Gamemaster

From 2d4chan
Revision as of 14:26, 28 March 2014 by 76.176.149.151 (talk)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Bold text

Hope to god he knows the rules.

The Gamemaster, or the GM as he is often called, is the source of all your fun and all your sorrow in a role-playing game. An adept or experienced GM will make the worlds of the RPG come to life, and present a vision that makes you feel as if you're really there. In other cases, the GM can come off as a total dick. The GM is responsible for describing the game world, playing the role of its inhabitants (NPCs and monsters) and adjudicating the results of your actions.

GMing is a worthless, thankless task in which your players will shit things up as much as possible. Give up on it or become vengeful if you wish to preserve your sanity.

Other Terms

Various games refer to the Game Master with different names:

How do I shot GM?

The best advice on how to be a good GM ever.

A lot of people come asking for advice on how to run a role-playing game, but the simple truth of the matter is that a game master is not born; rather, made. Only experience, reading and knowing the group of people you play with will help you become really good. Different GMs have different approaches, some improvise everything, others painstakingly prepare every map, encounter and NPC the players come across. This way of doing things rarely pays off, as players usually hold to long-standing player customs of shrugging off all over your meticulously-planned work, as they decide to take one wrong turn or ignore one person that was supposed to put them on the right track you laid down for them, and wander off in the complete opposite direction. Some GMs counter this by railroading their players, which is generally seen as an douche way of doing things. When being railroaded, the players typically become little more than unwilling spectators to the GM's personal fantasy movie, which usually (read: always) sucks.

If you know what your players want you're one step closer to running a good game. Some just want to kick some goblin arse, others want to get involved in the political intrigue at court, others don't really know what they want. Try to lead them on adventures that involve all the characters and give them all challenges that depend on what they do best. If you have a rogue in the party make sure to have some sneaking or trap-finding to be done, if you have a barbarian be sure there will be opportunity to kick some ass and so on. Talk to your players.

In the end there is really only one rule, Rule 0, which states: Have fun. Meaning everyone at the table. Make sure everything is moving forward, try to avoid stalling and monotony. If the players are really stuck just throw something at them, even ninjas. Keep things happening and everyone interested.

If people aren't excited or interested it's often better to pull out another game, switch GMs, watch a movie or just WATCH ALL THE PORN.

A Rebuttal From That Guy

What kind of after-school-special-carebears-bullshit is this? As the GM your one and only duty is to win. Why in the name of Tiamat would you want to help the players anyways? They sit around your basement, drink your beer, herp their derps, and shit all over your carefully constructed masterpiece. They aren't your friends, they are animals. And there's only one way to deal with animals. That chest? It had a Sphere of Annihilation. The new warstrider you built? It gets one-shotted by the imperial manse. Your psyker? Fails his perils roll and summons a bloodthirster. Oh you survived? Deploying rocks now. They might hate you for it but its the only way to keep the story progressing in the right direction (yours). After all to rule one must either be feared or loved, and who could love you?

And this elegan/tg/entlemen is why we never let That Guy DM.

Shut up. Just shut the hell up. You know what? You're dead. You died. Orcus reached through a tear in the abyss and pulped you like an orange. Now get ready to roll a new character, we're playing my erotically charged My Little Pony Homebrew- *BLAM* Oh, don't mind me, I just crawled out of the 40K Section. Praise the Emprah. *BLAM* *BLAM* It twitched. Praise the Emprah.

Magical realm faggots need to be beaten to death. The best thing is to make your players cry. Rear their hopes and dreams apart and take a shit of their entire tabletop experience. Make them rue the day they decided to play games.

Types of DM

A description of commonly found play styles of DM and their pros & cons. (hoping that more will be added over time) Everything except killer GMs suck. You're not supposed to enjoy games, you're supposed to barely tolerate them as you crush the players beneath your iron fist. If anyone is having fun at the table, then you have failed.

  • Aspiring Author - Hand-crafts his own campaign setting, populating it with "unique" characters, factions and history. The campaign will often grow with the players, taking shape based on the things that they do which can be extremely satisfying.
    • Pros - Can make for a very unique experience if the DM takes his time with the setting, particularly in creating unexpected/memorable scenarios for the players. Also becomes very difficult to meta-game since players don't necessarily know how the system works (and therefore how to break it)
    • Cons - If he's not very good, the "uniqueness" of the setting will be contrived / cliche tropes that the players already know, and will get tired of if being sold to them as "different". Also if the DM is not committed to the group, adventures may take a long while to write up and cause the players to forget what they were even playing. Furthermore, can be overprotective of his setting (particularly if he IS an author) and refuse to budge when it comes to harsh decisions or situations regarding the greater universe, though he is DM so fair play to him for that.
    • Most likely campaign ending: "The players have saved the princess, proved their innocence and slain the dragon, then sail off to the west for a comfortable retirement. The End."
  • Canon Defender / Fanboy - Applicable when using an established setting/adventure modules (Forgotten Realms, 40k, Star Wars etc) they usually know their fluff better than most and try to maintain the integrity as much as they possibly can by restricting how much damage the players will inevitably attempt to cause by breaking it. Or by restricting their movements to specific "breakable" portions of the in-game universe where the players cannot cause significant harm. (eg: no visiting Terra since the players will obviously attempt to murder the Emperor)
    • Pros - The "realism" of the campaign is maintained, so if the players know their lore they remain familiar with the setting no matter how much they try to screw it over. By necessity, he is heavily invested in the setting, meaning that he will be reliably consistent with the players and one of the most enthusiastic of DM types. So if the DM is well versed enough, the session can be just as immersive as those run by The Actor, just keeping a status quo that won't come crashing down around the group.
    • Cons - Players can feel cheated that they are not interacting with the setting as much as they would like. Meta-gaming is going to happen and arguments will occur with players who think they know the setting better. Also, if a DM is not well versed enough with the setting it WILL devolve into railroading as he won't know how to react to unexpected situations.
    • Most likely campaign ending: Whenever the owner of the setting/universe stops publishing material.
  • Formula/Dice DM - What the rulebooks often expect a DM to be. Follows the adventure modules religiously, but unlike the canon defender is more interested in the crunch than the fluff. When shit happens, he will likely refer to whatever table of events / random encounter lists / pre-generated characters that are available. He is in it just as much as the players are; just along for the ride.
    • Pros - Things tend to go most according to plan since a rule can often be found to cover most situations. Is also the least likely to cause a fuss with the players, since he's playing the game as much as they are. So nothing is personal with him.
    • Cons - The situations can occur that often feel out of place to the players; such as repetitive random encounters or things not happening in the appropriate locations due to the result of a dice roll. (meeting a merchant in the middle of a dungeon?)
    • Most likely campaign ending: Whenever the RPG publisher stops publishing material
  • Turncoat Player - Longtime/munchkin players who want to give the DM chair a shot, often thinking they can do it better than the previous DM since they have sat through the experience of being a player and want to do it differently. Often with a list of things they want to change like a portfolio for election.
    • Pros - If they can learn restraint, they can be the most sympathetic to the players needs and become one of most adaptable DMs. Also will spend a lot of time with the players developing their characters, crafting well fleshed out back stories and often including an inordinate amount of heirloom items.
    • Cons - More player experience does not always equal good DM. These DMs can be wishlisters; creating settings that they'd rather play in. Giving the players the "best" gear, "freedom" of gameplay, "unrestricted" access to character options (all words which should give proper DMs headaches) and dish out ridiculous experience and in-situ rewards in an attempt to ingratiate himself with the group and sometimes end up in denial that their sessions have any flaws in them at all. Also, since his campaigns are heavily player focussed, groups may find that encounters become less of a challenge and/or that the universe really is quite hollow and not populated with very interesting NPCs.
    • Most likely campaign ending: Whenever the PCs have been prematurely promoted to Generals, Gods or any other point where it makes no sense to continue.
  • The Railroader - Often appears to have the most desirable skillset as a DM; knows his fluff, the ruleset and gets on well with the group but do not be deceived, he is one of the worst types of style. Recognisable for his lack of dice rolling, also for constantly talking to his players and knowing what happens next without referring to books/notes. Often giving them loads of information to work with and dropping hints about what they could be doing next. If he's good, he will often defer to the players and create a scenario on the fly depending upon what their options are.
    • Pros - One of the smoothest operating DMs, since his plan is constantly in his mind he will quickly have a resolution to most scenarios. Also can be as creative as the aspiring author above, but less attached to his setting and can give the players much more free reign.
    • Cons - The players will feel railroaded by his constant hint dropping, and will be punished (sometimes severely) with whatever consequence he has in his twisted mind for not taking those hints. Since there is little to no dice rolling there is often no comeback for the players. This DM will insist (and often genuinely believe) he is being fair and is NOT railroading you since you always had the "option" of following his advice. Also, since it's all mostly in his mind, if he gets an opinion or a vendetta in there against you, you're pretty much screwed over at this point and are just pawns in his little game that he's playing with himself.
    • Most likely campaign ending: Rocks fall, everyone dies because you went down a corridor the DM told you not to go down.
  • The Actor - Basically what the Railroader would be if he weren't in touch with his inner control freak. Like the Author and Railroader, he really wants to tell a story, but like the Turncoat he wants it to be the players'. Generally more interested in the role part of roleplaying, he tends to put lots of effort into making colorful side characters and setting flavor, but tends to regard combat as a side dish rather than the meat and bones of the game, so he frequently improvises and works off a set of indistinct guidelines more than rigid preprepared content.
    • Pros - A very flexible kind of DM. Since he isn't married to a preconceived notion of how the session is going to go, he isn't going to be completely floored unless you go full Henderson. The effort he puts into making the world feel alive can be very immersive, and he tries to make events feel like they matter to the characters instead of just being a story they're blundering through. Prefers to keep the game moving, so he's likely to make a judgement call based on the roll rather than look up the exact rule if he doesn't know it. If you tend to regard constant pointless action scenes and random encounter fights as annoying filler where nothing is happening to advance the story, you and he are going to get along like white rice and soy sauce.
    • Cons - Very prone to taste mismatch. Since he's an actor first, he tends to skimp on combat and hack-and-slash unless it's important to the story. Don't expect lots of random encounters, and don't expect constant life-or-death struggle with everything trying to kill you. Frequently has problems with managing lots of simulationist rules, and often jury-rigs solutions out of DM Fiat rather than looking up the answers in the book. If you regard the "standing around talking" part of the game as pointless nonesense fluff between the action and fights, you and he are going to get along like sodium and water.
    • Most likely campaign ending: Whenever the DM moves house away from your city.
  • Submissive / Reactionary DM - Not an oxymoron, but rather the polar opposite of the Railroader. Bends over backwards to accommodate the players and their characters, but unlike the Turncoat actually knows how to DM properly by maintaining an interesting storyline and also how to reward the players correctly/fairly for what they do. This style requires a tremendous amount of creativity on the part of the DM even though they can stick to a script / published adventure module. They tend to occur with campaigns involving evil PCs or with novice DMs amongst more veteran groups where players are given more latitude with their conduct either by design or through lack of personality / assertiveness.
    • Pros - If the DM is any good then players can get the full package, the freedom to do whatever they want with the in-game universe and it still remain a challenging and enjoyable experience for them.
    • Cons - Sub DMs tend to have a short career, either by giving up or switching to a different style as constantly having to come up with off-script consequences to outrageous player behaviour can burn them out creatively. Or due to a lack of enforced discipline/conduct, player groups become bogged down by conflicting personalities and the group loses its cohesion.
    • Most likely campaign ending: When the players have duelled each other to the death over the staff of godhood and there is only one left standing. (or the campaign gets forgotten about and shelved)
  • Killer DM - This DM very much believes that their job is adversarial. They're here to fuck you up through any means necessary, either through crunch or fluff. Expect save-or-die traps, Level 20 town guards, monsters out of nowhere, and Tomb of Horrors style dungeons. Very little or even non-existent storyline, just challenge after challenge, essentially creating a P&P Dark Souls.
    • Pros - You want a challenge with no story? This is the DM for you. The perfect opponent for munchkins, the good kind of Killer DM excels at creating harsh, cruel, punishing, though not impossible, scenarios. If all the players just want to kill stuff and feel smart for avoiding traps and generally enacting badass death-defying stunts, the Killer DM can provide.
    • Cons - A bad Killer DM is just a massive twat with a huge hate-boner for you, your character, and everything you stand for. Hopefully not going as far to just kill you with no saves or warning, but the sort of DM to throw Lvl 20 monsters at a Lvl 1 party and then wonder why you didn't minmax enough to beat them. Like a Railroad DM, except the only destination is your frustrating, inexplicable death.
    • Most likely campaign ending: Total Party Kill either by defiant, awesome last stand worthy of posting on /tg/, or getting so fucked over you wonder why you even bother playing these stupid games in the first place.
Retrieved from "http://23.235.193.55/mediawiki/index.php?title=Gamemaster&oldid=248574"