Opinion Fluff: Game Mastering Styles

[schir1964]

Game Mastering Styles

Here are some different styles labeled and categorized based on discussions here and my own experiences. I'm curious as to what would be considered to be a bad style and what would be considered a good style. Or suggest additions to the list if you think something is missing.

 

• Tyrant: The GM has final say and may change any prior ruling or even ignore all written rules. The GM lets the players know what the rules are for the game. Any thing during the game that comes up will be decided by the GM as the final word. The GM is more concerned about the storyline following the path the GM has envisioned regardless of what the characters might do to change the storyline.
  
• Benevolent Dictator: The GM has final say, but chooses to take input from the players. The GM modifies the rules as needed to make the storyline interesting for both himself and the players. The GM attempts to guide the character's to follow the storyline, but will allow the character's actions to change the storyline and will use any changes to enhance the storyline to make it more interesting for all. The GM is more concerned with letting the story be molded by the character's actions via the rules.
  
• Constitutional Monarch: The GM has powers, but they are agreed upon within the social contract of the players.
  
• Pure Democratic Gaming: All players have equal say. Majority decides the rules and any decisions during the game. The storyline is governed by the rules unless challenged and overturned by the majority. A player is usually selected by the majority to handle duties of the GM. Many times GM duties are shared by different players.
  

 

 

These are the basic styles. There are more, but I'm not sure I could describe them adequately. I'll add any well described style to the list for reference in discussions.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[tkdguy]

Re: Opinion Fluff: Game Mastering Styles

 

Depends on the players. I prefer to be a benevolent dictator, but I sometimes need to play the tyrant.

[schir1964]

Re: Opinion Fluff: Game Mastering Styles

 

Depends on the players. I prefer to be a benevolent dictator' date=' but I sometimes need to play the tyrant.[/quote']

For further clarification:

Do you generally allow the character's actions change or alter the storyline, or do try to adhere to the storyline you might have in mind?

 

One technique I've used in the past is to have a main storyline, but if the character's choose not be a part of that storyline, I allow that storyline to continue on as an independent sequence of events. I resolve the outcome of that storyline without the character's influence and determine if the results would then have any direct or indirect effect on the storyline that the character's chose to pursue.

 

I've had multiple storylines occurring simultaneously with different character's with each having varying effects on each other. I don't recommend this for large groups of players since it can quickly become overwhelming, but if kept in check, it can give a certain fluidity of adventuring that is difficult to achieve otherwise.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[tkdguy]

Re: Opinion Fluff: Game Mastering Styles

 

I've done the same thing myself. I make sure the NPCs have their own agendas and don't wait for the PCs to get the ball rolling. I will try to make sure to let the PCs alter the storyline as needed, but their choices will have consequences for good or ill.

[Vondy]

Re: Opinion Fluff: Game Mastering Styles

 

I've done the same thing myself. I make sure the NPCs have their own agendas and don't wait for the PCs to get the ball rolling. I will try to make sure to let the PCs alter the storyline as needed' date=' but their choices will have consequences for good or ill.[/quote']

 

I take this tack as well.

 

As for me, I tend to be a Constitutional Monarch. The GM has powers, but they are agreed upon within the social contract of the group. However, that presupposes I don't have any power-gaming, rules-lawyering, fun-killing dinks to deal with. For them I tend tend to take a harder line while I try to reform them and make them good citizens. If I succeed I loosen my iron grip. If not, I don't like being a dictator, so I boot their butt out. Life is too short. Off to exile they go. However, in PBEM games I tend to gravitate to being a rank republicanism. It allows for a reduction in mechanics and an acceleration of an otherwise slow format.

[teh bunneh]

Re: Opinion Fluff: Game Mastering Styles

 

What's worse than Tyrant? I tend to deal with people who question my authority by beating them half to death with a shovel or other convenient gardening tool. Lemme tell you, that cuts down on rules-lawyering right-quick!

[boomer]

Re: Opinion Fluff: Game Mastering Styles

 

We used to adjust rules between sessions if we felt they unbalanced things....ended up with lots of house rules that way. Sometimes the character history of a certain character was sooo cool that the GM would work it into the ongoing story line...with real cool results. Firken the womanizing, Gambler who is actually the long lost heir to the throne of Gimroon.........yeah I know...been there done that before, but it added pizazz to our campaign because this supposed "lout" was being bowed to and given preferential treatment by some powerful NPC's we had run into in the past.......Of course once we fought the good fight and planted his ass on the throne, he became an NPC...but that helped the storyline along as well because now we had a Royal Patron who would hire our band of miscreants. It also launched a long running campaign that claimed two of my characters before it was resolved.

[sbarron]

Re: Opinion Fluff: Game Mastering Styles

 

I haven't GM'd in a while, but I certainly like to shoot for Benevolent Dictator. In truth, I just want to keep things moving at a fast clip. I don't want to get bogged down looking up rules, discussing tactics, tracking stats, or anything else that will slow the game.

 

As such, I tend to makes rulings on the fly and try to move on. Of course, sometimes players aren't happy with my rulings, and probably feel I'm being heavy handed with them when I won't immmediately entertain their attempts to rectify what they see as an unfair or incorrect ruling. I always tell them in advance my intent with regard to speed, and let them know that we can discuss anything they didn't like after the game.

 

This is so foreign to some players, though, that they never really learn to accept it. If I ever found a group that I gamed with often, I'd probably end up like Vondy. If you like what I'm doing, and see the utility in just getting through stuff, then you can stick around. If not, then you can move on. No hard feelings.

 

Just one last point I'd like to make. Everything I do, everything, in my role as a GM is to set the players up as the heroes of whatever story we're telling. Characters don't die unless that's what they choose, they only lose when its setting them up for a bigger win, and I'm willing to go to great lengths to allow everyone playing to role-play out their heroic fantasies in our game.

 

The players having fun is my primary objective. Of course, that's true only as long that fun isn't at the expense of other players, or in repeatedly arguing about the rules. It's surprising how many people I've gamed with who's sole enjoyment from role-playing seemed to be derived from betraying the party in some way, creating strife between the players, or just arguing about every ruling I made. That seemed to be all they wanted out of their gaming. I still scratch my head about it. But, it appears to be far too common for it to be unusual behavior in gamers...

[Vondy]

Re: Opinion Fluff: Game Mastering Styles

 

We used to adjust rules between sessions if we felt they unbalanced things....

 

My rule was twofold:

 

No more than one page of house rules.

 

If I make a ruling and you don't agree you have sixty seconds to show me. That means book open, finger on the correct paragraph. If you can't, then the ruling stands. If the same situation comes up again in game and you've found the page, hand me the book; if it doesn't, or you haven't, we discuss it after the session. I make mistakes, I admit them, and I adjust accordingly, but I'm not going to turn a session into a rules debate.

 

The goal is to keep it going.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Opinion Fluff: Game Mastering Styles

 

 

The GM has final say and may change any prior ruling or even ignore all written rules. The GM lets the players know what the rules are for the game. Any thing during the game that comes up will be decided by the GM as the final word.

 

The GM attempts to guide the character's to follow the storyline, but will allow the character's actions to change the storyline and will use any changes to enhance the storyline to make it more interesting for all.

 

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

I'm a split between Tyrant and Benevelant Dictator, as shown above. When it comes to the rules of the game I run - it is my way, period. I come up with the house rules that fit the campaign/world I'm running, and any rules decisions are final at the table. I'm willing to talk about them afterwards though.

For story and plot - I have a basic outline of what I figure will happen, but if the players change that, or go off on a different direction, then I let them, and try and make it interesting for everyone. My adventure outlines look more like a flowchart going to 4 or 5 endings than anything linear... but of course, my players usually find even more ways to get where they are going.

 

The last I couldn't play in - as a player I don't want to have influence on the game or game world, other than through the actions of my character.

 

However in our group almost every player GMs, but they each have their own campaign/game, and they all fall very similarly to what I posted above as a GM.

[boomer]

Re: Opinion Fluff: Game Mastering Styles

 

My rule was twofold:

 

No more than one page of house rules.

 

If I make a ruling and you don't agree you have sixty seconds to show me. That means book open, finger on the correct paragraph. If you can't, then the ruling stands. If the same situation comes up again in game and you've found the page, hand me the book; if it doesn't, or you haven't, we discuss it after the session. I make mistakes, I admit them, and I adjust accordingly, but I'm not going to turn a session into a rules debate.

 

The goal is to keep it going.

 

That's what we did. We ran with the rule for the session to see if we liked it. If it was obvious it sucked...I mean blatantly obvious....the GM nixed it. If it worked but was flawed, during dinner break or smoke break we discussed it. Because like Steve says..."it's a toolkit....".

[archermoo]

Re: Opinion Fluff: Game Mastering Styles

 

I take this tack as well.

 

As for me, I tend to be a Constitutional Monarch. The GM has powers, but they are agreed upon within the social contract of the group. However, that presupposes I don't have any power-gaming, rules-lawyering, fun-killing dinks to deal with. For them I tend tend to take a harder line while I try to reform them and make them good citizens. If I succeed I loosen my iron grip. If not, I don't like being a dictator, so I boot their butt out. Life is too short. Off to exile they go. However, in PBEM games I tend to gravitate to being a rank republicanism. It allows for a reduction in mechanics and an acceleration of an otherwise slow format.

 

Pretty much my way of doing things as well. As Ref, I'm in charge of the rules. I'll happily talk about things with my players, and I'm more than willing to listen to suggestions, though preferably between sessions.

 

I would have no interest as Ref or Player in the described Pure Democratic Gaming method described. Sounds bloody aweful.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Opinion Fluff: Game Mastering Styles

 

I would have no interest as Ref or Player in the described Pure Democratic Gaming method described. Sounds bloody aweful.

 

I agree completely. Reminds me of Burning Wheel (IIRC - the one where the rules say specifically the players can overrule the GM on rules issues) or Wushu - or even worse Capes (one of the most craptastic rulesets it has ever been my displeasure to read).

[teh bunneh]

Re: Opinion Fluff: Game Mastering Styles

 

I will sometimes make stuff up on the fly, if I don't want to mess with the flow of the game, with the understanding that such "on the fly" rulings don't set precidence.

 

"What's the CV mod for a flying grab?"

"I have no idea, but I don't want to spend 10 minutes looking it up. I'll say -2 OCV for now, and we'll check the rulebook next time we take a pause in the game."

[archermoo]

Re: Opinion Fluff: Game Mastering Styles

 

For further clarification:

Do you generally allow the character's actions change or alter the storyline, or do try to adhere to the storyline you might have in mind?

 

I suppose that depends on how you mean it. As Ref, I control everything other than the Player's characters. The Players don't get to decide "I think bad guy X should do y action". Though they can decide to to z action themselves to try and get bad guy x to do y if they want.

 

From the comic or book point of view, I don't run storylines. I have things that are happening in the world, and the players are welcome to interact with whatever of those things that they want. Sometimes the things happening in the world intrude on the players whether they want them to or not. Frequently the actions of the players will determine what things are happening in the world, or at the very least will influence them.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Opinion Fluff: Game Mastering Styles

 

My favorite approach is: Roll the dice. If you roll awesome, it works, if you roll horribly, it fails, if you roll somewhere in the middle then we'll look it up.

[Doomed Prophet]

Re: Opinion Fluff: Game Mastering Styles

 

I GM with the "Whatever the situation demands" style... If I need to be a rules lawyer, I'm a rules lawyer... If I need to be nice, I'm nice... Etc. ad nauseum..

[pinecone]

Re: Opinion Fluff: Game Mastering Styles

 

I run games as a popular despot...large parts of my games are proposed or created by players, I tend to "rule" based on democratic feedback "OK, what do you guys think should happen here?" I have a very strong personality though, so things pretty much go the way I lean.....

 

I like story lines, but most of my stories are based on the characters and their lims, so I get plenty of willing acceptance for my "train rides"

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Opinion Fluff: Game Mastering Styles

 

For further clarification:

Do you generally allow the character's actions change or alter the storyline, or do try to adhere to the storyline you might have in mind?

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

 

MY Storylines are usually vastly altered by my players. My basic "plot" tends to be the villains plans and agendas/ horrific event without the heroes interference then we just see how they spoil the pie. Also if they come up with a theory much better than the real plot , there are sometimes adjustments.

Mostly I'm pretty much the Benevolent Dictator but lots of that is because of a really deep thrust within our group.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Opinion Fluff: Game Mastering Styles

 

 

T

Just one last point I'd like to make. Everything I do, everything, in my role as a GM is to set the players up as the heroes of whatever story we're telling. Characters don't die unless that's what they choose, they only lose when its setting them up for a bigger win, and I'm willing to go to great lengths to allow everyone playing to role-play out their heroic fantasies in our game.

 

 

MY philosophy as well. I think you just said it better than I could have.

[Egyptoid]

Re: Opinion Fluff: Game Mastering Styles

 

Just one last point I'd like to make. Everything I do, everything, in my role as a GM is to set the players up as the heroes of whatever story we're telling. Characters don't die unless that's what they choose, they only lose when its setting them up for a bigger win, and I'm willing to go to great lengths to allow everyone playing to role-play out their heroic fantasies in our game.

 

 

I used to GM like that, used to have all this philosophy and goals in life, but :

then I had the player who only likes to hit things,

then I had the player who only liked to amass shiny new XPs.

and I had the player who whined every time he took Body

the player who re-wrote his character sheet each week with diff.powers

...had the dude who

only

role-played his peculiar quirks, yet not fit into the campaign setting

 

so me and the two guys who could actually play champions correctly would just look at each other knowingly and sigh as I yelled "okay, top of phase 12..."

[schir1964]

Re: Opinion Fluff: Game Mastering Styles

 

Just one last point I'd like to make. Everything I do' date=' everything, in my role as a GM is to set the players up as the heroes of whatever story we're telling. Characters don't die unless that's what they choose, they only lose when its setting them up for a bigger win, and I'm willing to go to great lengths to allow everyone playing to role-play out their heroic fantasies in our game.[/quote']

This would fall under setting or campaign rules that are established upfront, so it would become part of the rules to adjust things to prevent death as needed.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Vondy]

Re: Opinion Fluff: Game Mastering Styles

 

I used to GM like that, used to have all this philosophy and goals in life, but :

then I had the player who only likes to hit things,

then I had the player who only liked to amass shiny new XPs.

and I had the player who whined every time he took Body

the player who re-wrote his character sheet each week with diff.powers

...had the dude who

only

role-played his peculiar quirks, yet not fit into the campaign setting

 

so me and the two guys who could actually play champions correctly would just look at each other knowingly and sigh as I yelled "okay, top of phase 12..."

 

While we've all played with those players (funny how they get around), in my old age I've become inflexible. I dont have time to play with people like that. Instead of grinng and bearing it, I eject them and let the dust settle where it may.

[sbarron]

Re: Opinion Fluff: Game Mastering Styles

 

This would fall under setting or campaign rules that are established upfront, so it would become part of the rules to adjust things to prevent death as needed.

 

- Christopher Mullins

Yeah, I guess so. I'd never thought about it before, but really, it changes the role-playing "game" into a role-playing experience, or interactive storytelling, or something.

 

I don't GM games where players can lose or die because of a bad turn of the dice. Maybe a series of really bad choices...but c'mon, if I ask you three times "you have a bad feeling about this, are you sure you want to do it?," and you do it anyway, then you're kind of asking for it, right?

[Silbeg]

Re: Opinion Fluff: Game Mastering Styles

 

I used to GM like that' date=' used to have all this philosophy and goals in life, but :[indent']then I had the player who only likes to hit things,

then I had the player who only liked to amass shiny new XPs.

and I had the player who whined every time he took Body

the player who re-wrote his character sheet each week with diff.powers

...had the dude who only role-played his peculiar quirks, yet not fit into the campaign setting

[/indent]so me and the two guys who could actually play champions correctly would just look at each other knowingly and sigh as I yelled "okay, top of phase 12..."

 

I have had that player...