Of the 5 people in our group, four of us are GMs, and it makes the game run very smoothly most of the time.

  5. In my last session, we had to set the room up before the game at our FLGS. I was telling one of my players to grab a table to help me move it into position. He told me I was just Jon and not the GM right then. I corrected him to let him know that I am always the GM.

    Distilling a GM down to the person that takes the responsibility for the game shored up my thoughts on the subject. I would inform curious friends and family that a GM runs the game. Follow up questions would dance around the subject of how to run it and what was needed for the game to succeed. Now I can simply say that the GM is the one responsible for all aspects of the game. Including being the soccer mom to a bunch of screaming adolescents so they stop fighting and go in one direction.

    • [[Deleted because this post was unnecessarily rude. There’s only room for one a$&hole on the site and I pay the bills. -AGM]]

  6. It is a profound process, witnessing a man progress from being an internet wiseguy to an insightful teacher simply through reading his work over the course of a few years. I feel a deep appreciation for this article, for it gave me perspective I had no idea I was missing. I can hardly wait to show my appreciation in currency once the Kickstarter goes live.
    Thank you.

  7. “That is, they didn’t distinguish between GMs who were “bad” from GMs that were simply “learning.””
    Those aren’t players-turned-gms. Those are player’s who have run some games, want the prestige (lol) of GMing, but still see the game through the mindset of a player, and only a player.

  8. I will never forget how I took up the mantle of GM. I have a friend who I love dearly, but at the time, when it came to GMing, I didn’t know the nightmare I was walking into. Now, I had played a few games of D&D, but it had been a while since I had played and I was game starved. The first red flag was when he told us we had no restrictions when it came to creating our characters. My fellow players came up with all sorts of homebrew bs that the GM allowed without any sort of input. I’m ashamed to say I did the same. To make a very long story short, the game was frustrating to play, and our GM kept allowing new players to join (we had 12 players at one point!). I quit the campaign, but like a masochist, I decided to give the game another chance (this time around, my character was a dragon; remember, no restrictions). The final nail in the coffin came when me and another friend got one shot in our first fight due to a DC we had 0 hope of making. Keep in mind, I crit! It was at that moment I realized this just wasn’t any fun, for anyone involved, and I wanted to provide a better, structured experience. It’s been several years now and I’ve run several games, and while I’m still learning, I’d like to think I’m improving, and I’ve found I quite enjoy running games.

  9. “Now, I am willing to listen to anyone at my table if they think I’ve done something wrong, unfair, or bad for the game. But I have limited patience for anything beyond a single, polite statement of disagreement, a judgment call, and then moving the f$&% on.”

    Holy ^#@T$@, could I have used that last week! Short story: two of my players lost their minds when I tried to use your overland travel rules. I don’t think their intention was to attack me, but three emails totaling over 5200 words resulted in 4 days of real anxiety on my part. I wish I had your words then. I’ll be keeping that in my back pocket for next time.

    “And, really, that’s what it really means to take responsibility. It means you are going to do everything in your power to make something work, you may not have all the power you need, but you’re going to own the outcome regardless.”

    From a parent and a GM: Well put.

    Thanks for this blog, and this article in particular.

    • …How do people get that upset over a system that requires them to just carry enough food and have at least one person pass a Survival check? Especially when in return they’re getting more structured wilderness encounters and the occassional historic/holy/magical site to poke around?

  10. I say this without intending any degree of hyperbole, but this is the most important and impactful piece I’ve read of yours. Thank you so much.

    I made a huge mistake with my kids yesterday, and I explained to them tonight where I was wrong and what I will change as a result. At bedtime, my 5 year old came up to me and said, “Daddy, I’ll love you no matter what you do.”

    I sincerely pray you have kids like mine Scott. You guys are great and I’m so excited for your future!

  11. “I don’t want to read this. Here’s me whining about why I don’t want to read it.”

    [[Edited and distilled three paragraphs down to the essence – AGM]]

    • “Here’s me posting that I FINALLY read it to emphasize what a chore it was. Except I didn’t. I skimmed it and skipped most of it. Here’s me whining that somehow, I don’t understand the point. I mean, I read some of the words. And I was really open to it when I decided to read it even though I’d already decided it was useless garbage and said so. Now, let me express a useless opinion of something I DIDN’T ACTUALLY READ.”

      [[Edited for clarity. – AGM]]

      • Hey, Jack, if you find anything here you aren’t interested in, please feel free to not read it. I mean, you can force yourself to if you want to. But either way, how about you shut the hell up and let interested people have their discussion while you sit quietly in the corner.

        • I’m just trying to make sure there’s nothing that is going over my head.

          And you’ve confiermed that, thanks!

  12. Hi Angry et al,

    I am a newish GM and a newer parent but I am a teacher as well. I think that teaching is great prep for the project of DMing. Like parenting and dming it requires responsibility and care and attention to detail and you sure as hell have no control over what’s going turn out from your efforts. I think a lot of the skills are similar too, like communicating clearly, reading your audience, finding ways to motivate and interest players/students, and managing spotlight time. You even give students choice when possible, but choice isn’t as central as it is in RPGs. I notice you mentioned Bill Allen and I really respect what he does because he is opening the hobby to a younger generation. I would love to do that myself if I get the chance. I’d be lying if I said I didn’t have future players in mind when I had my son. Fingers crossed he learns to love rpgs as much as the rest of us.

    Hope you are well.

  13. The corollary to the GM-as-a-parent thing is that kids can make great players. I’ve had three of my gene-sacks idling about the place with no apparent porpoise [sic] for years until I decided I wanted to get into D&D.

    I bought the 5e starter set and we wrapped up our 4th session over the weekend. As a spanking new GM it’s great to have players that are both utterly credulous and excruciatingly keen. It also gives me almost unfettered power over their underdeveloped minds but that’s just a perk really.

    Next, I’m going to extort my siblings into playing the starter set adventures now that I am slightly less awful at GM’ing (whilst exactly as awful at parenting).

    tl;dr – Always experiment on children.

  14. This is an interesting topic for me, because I feel like I spend more time reading about GMing than I do actually playing RPGs, even though I’m still just a player. I guess, I accept the responsibility, but not the power, of running my own games. But that may change soon, so I’ll keep this in mind as it does.

    • I think it can be a bit like reading parenting books before choosing to have a kid. You see the responsibility looming in the (near or far-off) future, and want to be prepared for when you finally choose to take it on.

      But it’s also true that you can never be properly and fully prepared, for either. So at some point you have to say “screw it” and take the plunge.

  15. Angry, I look forward to the day you sit down at the table with your own children, and then write to us about it later.

    Just a few weeks ago I GM’d my first family game, with my wife, my 9 year old son, and my 6 year old daughter. Probably the best table session I’ve ever witnessed. How can you not have fun when the 6 year old girl across the table from you is playing an alicorn with healing powers who shoots snowballs out of her horn that freeze people (yes, she created her own character). We’re currently trying to find a lost and submerged city and rescue it from the evil shark monkeys (half shark, half monkey, my son’s design from our session zero). When we ended the first session they were stuck trying to convince the three billy goats gruff into letting them cross the bridge into the jungle so they can ask the jaguar queen the way to the lost city.

    I planned the adventure in 30-45 minute module/encounters thinking the youngest wouldn’t have the attention span for much more than that. We ended up playing for 3 hours straight (and 90% of the material I’d prepared) and both kids were hooked the entire time.

    Having kids may be the best thing that even happened for us, I hope your experience is as good or better.

    If anyone knows where to find stats for lasers in D&D 5e let me know, I need to put some on the heads of my shark monkeys.

    • Joshua, I would suggest using the mechanics for Witch Bolt, scaled as necessary.
      Angry GM, you are insightful as usual in drawing this parallel between parenting and GMing. You will no doubt be an excellent parent, as you have the capacity for self reflection.
      The case of over helpful GMs who try to fix other GMs games is exactly like people who try to parent other people’s kids: It’s condescending and disrespectful even if well intentioned. Thanks for highlighting this issue.

    • I don’t know if you’ve seen them, but there are a number of one-off adventure books for imaginitive RP with very small children. Simple rules and Card-board cutouts and very simple fairy tale plots, and pictures to color in and stuff.

      Gives a more freeform nature to the play.

    • 5e DMG p268, the “Futuristic Item” table has laser pistols (3d6) and laser rifles (3d8).
      They do radiant damage, and take a bonus action to reload the “energy cells”
      (pistols get 50 shots per cell, rifles get 30).

      Of course, feel free to tweak the stats to suit your exact shark-monkey needs. 🙂

  16. After subscribing to multiple dnd subreddits I was wondering why I got so emotional over small things. DM advice is thrown around pretty freely and it comes from many people at different levels of dedication to the craft of DMing.

    I can identify now after reading the article that I was getting irritated at people with transparently no responsibility or thoughtful advice. When I take a question to the internet and ask for help, I don’t do it to pass time. I do it because I sat down for a half hour and my experience couldn’t come up with a solution on my own, and with years of game-mastering under my belt that only happens every other blue moon. So when someone I think hasn’t put in their time behind the screen, and they question the motive or method of what I’m trying to do, I get livid.

    Now I can recognize that it has to do with IDing as a GM. And that’s heckin’ neat.

    I’m reflecting about the transition I made from player to GM and may write a post about it somewhere. Maybe if I scream it loudly enough at a dumpster fire something cool will happen.

Leave a F$&%ing Comment (Limit: 2,500 Characters)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.