GM manifesto?

[Peter Knutsen]

I doubt I'm the only one who has had several deeply frustrating run-ins with incompatible - often profoundly incompetent - GM's.

One way to "test" for that, as a potential player, might be to ask the potential GM to write a short (or not so short, if he prefers) text, describing how he GMs, how he defines roleplaying, what is important to him and what isn't. And then sign up or not sign up for his campaign, based on whether one likes what one reads, in particular whether what one reads completely fails to address that which one considers to be most important.



If you're a GM, what would your manifesto look like?

If you're a player who never GMs, what would your ideal GM's manifesto look like?

If you're so horny to play that you don't care about GM'ing style or GM competence, but are affectively an omnivore (or think that you are even if it's not true), then please stay out of this thread.

[Brandy]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

I doubt I'm the only one who has had several deeply frustrating run-ins with incompatible - often profoundly incompetent - GM's.

I've played in games that I didn't enjoy. I think that's probably the same thing.

One way to "test" for that, as a potential player, might be to ask the potential GM to write a short (or not so short, if he prefers) text, describing how he GMs, how he defines roleplaying, what is important to him and what isn't.

More useful than a definition of roleplaying, I think, would be the GMs expectations of his or her players.

And then sign up or not sign up for his campaign, based on whether one likes what one reads, in particular whether what one reads completely fails to address that which one considers to be most important.

Another approach might be to say "Hey, the following things are really important to me. Are the things you tend to do as a GM compatible with this? Do you think I'll have fun in your game?"

If you're a GM, what would your manifesto look like?

I suspect that the way I would answer your very general question wouldn't address the problems you've described having in other people's games.

I would focus on things like:
The goal of my games is first and foremost for everyone to have fun. This is a role-playing game after all. Here are some things you can do to maximize fun for me and the other players:
Make every effort to come to sessions and be on time and let me know if you can't make it or will be late.
Know what your character can do. You don't have to know all the details of the rules, but you do need to know your character's capabilities.
Take the spotlight when it is appropriate, and yield the spotlight to others.
When in doubt, do *something*. If you're stressing over "getting it right" you've come to the wrong game.
Engage in dialogue with NPCs in character - that's part of the fun -- but also feel free to break the dialogue to describe in-game actions ask questions.
Et cetera.

You seem to care most about the world being a strict sandbox, and objecting to the GM putting his thumb on the scale in any way, shape, or form. Let me flip it on you: If you were interviewing a prospective GM, what questions would you ask?

[robkelk]

If I was asked to provide a GM manifesto, I'd ask for manifestos from all of the other participants in the game as well. The GM is playing the game just as much as everyone else is, and should not be singled out for this sort of treatment.

[whswhs]

I don't know if I could judge this by a verbal statement. I might want to sit in on a session of someone's campaign and see how they actually run it, to get a sense of their overall competence and fairness. I might also turn down a campaign from a verbal description of that specific campaign: For example, one of my players was talking about a robotech-based campaign, and both because I've never become a fan of that series and because he was emphasizing aspects of play that aren't my top priorities, I didn't pursue the matter.

What I care about in game mastering seems to be partly a vivid, preferably original world concept, one with lots of texture to explore; and partly openness to character concepts and willingness to let characters be who they are—but combined with the ability to balance things so that characters are actually playing in the same campaign, if that makes any sense.

Bill Stoddard

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Bookman

More useful than a definition of roleplaying, I think, would be the GMs expectations of his or her players.

That is certainly one item I'll be including in my manifesto, when I write it, sure. I'm actually a bit surprised that I failed to mention it in my OP.

But even if I write it tomorrow, I won't post it before 6-8 weeks has passed. The reason I started this thread, is because a few hours ago, I asked a friend of a friend of mine to write such a manifesto, as he's probably going to run some very RPG-like events, and I was asked if I wanted to participate. He expressed that he'd find the writing of such a text somewhat difficult, so I'm thinking that a dozen or more sample manifestos from you guys, hopefully also serving to illustrate some of the diversity of the hobby and the varied styles that exist, might prompt him into actually writing one anyway.

I would be needing to write a manifesto of my own eventually (or one or two documents serving a similar purpose), anyway, so might as well do it this year...

Originally Posted by Bookman

Another approach might be to say "Hey, the following things are really important to me. Are the things you tend to do as a GM compatible with this? Do you think I'll have fun in your game?"

It's very simple: I fear that it'll just turn into a massive cold-reading process.

It's my impression that the vast majority of GMs are lacking players, and are therefore so desperate to get more players that they'll go to extreme lengths to recruit ones, including trying to second guess me as to what are the correct answers to any such questionaire that I might write. Or even lying outright.

Furthermore, it's my impression that most GMs (and most roleplayers) have a severely mypoic lack of awareness of the breadth and diversity of approaches that exist in the RPG hobby, instead assuming that everybody does everything the way they happen to be doing it.

I wouldn't be surprised, for instance, if the majority of GM manifestos, e.g. if one posted on Usenet or some other forum (possibly even in this subforum, although now by saying this I'm obviously reducing my own odds, so it's a godo thing there's no actual wager going on) and asked for GMs to write them, would completely fail to address something that I consider vitally important, which is the question of character skill vs player skill.

It's also the case that I'm seriously incompatible with most GMs (in particular local - Danish or Scandianvian - RPG culture, but also internationally), and therefore it's not very efficient for me to ask the questions, when I know in advance with almost certainty that the final verdict will be that "no, Peter is not interesting in playing, he can find something more fun and engaging to spend his time on". Better to have the GM do it. It's not as if wrting such a manifesto is a waste of his time even if I end up deciding not to play. It can be shown to other players later.

Originally Posted by Bookman

I would focus on things like:
The goal of my games is first and foremost for everyone to have fun. This is a role-playing game after all. Here are some things you can do to maximize fun for me and the other players:
Make every effort to come to sessions and be on time and let me know if you can't make it or will be late.
Know what your character can do. You don't have to know all the details of the rules, but you do need to know your character's capabilities.
Take the spotlight when it is appropriate, and yield the spotlight to others.
When in doubt, do *something*. If you're stressing over "getting it right" you've come to the wrong game.
Engage in dialogue with NPCs in character - that's part of the fun -- but also feel free to break the dialogue to describe in-game actions ask questions.
Et cetera.

Thank you for posting the first manifesto in this thread!

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by robkelk

If I was asked to provide a GM manifesto, I'd ask for manifestos from all of the other participants in the game as well. The GM is playing the game just as much as everyone else is, and should not be singled out for this sort of treatment.

My take on it is that the GM puts his campaign on the "market", and players then peruse the "PR material" and decide whether or not they want to join. A "GM manifesto" could be one element in such a set of "PR material".

Or there may already be an existing gaming group, consisting of one GM and 2-4 players but the GM wants to add one more player. In that case, one can reasonably assume that the already-participating 2-4 players are happy with the GM's style, and the question is whether the new potentail player will or won't be happy with it.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I might also turn down a campaign from a verbal description of that specific campaign: For example, one of my players was talking about a robotech-based campaign, and both because I've never become a fan of that series and because he was emphasizing aspects of play that aren't my top priorities, I didn't pursue the matter.

So in a sense, that functioned as a "sieving" or "sifting" process for you, or part of such a process?

I guess any sandbox-shaped elements, present in any campaign description written by me, could serve a similar function, aiding players with a sand allergy to rach the conclusion that they wouldn't end up enjoying themselves...

Originally Posted by whswhs

What I care about in game mastering seems to be partly a vivid, preferably original world concept, one with lots of texture to explore; and partly openness to character concepts and willingness to let characters be who they are—but combined with the ability to balance things so that characters are actually playing in the same campaign, if that makes any sense.

Than you for posting the 2nd manifesto in this thread!

But I hope people will start posting more of those, to the point where I no longer feel the need to thank each and every one.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

It's my impression that the vast majority of GMs are lacking players, and are therefore so desperate to get more players that they'll go to extreme lengths to recruit ones, including trying to second guess me as to what are the correct answers to any such questionaire that I might write. Or even lying outright.

I have never found that to be the case. I went from three campaigns to two for the upcoming cycle, and that meant dropping four of my thirteen players (although I also added two); I also have at least one more person who would love to play if her school schedule permitted. I'm in a campaign one of my players is running, and at least two more of my players have campaigns of their own. I don't think any of them is short of players. And one of my newly added players, who seems to have dropped out of GMing, is a superb GM and never had any trouble obtaining players when she looked for them.

At the very least, I'm seemingly in a very different environment than you are.

Bill Stoddard

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by whswhs

At the very least, I'm seemingly in a very different environment than you are.

I was actually thinking of you, when I wrote the above. That you're one known exception to what seems to me to be the case.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

It's my impression that the vast majority of GMs are lacking players, and are therefore so desperate to get more players that they'll go to extreme lengths to recruit ones ...

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

Or there may already be an existing gaming group, consisting of one GM and 2-4 players but the GM wants to add one more player. In that case, one can reasonably assume that the already-participating 2-4 players are happy with the GM's style, and the question is whether the new potentail player will or won't be happy with it.

This is not my experience with my current group. That works on two campaigns, with different GMs, happening on alternate Wednesdays. We've been running since 2000 or so. From time to time we want to add a player, and the difficulty is more with recruiting someone who is interested and compatible., than finding anyone at all. There seem to be lots of people around here who play Pathfinder, D&D4e or WoD; they've heard of GURPS but don't know what to expect from it, so we don't usually get people with a firm expectation of what they want to play.

It is usually the players who want to recruit more: as GM I find my work gets harder steeply with more than 3-4 players, because I'll find that I'm not listening equally to everyone and not thinking about how the NPCs react to all of the characters. We've had someone who wanted to play in a rather different style - he seemed to want more tragedy, although he was never clear about this - and the clash of character behaviour was entertaining at times, but he eventually dropped out. We had a chap who joined and dropped out twice, once for family reasons, but with no explanation the second time. One left to have a baby, but we hope to get her back some year, because she's really good.

So, manifesto? I always want to make the game world feel real and the people plausible within it. I recognise the open sandbox as an ideal, and if characters want to move away from the story I have prepared, that's fine, but I may need some time to make up or deduce the things I don't know. The way that the characters behave has a huge impact on the way the world treats them. That's more important to my style than combat. If characters are doing important and exciting things in a plausible world, they will sometimes run into violent opposition - but fights happen for a reason, not because the story is about violence. I'm more interested in stories of exploration, discovery and invention than politics, empire building or settling a frontier.

I want the players to create characters who are interesting people, who entertain me, and each other (As a player, I'm quite happy with the occasional session which is entirely about playing the characters and their interactions, with no plot). I like players to think about the details of what their characters are doing: they don't have the character's abilities, but thinking about what those abilities can and can't do makes the imaginary scene more convincing. I do not understand "Action movie reality", and styles of play that are based on it will not attract my engagement or sympathy.

RPGs are a co-operative activity. As GM I'm the default leader in a process of mutual entertainment, but I'm not the only leader: the players can do this too, and the game is often better when they do. It isn't quite free improvisation, things need to be compatible with the game thus far. The GM sets boundaries for that, but it is best to give the players some space. Or rope, if they want to use it that way.