Improving GM skill

[kukuli]

I am new to the forums here but not to the Hero System. I've been playing since Champions started.  I've been GMing for about ten years and am what I consider a middling GM.  I am trying to up my game.

 

My major problem is that my players get distracted.  Computers, side conversations and in game antics that thouroughly distrupt the game. Sometimes I have to remind players of rule judgments I've allready made over and over again.  I recognise that it is my lack of control that is the problem, but I am uncertain how to correct the problem.

 

We use 5er.  The genre started as pulp and through a time travel plot became steampunk. All of the players wanted the change.

 

Can anyone here give me some advise on improving my skill. Besides a whip and chair.

[Altair]

Ban laptops during game hours.

 

I'm totally a new-generation gamer, I have .pdfs and spreadsheets on my computer, I use it for gaming things all the time. So, I get having them out during a game. They were starting to become a distraction, though. So I suggested we try a game without them, and it was a serious improvement.

 

Not saying that one should do that all the time, but it can be a real help in focus.

 

How long are your typical sessions?

[Scott Baker]

It sounds like you need to have a talk with everyone and come to some sort of agreement about what everyone wants from the game. Perhaps try making a list of what is and isn't working for everyone (you already have your list of what you think isn't working). Then discuss what you (as a group) can do about the things that aren't working.

[kukuli]

Ban laptops during game hours.

 

I'm totally a new-generation gamer, I have .pdfs and spreadsheets on my computer, I use it for gaming things all the time. So, I get having them out during a game. They were starting to become a distraction, though. So I suggested we try a game without them, and it was a serious improvement.

 

Not saying that one should do that all the time, but it can be a real help in focus.

 

How long are your typical sessions?

 

We usually run from six to eight hours, depending on who has to work the next day.  We try to keeep to an every other week schedule, but that  runs into trouble some times. We have 2 GMs at the moment and several others have been talking about starting up games, but only two of us seem to be ready at the moment. The other GM has similar problems. For the most part, this is the same group I've been playing with since college. 

 

Getting them to put down the computers becomes a game of wills. I am looking for ideas that will help me take charge without starting a big conflict. Any Ideas?

[kukuli]

It sounds like you need to have a talk with everyone and come to some sort of agreement about what everyone wants from the game. Perhaps try making a list of what is and isn't working for everyone (you already have your list of what you think isn't working). Then discuss what you (as a group) can do about the things that aren't working.

I have tried.  I'll keep trying.

[massey]

2 pts for a +1 to your roll, like other skills.

[Nolgroth]

When I used to have players, when they got distracted so easily I would ask them if they really wanted to play a roleplaying game or do whatever it was that was distracting them. Not surprisingly, that question led to discussions about how the game wasn't fulfilling their needs/wants for an entertainment medium. Working with them, within reason, helped all of us have a better time. Sometimes, the game had to be postponed til another day because whatever was on one or more players minds was indeed more important than playing in that moment. If it is a long-term problem, then maybe your players aren't playing because they want to play. Perhaps they are just using the game as a forum for the group social interaction.

 

No matter the cause, sounds like you don't need GM advice. Sounds like you just need to have clear lines of communication between you and the players. Find out what everybody is looking for and express what you are looking for. Usually you can find a happy medium. Maybe the genre doesn't suit their tastes. Maybe they just need a break from it. Maybe they have ideas (either individually or collectively) about what kinds of stories they would like to participate in. You'll never know without that give 'n' take conversation.

 

Just my $0.02.

[Altair]

Yeah, I'm very firmly in the clear lines of communication camp. Note: this can very quickly lead to intense conversations and hurt feelings - nobody likes to hear that something they've put a lot of time and effort into is falling short of expectations.

 

I would say, bring it up but don't be confrontational about it. If people feel like they're being personally attacked, they tend to get defensive, which serves no one's interests. From a communication perspective, this is the time to employ "I" language. Example:

 

"You guys want to goof off instead of playing" vs. "I feel like we're having trouble focusing on the game. What's not working, and what can we do to fix it?" 

 

The first one is likely to be taken as an attack, and is more likely to result in a fruitless conflict. The second shifts the perceived responsibility away from any one person, and focuses on actionable steps. This kind of language choice is even more applicable in an RPG group dynamic, because it really is a group endeavor; fixing the issue is going to be easier if y'all work together.

 

/communication lecture

[Spence]

There are a lot of different opinions, but in the end it comes down to compatible players. 

 

 

Just because someone is a friend and a roleplayer doesn't mean you want to roleplay with them.  

 

There is a lot of babble about the DM/GM's responsibility. 

A lot of babble about what is railroading and what is not railroading.

There is a lot of babble about how the DM/GM is responsible to "make it interesting" and so on.

 

But in the end, the player is just as responsible for all those things as well. 

 

The long and short of it is that the players are not paying attention to the game you are running.  I've had this happen to me several times and there is really only three possibilities, all of which involve having a chat with you players.

 

1) You are running a genre/storyline that the players are not able to invest in.

2) The players are not actually there to game, but to socialize.

3) The players want to have a good game but your personal running style does not mesh with the rule system you are using.

 

1 and 3 can be fixed by changing the genre/story or the game-system you are using.    Getting a superhero game up and running is one of the hardest games out there.  Not only are most people stuck on being "me kill'em quick"  vigilantes and other anti-hero tropes, but very few comics portray actual superheroes, rather they portray regular dysfunctional people with powers pursuing personal agenda's.  

 

Something as simple as shifting to a more gritty setting such as Dark Champions or Monster Hunters International could solve the problem.  Or using a different rule system could be the Golden BB.  I can't begin to list the number of good campaigns I have dropped out of because I personally couldn't get into them.   Forcing yourself to play in a game that you do not like is far worse than dropping out. 

 

The only way to fix number 2 is to find new players. 

 

I am currently running my first real campaign since about '99.  I haven't run a Hero campaign since about 93ish. 

Instead I have contented myself with one shots and playing in various short games or other one off's.

 

I now have a small group of gaming friends that actually know how to roleplay the character, instead of operating a killing machine out to "clear the level".  Which translates to I now have a small group of gaming friends that enjoy the same style of gaming as I do.

 

I am slated to run an FFG Star Wars game as soon as my current D&D 5th game wraps up.  Since I am waiting for the Force and Destiny book to release, I mentioned the possibility of running a short Supers mini-campaign using Hero.  In the past this has lead to the OMG! Hero? Isn't that the ultra-you need a PHD- complex" anti-gamer systems.  AAAarrrggghhhhhh! Run away! reaction.  But this time it received the Cool, We'll give it a shot.  Sounds interesting response.

 

I plan on running a short game using pregenerated PC's and a simple plot line.  I have a good idea of the types of characters my players tend to run and know what supers movies they prefer so I am confident I will be able to put together a decent team that they will enjoy. 

 

In your case, from the very limited information I have, I would try to find out what your players are really at the game for and then adjust.  But be prepared to find out that they don't actually want to roleplay in the first place.  Or at least not roleplay in the same manner as you envision roleplaying. 

 

Maybe I'm a tad harsh, but finding a good roleplaying group, where good means the same type of game you like, is very very very very hard. 

 

But don't give up.  Once you do find them, gaming becomes awesome.

 

 

[zslane]

I am curious what the campaign style is.

 

I've noticed that campaigns that play like the day-to-day activities of the characters, where the players drive the action and decide what to do every step of the way, are very prone to extra-carricular drift. On the other hand, campaigns where game time is almost exclusively spent on "the action", and not the down-time between the important (i.e., interesting) scenes, and in which the plot is constantly keeping the characters on their toes and attending to the problem at hand, are far less prone to distractions taking over.

 

For instance, don't just set the scene and then leave the players to their own devices. Set the scene, present them with an urgent dilemma with a built-in deadline, and then complicate matters if the characters don't take quick action. Once the action starts, complicate matters anyway. Never give them too much time to take a breath and relax. These characters are heroes thrown into high intensity situations requiring smarts, daring, and a little luck. If the players aren't engaged with the action of the game, then either they don't really want to be there and no improvement to the campaign or your GMing skill is going to help, or your campaign needs an adrenaline boost.

[Altair]

I am curious what the campaign style is.

 

I've noticed that campaigns that play like the day-to-day activities of the characters, where the players drive the action and decide what to do every step of the way, are very prone to extra-carricular drift. On the other hand, campaigns where game time is almost exclusively spent on "the action", and not the down-time between the important (i.e., interesting) scenes, and in which the plot is constantly keeping the characters on their toes and attending to the problem at hand, are far less prone to distractions taking over.

 

For instance, don't just set the scene and then leave the players to their own devices. Set the scene, present them with an urgent dilemma with a built-in deadline, and then complicate matters if the characters don't take quick action. Once the action starts, complicate matters anyway. Never give them too much time to take a breath and relax. These characters are heroes thrown into high intensity situations requiring smarts, daring, and a little luck. If the players aren't engaged with the action of the game, then either they don't really want to be there and no improvement to the campaign or your GMing skill is going to help, or your campaign needs an adrenaline boost.

 

That can depend greatly on the type of gamers you have. For some groups, that can be richly rewarding, and keep everybody invested in the events of the game. In my experience and observation, this has more often led to "let's just clear the level" type of disengagement, than it has serious investment. I find it more in-line with Spence's comments - it's about fit. If people want a series of urgent dilemmas, with all the in-between cut out, then that'll go great. 

 

It could also sabotage your game. Really depends on the group. 

 

I'll definitely agree that matching the type of game to the group can really be a shot in the arm. If people feel like the game drags on, and they lose interest, maybe inject more action like Zslane suggests. If they feel like the game is one big string of rooms with enemies, then maybe give them something that isn't so time-sensitive. 

 

And this really comes back to dialog. Zslane entered the RPG hobby through wargaming - I came in through my university improv class. We tend to have different ideas about the kind of game that we'd like, and there's nothing wrong with that. And if you have a group with a strong established preference, great! But if you have different play styles in your group, then catering to all of them in the same game can be difficult, but is also manageable. 

 

I cannot recommend Robin Laws' excellent Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering enough. Very practical, but also accessibly academic.

[Christopher]

I am new to the forums here but not to the Hero System. I've been playing since Champions started.  I've been GMing for about ten years and am what I consider a middling GM.  I am trying to up my game.

 

My major problem is that my players get distracted.  Computers, side conversations and in game antics that thouroughly distrupt the game. Sometimes I have to remind players of rule judgments I've allready made over and over again.  I recognise that it is my lack of control that is the problem, but I am uncertain how to correct the problem.

 

We use 5er.  The genre started as pulp and through a time travel plot became steampunk. All of the players wanted the change.

 

Can anyone here give me some advise on improving my skill. Besides a whip and chair.

Talk to your players. It could be thier goal is different then yours.

For example you could have the goal to roleplay.

While they might use it as an excuse to come together and hang out.

 

A certain level of distraction is normal. But once you spend more time sidetracked then tracked, I would guess some missmatch of Interests exists.

 

Of course just banning IT from the gametable could be a solution. It is hard to resist the siren call of a Cat Video or Twitter message. Especially if your character does not have an action.

 

Could the issue be too much downtime for specific players? If the SPD have a spread of more then 2 it can be that a few players "hog" all the screen time, while the others have to wait forwever.

Also if one character is too extreme it could result in him gettign knocked out first phase and then not recovering till end of fight. Or dominating the fight, taking screentime of all others. Or not being able to fight in the first place.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Well, aside from the grand advice in Aaron Allston's Strike Force sourcebook, I'd offer these things which I've learned over the years:

 

1) Make each session have a story arc, so players feel like they've accomplished something.  Don't have a long journey that ends simply with having gone somewhere, make it feel like the party has accomplished a goal, triumphed over something, or achieved something.  Each session should end with players feeling as if they got somewhere and did something, even if you leave them at a cliffhanger.

2) Make sure the players are rewarded, not just the characters.  Experience is nice, but if you can make the players feel good, then they'll enjoy the game more.  Give them the spotlight when you can.  You can do this by rewarding characters in non-combat, non-game ways.  Send their characters thank-you notes from little kids they rescued in email between games.  Have the people they help out recognize them and thank them.  Have the mayor give them the key to the city.  Just stuff that makes them feel good about themselves and what they do.

3) Don't let the system limit you.  If the game rules get in the way of fun for the group, wink at the rules.  Give players an idea what they can do with their characters beyond the obvious.  Give them opportunities to try other solutions, and when possible reward people who try to do things differently.  Like stealth/combat games give different options to solve challenges, make it possible to do so in your game, too.

 

Seriously, check out the campaign notes and tips in Strike Force.  I was about to list some of them because I have so ingested the ideas I forget where I get them from.

[zslane]

I agree that a campaign will, out of necessity, need to fit the temperment of the group. However, if the temperment of the group is such that solutions to the "my players get easily distracted by things other than the game" can't be applied with the game itself, then you are asking for group management skills, not GMing skills. I don't know how to herd cats, and I've never wanted to.

 

But if you are looking for ways to make the game compelling enough to keep players from wandering off and doing other things, then turning up the in-game tension is the surest place to start. I'm not sure why anyone would equate that with a string of rooms with enemies filling a "level" that needs to be cleared. This isn't D&D circa 1980 anymore, right?

 

Take, for example, Back to the Future. That screenplay is virtually perfect. There are absolutely no extraneous moments. Every single thing that occurs leads to or connects with something important to the plot. The movie isn't filled with non-stop, world-shaking intensity, but the protagonist(s) are never sitting around doing nothing and/or being unaffected by their circumstances. RPG sessions should be no different, really. When they are, your players are going to look for something to keep them from going nuts with boredom and that's when the iPads and MtG decks come out.

 

Even a group of pure roleplayers can be kept engaged with gripping character interaction dilemmas; not a single weapon need be swung or fired, but the social equivalent to planning and executing the infiltration of the secret base and the extraction of the McGuffin can and should be just as exciting.

[massey]

2 pts for a +1 to your roll, like other skills.

 

Nobody even laughed at this.  Bunch of humorless people here.

[Altair]

@ zslane: All valid points. I don't think that we disagree, but rather, have some different experiences/expectations/tastes. I find that when I'm playing in shorter time periods, the screenplay model is very useful. In the longer sessions  my group tends to do (my Space Opera game runs about 12 hours for an average session), the novel/manga/serial model is much more useful. Down time allows pursuit of less time-sensitive goals, and random character interaction. 

 

My group asked for more of this, and has singled out my "enforced down time warp system" (warp gate-to-warp gate FTL travel, which moves at a constant rate - can't go faster or slower, and it's usually a couple days between planets) as one of the things they've really enjoyed. Interior decoration, inter-crew romances, scientific research, blogs and a truly bonkers karaoke party for the Captain's birthday are the kinds of things that happen in down time. They've been really memorable, the players have loved them. Conversely, they tend to like it less when everything's under time pressure. 

 

Again, not saying you're wrong! The advice is spot-on. And when I find interest lagging in my game, that's usually when they catch a distress call, or get attacked by pirates, or stumble into the villain's latest plans, etc. 

 

But when I've had too much time-sensitive action in a row, my players start to disengage. I pretty much chalk that up to the amount of time the games run - after all, a screenplay with no extraneous moments is a glorious thing, but a novel or serial with no extraneous moments lacks dynamics. 

 

/2 cp

[Altair]

Nobody even laughed at this.  Bunch of humorless people here.

 

Also, there was mad chuckling over here. I shall communicate such in the future 

[zslane]

@ zslane: All valid points... The advice is spot-on. And when I find interest lagging in my game, that's usually when they catch a distress call, or get attacked by pirates, or stumble into the villain's latest plans, etc.

More to the point, amping up the action might help the OP, kukuli, whose group needs a lot more focus than yours. I think it goes without saying that my advice is not relevent/helpful to groups that don't need it.

[kukuli]

Thank you all for your advice. And, Massey, I laughed, I just didn't post.

 

I talked with one of my players and fellow GM and he wanted me to ask how to handle a large group. He thinks that may be the problem.  We average eight players and a GM every game, occasionally nine.  Any thoughts?

[Nolgroth]

Thank you all for your advice. And, Massey, I laughed, I just didn't post.

 

I talked with one of my players and fellow GM and he wanted me to ask how to handle a large group. He thinks that may be the problem.  We average eight players and a GM every game, occasionally nine.  Any thoughts?

 

Eight players is a lot for me. Even in my heyday, I tended to max out at around six for most sessions. In the big blowout sessions, I tended to keep things terse and used a sort of default "Hold Action" if the player didn't respond fast enough to combat or other things. If I had eight players and two GMS, I'd probably split up the group and have two games running with four PCs each.

 

A single GM splitting a 8-9 member party up would pretty much be the death of that session. It would be hard enough to coordinate if everybody was working together at near flawless efficiency. Trying to manage two, three, or even more groups would be nigh impossible. Again, this is from my perspective. Somebody might wander in and lay out a brilliant plan based on experience and careful thought. I would certainly be interested in how they did it.

[procyon]

I would tend to agree that 8-9 players is a lot to keep engaged for an extended period.

You might do it for a single, high stakes, combat or such.  But not long term.

You simply can't get enough 'individual attention' to each player to keep them from getting side tracked with the other players in 'downtime'.

 

For me, I won't try to run over 5 at a time.  More than that and problems creep in.

 

So the suggestion to find a second GM and split the group, would be my choice.

Either that or run two groups on separate nights.  But if they are all wanting to get together, that really won't be an option.

[Christopher R Taylor]

6 is really the limit of what I can handle at one time, and 5 is more comfortable.  Anything more than that for a regular campaign and its just too much crosstalk, too many interruptions, too many people missing days, and too much downtime, like Procyon notes.  I ran a huge campaign once that had 9 players, but I broke them up into 2 groups and ran them alternate weeks; one group was lower powered street and the other was very powerful superheroes.  The campaigns interwove a lot, but it fell apart as too many people couldn't keep up the schedule, moved away, etc and just one group was left over.

[Spence]

I can run 6 and still keep things going fairly well, but my preferred max is 5 with 4 being the sweet spot. 

 

Of course that depends on the other part of the equation.  We always seem to talk about the GM skills, how to improve, how to engage players and so on.  But a player being able to actually roleplay, as in trying to do their part in the story is equally important. 

 

If the game is to be an investigation spy type game and a player builds a shock trooper kill'em all type PC. Then they have failed their part of the equation. 

If the game is to be a action adventure out in the field rollicking smash'em up and the player make the meek, never leaves the lab researcher.  Then they cannot complain about lack of spotlight.

 

I don't really have any information on your group, but do not forget the possibility that it may not be you.  It may be the players to some degree.  The fact you are here asking the question make me believe you are doing you part to try to bring the story together.  

 

I generally run for two distinct groups. 

 

Open shop games at my FLGS and closed games with selected players usually also at the FLGS.

 

Open games to introduce players to the concept of RPG's and the closed games for me to actually enjoy.  

 

Most of the open games tend to be D&D and/or FFG's Star Wars.  Why?  Because those are the RPG's that are actually on the shelves and available in most stores.   There will be a smattering of other systems, but those two and a small handful of others (13th Age, NBA, etc) have actual support with prebuilt adventures to use as introductions.  Makes life a little easier when you have limited time.  99% of the people who sit down at an open game are basing their roleplaying on the last shooter they played on their console.  It was called an RPG on the label, right?  After several sessions you can usually get one or two of the handful that return for additional games to break out of the "kill'em all and take their stuff" mentality, and begin to actually roleplay.  That is the primary reason to support open FLGS games. 

 

Having someone walk up with a module and say "I read this and it is great, can you run it for me?"  is something you hear more than you'd think.  They miss the point that if they already know what happens, it kills the entire point of the adventure.  They are still in the "clear the level mentality" which is alive and well in mainstream entry RPG gaming. 

 

Now closed games are where I get my personal payoff.  We get together as a small group and outline the theme of the adventure and then everyone makes PC's that fit the upcoming game.  Then the GM adjusts as needed to accommodate individual player concepts so everyone (as in players AND GM) can have fun.  While the game may veer off in different directions, the players generally do so within the persona of their characters.  Actually that is when things really get fun.  A well played group of PC's reacting to the situations they encounter in character.

 

As a player you should never play in a game that doesn't intrigue or interest you.   And you should definitely never ever ever play in a game where your purpose is to change the entire game into your personal fun time at the expense of everyone else.  My personal dislike is Player vs Player games.  I don't run them and I especially do not ruin others fun by half-@ssed playing in one with lukewarm interest.  The most I'll do is assist a GM by running an NPC for them or help with some generic NPC write-ups. 

 

I guess my entire rambling point is this. 

In your quest to improve your skills as a GM, do not overlook the possibility that some of the issues in your current group may not be entirely you.  Some of the players could simply be incapable or simply refuse to play a game in the style you run them.  This is neither good nor bad, it just is.  Adjusting your style could fix it.  Those players adjusting theirs could fix it.  Or maybe recognizing you have no common ground and dropping a player might be it. 

 

It only takes one bad player to spoil an entire game.

It only takes one great player to lift a game from just OK to Awesome. 

 

The trick is recognizing what the issue is and then acting on it. 

[Ndreare]

There are some real pearls of wisdom in what Spence is saying. Yes it always good to examine yourself, but sometimes it is others at issue as well.

[Scott Baker]

What everyone else said.

 

I once ran 12 players at once. Never again.

 

Current game was running with 6 players (most of the time) for a couple years. We're currently down to 5 and not in a hurry to add anyone.