I took two days off from work today and tomorrow and that somewhat includes blogging (unless I get an inspiration like I just did now).
I’m currently writing a guest post for another RPG site and while I was editing my work, I added this small sentence:
It’s one thing to have a rule book say you have the final call and another realizing that respect for a GM’s authority is earned, not inherited.
How true is that for you as a GM and/or player?
I’ve discovered that much like being a teacher and a manager in a company, GMing is all about using the power given to you by your peers. Respect comes from using it wisely and only when necessary.
How have you dealt with taking “ownership” of the much fabled, often abused GM authority and the hard to learn lesson of handling it properly?
I will most likely make a full fledged post of it in the near future, based on your responses. This truly is one of the things that interest me most about the human interactions seen in RPGs.
Post Comment edit: A very good point brought up in the comments is that a new GM starts with a certain amount of Respect and Trust that players grant by default. To build up that trust/respect, the GM’s got to earn it. Losing it however can be really easy… leading to a crashed game.
Actually, I don’t think that either “earned” or “inherited” describes it well. It’s kinda both.
In the first game with a new GM, a baseline respect for the GM is indeed assumed.
Beyond that, the GM needs to work to maintain that respect. If they’re good, they will earn additional respect. If they’re mediocre, they may just maintain the baseline.
As for the “handling GM authority properly”… well, you’ve heard my stories. I won’t reprint them, on your site or mine.
I’ve been lucky in that most of my players are veterans. Many have GMed before and they understand the GM’s role in the game.
Perhaps there is a golden rule here?
“GM as you would like to be GMed?”
Anyway, I think consistency and fairness are the key. If everyone knows what to expect, players will give you the GM authority that is necessary for running the game. They have to trust you with that responsibility.
The times I’ve seen GM authority break down in the past is when the GM makes rulings that are inconsistent with things he has done in the past or inconsistent with established rules (wither they be house rules or rules in the book.) That tends to make players feel like they are being treated unfairly.
I think authority is earned but a GM’s out-of-game social skills shape most of that authority.
The few things a GM can do in-game to really establish authority (and fear):
-Wrestle players who don’t agree with the made-up rules and calls.
-Learn orcish and elvish to enhance roleplaying.
-Throw dice and keep saying “don’t you know I’m loco.”
PS: Your really mini post is as long as my average post!
In most games, the GM has a lot of authority, simply due to their investment in the game. We’ll grant authority freely (though conditionally) when playing most games, particularly when they demand a lot of the GM. That grant of authority can be tarnished or lost, but it tends to start high [we assume the GM knows what he’s doing] and diminishes over time if they’re not good at keeping the fun level up.
Trusting the DM . . . this is a new concept for me. I mean, I’ve always just played with friends. I’m an introvert and I can see how scary going over to a strangers house would be if you didn’t know anybody there. During this period where most gamers are addicted to videogames, finding a DM and players is more difficult then it was back when I first started. I do have a new player, an old friends roommate, and as a DM I was kind of spooked that my style would clash with his own. I am use to knowing all of my players as friends first, but as it turned out I had nothing to worry about. He is a thrilling PC to watch play the game.
I will admit that my first time behind the screen wasn’t exactly a clinic in grace, but on the same token it wasn’t terrible either. One has to learn from experience, and kudos to anybody whose first experience with the game is as the rules master! Learning by trial and error is how it’s done, and once you get the basic concepts down pat, then it’s time to start experimenting with more complex rules.
At this stage, I really don’t do to much rules enforcing. All of my players know what the deal is, we’ve been playing for years! If there are any changes, I make these clear before anybody gets into character, and make sure that everybody knows what’s going on. My new player learned 3.5e and needs to be taught 2e, but this is all done in the game.
As far as I can tell, as long as you as the DM listen to your players you really can’t go wrong! As with anything, communication is crucial. The only surprises in the game should be the story twists.
Personally, I don’t think that most of the problems that come about during a game, isn’t the fault of the DM. The Dungeon Master usually puts most of the effort into the game, and has the most investments involved with any given storyline. Perhaps trusting your players to complete a game is where the real trust is.
-RIP
@Graham: As mentioned by others after, I agree that a new GM start with a baseline respect inherent to the function (I mean what would be the chance of success if there was none).
But countless GMs (and teachers, parents, bosses) hit the ‘cuz I said so’ wall because they fail to learn that you need to earn any additional respect.
@Greenvesper: Agreed on the Golden rule… although I’m not sure I would liked to be DMed by a guy with the same natural style as mine… 🙂
@Yax: Ha ha! And your comment actually does sound like your typical DMing tips. I’d pay some good money to watch you DM…. Maybe I’ll have that luxury at GenCon…
@ScottM: As mentioned in my response to Graham… RPGs wouldn’t be as workable if the game was 100% adversarial by default. I totally agree about the baseline respect/trust. But that inherent trust can be lost real fast, especially with adult and/or experienced players that know what they want in the game.
@RipperX: Moving from DMing to playing is very hard for some (it sure is for me). I have major trust issues with new GM (especially inexperienced ones) because I tend transpose my own weaknesses when I was at that level and I would much rather skip that stage altogether…. this creates a lot of pressure the new DM does not need. In fact the text I wrote for the other site is actually about DMing with ex-DMs…. Which I’ll touch on once it gets published.
I think of the gaming table as a board meeting. The chairman, the GM, holds 51% stock in his company, the RPG. He runs the meeting, he has the final say, he is the man in charge and the face of his company. However, the board members still hold the power to vote “no confidence” and make him step down. The GM may be in charge, but he better not screw it up or his players will kick him to the curb and find a new GM.
I like your chairman analogy Jason…
However, when a GM loses the trust, relationship issues often ensues. Friendships may become strained and replacing a GM often is not all that easy.
What almost invariably happens is that the game just plain fails (people stop showing up), some time passes and another (or new) player proposes to GM a new game and the cycle starts again… hopefully with no loss of trust.
Such is the fate of the gaming table. So how do you stop this loss in trust?
A few tips I’ve picked up over the years of sitting behind and in front of the screen:
“Feedback feedback feedback.” Both as a player and a GM, you need to be open to feedback. If you’re like me and you want to provide everybody at the table with the best possible experience, you should strive to become a better player/GM. If you’re a new GM with veteran players, get some feedback from them about the type of games they like to play BEFORE you start a new campaign. Maybe try a few one-shot games to see how the party chemistry works. And for pete’s sake, LISTEN to them. They’re veteran players after all. If you’re a veteran player with a new GM, be patient with him or her. Offer to help out if he or she needs it. Everybody was new at one point.
“What happens at the table, stays at the table.” No matter how heated the game gets, no matter how many times you died, do not let the game affect your friendship with the other people at that table. This also applies to problems at home. Do not bring your home problems to your game table. You are there to relax and unwind and be in good (or semi-good) company. This goes double for couples that game together.
“I do not mediate personality conflicts.” As a DM, it is your job to provide the best possible gaming experience. You are NOT Dr. Phil, though. If two of your players have personality conflicts, it is not up to you to get between them. They are mature adults (hopefully) and should be able to work out their differences on their own. Now if those two players start to disrupt your game with the bickering, then you step in. Until then, if Suzie gets in a huff for the next week over what Janie said about her PC’s hair, tell Suzie to get over it.
I see you’re of the tough love school of DMing Jason. 🙂 I’m cool with that. A lot of the points you touch were in the articles I sent this morning.
I differ from your opinion in one key point, the last one. I will step in and mediate personality conflicts (or any inter-personal conflicts) if it deprives the rest of the group from having fun.
I will stop a game, call a break, send everybody but the conflicting party for a breather outside and offer my ‘services’ as an external mediator. As the DM, I decided to take responsibility of making sure everyone gets an equal chance to have fun.
If after a few minutes I can’t foresee a satisfactory resolution, I will either require both parties to stand down or call the game off.
Bottom line, I tolerate slight ribbing and allow arguments to occur, as long as I don’t feel it robs the majority of their deserved fun.
Trust. I trust my friends. Playing with them is fun and relaxing. I also play in the university group, many members of which I barely know. There I am nervous and silent. The effect is significant and a matter of trust (and familiarity). Everything that follows is about the friend group.
As a GM, I am very open about my style and try to avoid secrets and mysteries. Finding something out is not fun part; doing something about it is. I improvise a lot and tell it. I openly take suggestions from players.
This leads to me not having terribly powerful authority. There’s some, of course, and I have hard time dropping out of it when playing among friends. This has at least one significant implication: I offer a lot of feedback and do it directly.
The group is young (and a new person joined yesterday) and there have been no significant personality clashes, thus far.
Tommi – None of that actually prevents you from having authority. Authority has nothing to do with mystery, or keeping secrets. Giving a lot of feedback can actually increase your authority by a lot.
Authority doesn’t mean you’re the boss. When a decision needs to be made, and you make it, authority determines the reaction.
With a well-earned authority, and an earned trust, the players will usually go along with your decision, because they know you know what you’re doing, and they are granting you the authority to make that decision.
jason –
Chatty may not agree with this, but man, it’s like you read my mind. This was at the heart of that topic I mentioned above that I still am not going to write about.
I’ve actually discussed this topic with Chatty at length. We still don’t agree on it completely.
I do use Chatty’s method for more minor issues, still. But for something major that can’t really be ignored, I move straight into this.
This is how I am in life, as well. I will mediate as best I can, but when something is disruptive beyond the normal levels, it will either stop or it will be thrown out.
It’s like the drunk friend at the party. If he’s quiet, and everyone’s having fun, you leave him be, but watch him. If he’s being loud and obnoxious, and may wake the neighbours, you try to settle him down. And if he’s trying to dry-hump your sister, you throw him out on his ass without hesitation. 😀
As an addendum to our prior discussions Graham and about this one in particular… I’ve never actually had outright conflicts break out between players (i.e. not involving me initially) before.
However, I had direct conflicts with a player a few times and I actually ended up throwing a player out of my house once because the argument was turning exceedingly ugly…
I then promised myself never to lose it like that again.
I therefore use ‘Chatty’s method’ for minor issues like you do because major issues have never happened since… Maybe because as a maturing group, we developed more efficient conflict resolution strategies… including my method 🙂
Don’t forget the group hug! Nothing smooths things over like a nice, uncomfortably long group hug.
Whatever rocks your boat dude, I think we’re done here.
Yeah, Chatty. If major problems are common, you’re in the wrong group.
Like you, I will mediate a minor problem.
The biggest difference between us, I think, is our patience with it when it happens during a game. You are more patient, and will take a break to mediate, whereas I have a lower threshold and am more likely stop the issue by asking the player to leave, and then mediate it when it isn’t a game session.
But yeah, we’re probably done here.
We usually start the evening with a few magic game where every one passes it’s aggressivity trying to kill me first. Then arrive Eric who shocks us in some way (like mooning us) then Mat arrives completely drained from his day at work an fits perfectly with the group who’s in state of schock from the latest Eric extravaganza.
At this point we start our game. As you can see ChattyDM’s conflict control strategy works well now if only people could snap out of the daze before the end of the session… 😀
This thread is absolutely addictive! This isn’t the stuff that I normally think about when pondering D&D. Trust . . . fights? Man, I have never encountered any of this stuff. A fight between players? DUDE!!! It’s a game! And it’s easier then playing Nintendo. Would you throw a fit because Gannon keeps killing Link? Well, I have but it doesn’t do you any good.
Fun is the prime motivation for any D&D group isn’t it? If you’ve got a personal problem that throwing dice around can’t solve, then maybe you shouldn’t be there that day? Now I’ve had bad days, my finance is a player as well, and when we have an argument then it sometimes bleeds into the game. And in the game we can do things to each other that we can’t do in the real world . . . like slap each other around with a sword. BTW, did you know that a halfling wearing scale armor doesn’t make that bad of a weapon? It’s hard to specialize in, but if your in a bind you can beat quite a few goblins down with one.
Arguments within the ranks is a normal part of gaming, when encountering a hole that is spooky, common sense will tell you to throw the thief into it. While retreating a wizard can provide just enough food for orcs that allows everybody else to escape. Don’t know what a potion does, and don’t want to pay some joker to tell you, trick the cleric into ingesting it. Want to impress your party by paying for the Inn that day but lack the funds to do it? Well the fighters pouch of gold is usually quite available and it’s kind of like a bank! If you got something that you don’t want to get caught with, the best place to hide it is in the fighters belongings, especially if it’s really heavy.
There is a time and place for perfect teamwork, but there’s also a time and a place to have some fun at somebody else’s expense. Friends do this kind of stuff! We can bore many non-players with funny war stories about games of yore.
Fighters are stupid, wizards are accident prone, thieves are expendable, clerics can’t fight. It’s a free for all unless it’s go time. Getting upset because of a game, well that just sounds like somebody is emotionally unstable and should choose a better hobby . . . like underwater basket weaving.
Most of the time it’s not the in-game personalities that cause conflict. It’s the out-of-game ones. Some personality types just don’t mess well. Chatty, isn’t there some profile for player personality types floating around the RPG blogosphere? I’ve seen it before but I can’t remember where.
Ripper X – The fight, while between players, is rarely about the game.
As friends or acquaintances outside of the game, outside issues are occasionally brought into the session.
For instance, I have three couples in my group. Let’s say one of them had a huge fight at home. This could spill over and cause conflict during game time. Most of the time, you would realise in advance and either not come for a day or just suppress the issue to deal with on your own time.
But you don’t always realise there will be a problem until you’re there. And not everyone is mature enough to deal with it themselves.
Those are the fights we mean.
(While slapping each other around with a sword in-game can help for smaller things, if the participants are actively angry at that point, it can also end up making it worse.)
@Jason: I touched on player motivators (player types) here and the link you refer to is in there.
In our games, the GM is (at best) “first among equals” – he has very little authority. We view roleplaying as a largely collaborative experience, and the GM will happily defer to another player that might know some rules better than he does, or even give over to a better idea of how the terrain should look, and so on. The GM is mostly “responsible” for adjudication and/or scene setting depending on the campaign and the adventure – ideally more of the former than the latter, but if you’ve got some sort of “epic quest” then obviously he’s going to have to be more active.
It’s not uncommon for a GM to be overruled in our games. 🙂
However, I freely confess that this style might be somewhat unusual, and it probably only works with players that have been together for quite some time.
Somewhat unusual, sure. But if the GM is there for, and trusted for, adjudication, that’s the players granting him authority.
Remember, granting the GM authority never prevents them from waiving that authority (and going to a player, or even the whole group, for a ruling). It just allows them to use it when needed.
And more to the point, it means that when the GM does exercise his authority and make a ruling, there will usually be little disagreement.
But a GM can only use his authority to the point that the players allow him. Your GM tends to defer his authority, which is fine, and means he will rarely overstep his bounds. When a GM tries to exercise authority that the players haven’t granted him, well, that’s when we get into the issue of trust.
@Graham: I agree with you on the initial respect and authority. I also think that a lot of that authority comes from the personal background of the GM.
I’m not inclined to put a lot of faith in a GM who is shy. I’m just not. They may make the most beautiful maps and think of the most clever plotlines and the weirdest campaign settings, but first and foremost a GM is a storyteller and a referee, and that requires a certain amount of… Charisma.
Also, I’m more inclined to trust someone more experienced with… life. A forty year old GM who learned about D&D in the army will garner a lot more starting trust and faith than a freshman in college who learned about Rifts his senior year of high school.
As a player I trust GMs that seem willing to work with me. A lot of this starts as early as character creation. I want to be free to spin an interesting backstory and find a way to work it into the game somehow. Basically in a lot of the games I play I’ve done the standard things enough that they aren’t quite as exciting anymore, at least on their own (for D&D this is most of the PHB classes for example). I need a bit of interaction with a GM at chargen to figure out where their comfort zones are in this regard.
When I run games myself I tend to run into trust issues at times. There are two basic occasions when this happens. First off, sometimes people get really rulesy on me and by that I mean they’re downright rules lawyerish. This can be hard to deal with at times especially if they’re taking a grey area of the rules and looking at it with rose colored glasses, insisting that their interpretation is the only way. Even if I agree with them at this point it often feels like I lost the trust of the player to some static words in a book (that almost certainly tells me in some other part to not be bound by what the book itself says and just run a fun game). Or maybe never had it to begin with.
The second thing is a plot device I like to use. In my games there are things that can outperform the PCs. I don’t mind giving them a bloody nose once in exchange for a much more satisfying PC victory down the line. Unfortunately that requires my players to trust me through one conflict where the enemy acquits themselves well and that’s not always a possibility.
I have some ideas for both of these but haven’t run anything in awhile so I haven’t put them into practice yet. Basically I resolved to answer rules questions as they come up in games and not so much between games unless they involve the fundamental workings of the game. I’m going to try and throw some more fluff encounters at my groups as well. I think some of them just want fights that are an easy mop-up at times. I’ll have to experiment with that, don’t want to make it too easy, might get boring.
@Consummate DM: Welcome to the blog and the blogsphere. I think you are right that charisma/extrovertism and experience are key factors in the amount of inherent trust one grants to a new DM.
But as you note on your blog, new DMs are hard to come by and the hobby attracts a lot of introverted people. If we wish to foster more DM/GMs, I think we need to give new DMs more trust/respect than what we instinctively grant and cut them some slack long enough for them to settle in their new role (With some guidance to steer them away from the pitfalls of BAD GMing). I know I have been merciless with my fellow players that have tried the chair… and I probably shouldn’t have.
@Lanir: I think that players don’t want it easy, it’s also boring for them, but they want it ‘possible’. I think they hate a scene where they are pre-destined to fail unless they know in advance it’s hopeless.
But powerlessness in a scenario is definitively on a player’s hate list. You need a very satisfactory release of that frustration in a short time period to pull it off…. but then again it always depends on your own group dynamics.
Some group like it more grim than what we do.
An easy mop-up fight once in a while makes your butt kickers and tacticians happy.
The drifted thread is interesting. There have been times when player level conflicts have damaged and killed games. I don’t think of those as authority contests at all– and, to be honest, I’m as likely to intervene as “friend and host” as GM.
That said, I’m most likely to be too passive; one campaign shut down when people brought their OOC rivalries into the game and gamed their point of view to justify radical conflict within the group. [Which would have been OK in some games, but not a party style game, as we were playing.]
Graham: As the consummate DM said, shyness. I am shy. Not taking direct authority is a way to keep the game going regardless, and usually not making the choice means that there is little possibility of losing authority by being (successfully) challenged.
I have some authority due to being someone who has roleplayed a lot (when compared to some other players). It does not apply to all players, though. All situational.
Man, all the feedback shows that there should be more discussions on these subjects:
Trust in GM vs trust in game (this post is an excellent on on the subject)
GM authority
Conflict Resolution.
I’m a conflict adverse person (especially online) so I’m not sure I could tackle the last in a satisfactory manner.
But I’ll definitively consider the other two.
Good, I’m glad that you’ve changed your position on new DM’s Chatty. The golden rule is that before you can DM you must log off 3-5 years of playing time, playing every class well. This, however, really isn’t as reasonable as it use to be. In order to learn to DM you need players who will support you, and have patience as you learn that side of the game as well.
I like to play, and I have no issues about just trusting the DM blindly, people want to do well. Normally I’ll play a one on one game with a new DM, it’s never a good game, but it is fun because it’s still D&D.
Rules Lawyering, I play an ultra realistic world that takes place on a world that is very close to our own . . . only, you know . . . more exciting. My history is good, however when you’re dealing with a group of history geeks somebody is going to know a little fact that you as the DM aren’t aware of, and sometimes it just doesn’t fit in with your evil plans. My personal rule is that THE STORY WILL BE SERVED ABOVE ALL ELSE!!! But about rules themselves, prior to any encounter where rules are iffy at best, I first describe them and let the players know how we are going to handle this situation. If anybody complains, I listen to them and to their ideas. If they would work better without upsetting the junk that I wrote, or my own strategy, then I’ll use that system instead. However, if I already spent long enough prepping the scene, or if the system that they want to use is just unreasonable (they only got to role for one or two characters, the DM has much more), or if the rules lawyer is always pulling this stuff on a regular basis, then I’ll explain to them that this is the system that I’ve chosen already, and tell them exactly why. Just don’t take to long because the other players want to get this thing going.
-RIP
I agree Rip.
On new DMs: I never actually played 3-5 years….. I basically played in a few games, bought the 1st Edition DMG and been DMing ever since… Maybe I am too hard on new DMs because I don’t actually know HOW to be a player anymore so I just judge based on my experience as a DM…
On Rules Lawyering: We don’t do it much anymore since we know the rules so well… but we have a ‘make your case rapidly, abide to DM’s call, appeal between games and agree on a set ruling for the next time’ strategy that works fine for us… but then again, our mutual trust levels is high. (After playing with some of my players for more than 20 years… it’s to be expected)