Players: Why Do You Play?

Hi. I'm a longtime dungeon master who's never quite seen the appeal of playing. To better understand the game by looking at it from the other side, I'm starting this thread to ask players of D&D and other tabletop games why they play. How long have you been playing? How did you start? What game system and style do you use? Most importantly, why do you play tabletop games rather than fill your time with some other activity? What about tabletop gaming, despite its inconveniences, makes you keep coming back? What emotional significance does the game have to you?

As a hybrid DM and player:

1. About six years, with an actual game going for about one and a half of them.
2. Got D&D from a gaming shop as a celebration of starting university. It may have played a significant role in how badly that initial foray went.
3. I've run D&D and Paranoia, and have a keen interest in Exalted, Nobilis and Eclipse Phase.
4. I haven't actually had a game in quite a while (I'm holding off getting involved in any IRC campaigns until I find out what the workload of my upcoming Distance Ed course is like), but I keep focused on the tabletop because I like how much more flexible it is than CRPG's.
5. "The pictures on radio are always better than the ones on TV."
6. I've had much more interesting ideas discussing RPG's than dealing with videogames. As a guy who likes ideas, that's a keen advantage.

Thanks for posting. Is there a reason you like playing better than dungeon mastering, or vice versa? I love to dungeon master because I come up with rules and worlds, and like to test them out and "make them real" by putting them into games I run. When I play I can't really do this, so I don't like to play very much. Is it different for you?

The thing about being a player is...well, the usual cliche generally holds true: it's fun being Han Solo, Kheldar of Drasnia, Fox Mulder or Zhuge Liang. It's the same thing that draws people to games like Baldurs Gate: you are the hero. It's your job to set things right - to take a stand for what you believe in - or just to sort out a conspiracy in mid-job. For a roleplayer type like me, it also allows you to delve pretty deeply into the motivations of one character rather than having Post-It notes for fifty.

Have you ever tried being the PC, or have you just stuck with being the DM? That's not intended offensively; I'm just curious.

I started P&P RPGing in 2002 and stopped playing it sometime in 2011.

I started because I became aware of it (D&D 3.0) in 2001, and was mostly quite interested. At the time I started, it was an easy way to hang out with friends and shoot the breeze while also playing something. I played almost weekly for about a year, I started playing with a group of first-timers like myself, DMed by the regular DM of a different group, and eventually both groups combined into one super group of between seven and ten players (we're all from the same clique in school). And it was awesome.

We then moved on to 4th when it was released (with a few forays into some White Wolf stuff, mostly with a smaller and different group from the regular). 4th was also excellent, and owing to the changing nature of the group's lives, we moved to a rotating DM policy, as well as moving away from a tight overarching plot arc. While it was still extremely fun in pulpy-ness, there was definitely some fatigue setting in and I was mostly going along to catch up and have beers with friends I don't see on a regular basis any more.

In 4th, it became a running joke that my barbarian could effectively use any given enemy to paint the room it was in, assuming I could get a full round of attacking into it. This, combined with the best mobility of the group, lead to the DMs having to build encounters around me, and apparently making the other strikers feel useless (this was a criticism from the most regular DM, not from the other players), and that I'd effectively 'won the game'. I re-tooled my character to not be as effective, but the concept of scaling back on being good didn't sit right with me, and I stopped playing not too long after that.

I do still get hankering to roll up a character every now and then (though never to actually roll any dice).

P&P is a low-cash investment activity (thus good for students, which explains how I played it pretty regularly during high school and University) that also allows for social interaction (quite important for some).

Nowadays, between Steam sales and my newly-rediscovered resolve to actually paint and assemble my enormous backlog of Warhammer 40,000 models, I don't play any P&P RPGs any longer.

And no, I don't do IRC RPGs. For pretty much the same reason I don't bother with playing Magic online or reading digital versions of books I like: the tactile experience is important to me. The flexibility of a P&P RPG is something that I miss on occasion, though.

Oh, and my stint as DM tends to be either very railroady or completely player-whim-driven (as in I'll run with everything the players do because I'm ad-hoc-ing everything).

All right, that's interesting enough, I'll answer your questions.

I've started playing around twelve years ago, and D Ming shortly after that. I had a previous encounter with tabletop RPG without knowing what it was, a short D&D 2nd edition in solo with a friend as DM.

How did I start? Well, I was living not far away from a game store, and a friend of mine asked me to buy him the D&D 3.0 Monster Manual. Since I had a couple of days before giving him the book, I start reading it... and tried to understand what it was all about. Bear in mind, the first monster in that book was the Aboleth, not exactly the simplest one, and I had no clue what these numbers meant, but I had a blast. My friend asked me to join his game with a couple of friends, replacing the Warhammer games we used to play but didn't really did anymore at the time.

I've played so many systems over the years I can't count them (and that's no hyperbole). Usually, it's something a little complicated, D&D level I'd say, because my friends aren't exactly comfortable with a free-range open roleplay system. Although, I have played many games with very light rules, but I guess that, as a group of geeks, we enjoy reading books and finding little combos and oddities in a game system. It's like Magic the Gathering: half the fun is building the deck.

Why do I play? Mostly because my friends play too. It's always a fun evening when we all get together and crack jokes while playing a good game of any RPG. We don't really play serious or roleplay-heavy games (there's forums for that), we just have a big laugh while punching monsters and create new memes for our group. Although... there was a couple of times when we were really invested in the story, and there was no place for jokes or fooling around. Good times.

Saying I come back to tabletop RPG would be biased: I've never really stopped. I can't really say what appeals to me in that hobby... Really, I can't. It's probably just "my kind of thing" compared to other geeky hobbies. Battle with miniatures are great for a while, but they are expensive and I hate to paint stuff. Card games are even better, I've played competitively for some times, but Crack is Cheaper doesn't even begin to describe it. Online MM Os are quite great, but I'm no man for grinding and get bored quickly, which usually leaves me behind my friends. I've never been much of a gamer, I pretty much stopped after the PS 2. So... really, tabletop RP Gs hit that sweet spot where I never really get tired of it. I've also DM for years, and I was quite good at that, but stepped down a few years back to enjoy just playing them. I DM once in a while, though, it's like changing gear on a bike: it renews the experience.

And I'd say those games pretty much shaped my social life. A large majority of my friends were met during a game, be it tabletop, MMO or card games. Some of them just stayed gaming buddies, but a lot became fully fledged friends that can enjoy anything together. I've even met friends that live far away from me, in a different country (or continent altogether) through gaming. Games are a very social hobby, despite what all the naysayers can tell. It made me go places I've never been before, meet people that would have never crossed my path otherwise, and created a lot of great memories. I'm even considering a professional future in the gaming industry (as a very wide definition of it, maybe not tabletop). People sometimes call me a nerd or don't understand what drives me around those things, but if I had to go back in time and change things, I'll chose games again in a heartbeat. It just gave me too much to let it go.

Oh boy! I can contribute a slightly different tale than everyone else!

What's different about mine? I only started a year and a half ago. I mean, for the longest time I had wanted to play D&D (or any P&P RPG, to be honest) but my ability to interact with others, even from the same sort of social circle, was tragically low. So I just sat at home continuously playing my video games and such.

After a while of doing story-based, freeform Pb P roleplaying (and I do mean a while) I finally made the leap of faith and bought the D&D4e Player's Manual. Aside from that, I began looking at a whole bunch of other systems, mainly free fan-made ones. In fact, I believe my first actual foray into it was a modified D&D4e that was heavily based off of Homestuck, a series I still find a tad too daunting to read. Hell, it started on this very site and carried over into Skype and MapTools.

After that, I was hooked. I've since played/G Med a couple of other systems, namely Star Wars Saga Edition, Legend, and Pokemon Tabletop Adventures. I am a bit embarrassed of my GMing capabilities due to my extreme lack of organization but my real life friends are somehow lazier than me and never seem to want to GM. Honestly, I'd rather play than GM since it gives me the opportunity to not over think things.

What does P&P RPG offer that simple gaming cannot? Iunno. I've had P&P sessions at my house as well as just having a bunch of friends over to play video games and I find that there is a lot more joviality in the former. You aren't (usually) competing against each other. It isn't about skill that you can blame a teammate for. It's just everyone working towards a final goal. That and it is a hell of a lot easier to let your mind go wild and think up crazy jokes and nonsense.

I think the reason P&P means so much to me is just that it really helped me come out of my shell a bit, especially around other nerds/geeks/intellectual badasses. Also, it helped me meet some of my closest online friends and I know that I would never have gotten to meet them if it wasn't for that.

When it comes down to it, P&P is about having fun and enjoying each others company. And whether that is accidentally TP King the party and having to backpedal to explain that it was simply another possibility of the continuum shift or playing a pissed off pirate whose catchphrase became legendary and entered into another player's game which he was GMing, making these moments is why I love P&P.

edited 13th Feb '13 4:51:46 PM by EviIPaladin

"Evii is right though" -Saturn "I didn't know you were a bitch Evii." -Lior Val

It seems like a lot of people are mentioning social aspects, which I'm not exactly happy to hear. I mean, I'm happy that people are responding and giving good reasons, but I'm not happy that this particular reason keeps coming up because I'd always imagined my games meant more to players than a chance to socialize.

A lot of people are talking about recent games, like fourth edition. Newer games aren't particularly enjoyed by my group and not always respected by other D Ms I talk to. (I mostly read blogs that are part of the old school Renaissance.) Newer games are viewed by a lot of people I know as close relatives of video games, with no important choices besides how to make your character, and a stronger tolerance for railroading. These questions aren't meant to be offensive, but simply to understand a gaming style very different from my own: Do you play videogames as well? Do you see videogames and tabletop games as similar, and if so, is that a problem? What do you define as "railroading", and how much impact should player decisions have on the course of the game? What do you get out of gaming that you couldn't get out of playing World of Warcraft with your friends? Some people have already answered some of these questions in their posts, but I find the topics interesting and I'd like to explore them in more detail, if possible.

Not too many people here seem very interested in hardcore role playing. If anyone does have an interest, could you answer some questions? Personally, I've never been very good at it and never particularly seen the appeal. I can count on one hand the number of times I even did a voice for an NPC that wasn't just a joke to entertain my friends. I'm very curious about a style of play so totally different from my own. How did you get into roleplaying? Did you start out with acting, public speaking, or writing and move into tabletop games from there? Are you currently involved in any acting projects? Do you even see RPG roleplaying as at all similar to acting? Would you ever play or have you ever played in a group where nobody roleplayed at all?

To everyone: What mediums, genres, or works of art do you draw inspiration from? Old fashioned pulp fantasy, historical fiction, wargames, computer tactics games, painting, mmorpgs, music, or anything else? Do you see D&D/tabletop games as an art form? Are you an artistic person, and does your art directly or indirectly influence your games?

Sorry for the huge list of questions. Feel free to ignore any you can't or don't want to answer. Also, I apologize if I offend any "new school" players or roleplayers, I just have a lot of questions because these styles are different from my own.

Thanks for all the responses so far.

@Doru: I have tried being a PC, but I find it hard to stay focused. It's so much waiting compared to the constant activity as DM, and it takes away the main joy of the game for me, which comes from planning and running the worlds I imagine.

• Edited for grammar

edited 13th Feb '13 8:05:53 PM by Snout

This might answer some of your questions.

Personally, it is the fluid nature of the narrative in tabletops that attract me. A simulationist system like Dn D and Wo D are fun to do in my head, but when played out it feels too much like a wargame. I don't particularly care for when is the right time to throw magic missile or the exact spot to land a Fireball in order to hurt the enemy most and allies the least, in the same way as I don't care for my characters to get up and wash their faces/ going to the bathroom/ other minor stuff. I'd rather sit back, act as my character, and see and feel what happens to him/her. It's a bit like acting, but minus the script and you get to be entirely immersed as a character. I personally do not do acting, and role-playing is the closest to it as I will ever get.

If I feel like a more strategic kind of game I'd go and play Mordheim.

edited 13th Feb '13 9:54:49 PM by IraTheSquire

Serious roleplaying I can do online. In real life? Not so much. Doesn't help that I've only GMed in real life and never played a character and that my friends would never take it seriously.

And it is a hell of a lot more than just the social aspects. In fact, most of the social aspects of it come from the game itself. Whether it is getting insanely hyped up over a lucky crit or laughing at how ridiculous someone's plan might be or wondering why the party hasn't tried to secretly kill the rogue yet. The experience gives the group jokes and tales that help them grow together. I mean, to this day, my friends tell me every time they hear the phrase "red and terrible" because of a really shitty job I did as a GM once.

Honestly, P&P gives a hell of a lot more options than video games. Like, keeping with the example I've tied myself to, my Star Wars group was nothing that you would find in a movie or video game. At least, not a good one. We had a drunken Jedi with mommy issues, a lecherous noble who claimed he was a lich named Justice, a pissed off cat-warrior with a jetpack, a James Bond wannabe rogue who actually got physically aroused by new information, an asthmatic ex-cop who had a thing for punching people, and an ace pilot who liked making sound effects. Seriously. Such a bizarre cast could only occur through a concerted group effort to create the most disjointed group possible. You can't get that live of weird in a video game. At least, I hope not.

That sort of freedom to create and destroy and edit and change and use 'and' a lot is pretty much only going to be found in P&P. That is, being able to do so as a group. I mean, sure you can write your own novel or screenplay. But something this bizarre has to be from more than one person.

And that is why I love P&P. I think.

"Evii is right though" -Saturn "I didn't know you were a bitch Evii." -Lior Val

Well, it's a chance to socialise, as well as doing some Truly Awesome Stuff, right? Plus engaging with a (hopefully) well-written and well-designed world.

I agree with your assessment (at least as far as 4th is concerned, as I have no experience with any other new system), though I personally do not see a shift closer to video games as actually being a bad thing. The biggest example I can think of is the mechanical incentives/penalties built into the tanking classes in order to actually have them tank, which I found to actually be quite good.

I do, and more video games than P&P RPGs (I'm narrowing your question down a bit, since I consider both Warhammer and Magic to be tabletop games too). I do see them as quite similar (and I find that as a system designer and/or a DM, one would be best served by being immersed in both), and it is not a problem. Both media can inform each other pretty well.

When I used railroading to refer to my own DM style, I meant that my party was going to play through what I'd written, no two ways about it, because I did not want them to do something else. This is linked to the fact that we had a DM rotation. Were it not for the rotation, I would (and have) spend much more time building non-linearity into my campaigns, as I do actually think that player decisions should actually be on the same level as the DM's decisions.

The non-linearity. Using the system's rules to do things outside of the box. Here's a detailed (and possibly ramble-icious) example:

• We were fighting a vampire in a stalagmite/stalactite-riddled cave, with his stone coffin in the centre.
• I asked my DM if it would be possible for me to push the vampire into his coffin if I succeeded at a grapple check, and was told yes.
• I did it, and used an action point to close the coffin on him.
• I used an item to get another action, which I used to (after a big Strength check and expending a Rage power) lift the coffin and slam it down on top of a stalagmite, impaling the vampire in his own coffin.
• The party wizard then set the coffin on fire.

Unless the encounter was strictly written that way in a video game, none of that would have been possible. I will also say that P&P RPGing has been the source of far more in-jokes for my group of friends than anything else.

You'll need to define 'hardcore' roleplaying for me. Because we did voices all the time. We tried our best to stay in-character, and mostly succeeded. Though in 4th, some of the newer players we got in had trouble role-playing and staying in-character, this was largely mitigated by the campaign setting we were playing in (and the twists we added, between the rotating DMs and the more medium-aware players).

I didn't start out with any dramatic or performance background. I was a fairly decent writer at the time (not so much now due to just not writing anything). I see good roleplaying as being very similar to acting. I have definitely played in a group where nobody roleplayed as all, and I would do it again. I found though, that as soon as one person starts doing it, the others will follow suit. The only variable is how long it takes the others to follow suit.

All of the above. Plus movies and TV, as well as a whole lot of pop culture and memes. You'll be surprised how applicable anything can be with a little bit of thought.

The creation/conception certainly would be an artform. The playing would (to me) only be an artform if the player was roleplaying well (note that this does not mean the player had to also act well). I myself would lay more claim to being creative than being artistic.

Phew, what a wall of text! Sorry.

@Ira the Squire: Interesting answer. The GNS theory seems very applicable to what I've heard so far. People answering that they like the tactical elements or the roleplaying answers the question of why people play games that I would have no interest in. It's because they're interested in the game for entirely different reasons. According to the theory I'm a simulationist, and that seems to make sense. I think the theory could explain the "edition wars" and some other debates among gamers. Maybe a lot of people play different evolutions of the same early games because they liked liked completely different things in the first place.

@Evi: I'm interested in hearing more about your experience as dungeon master. Is it basically just an obligation, or do you get something out of it you don't from playing? If you had more confidence in your skills, would you be the dungeon master more often? If someone else agreed to permanently run your group's games, would you happily give up the job, or try to hold onto it at all?

@disruptorfe: Thank you very much for your wall of text! I love how thoroughly you're answering my questions. About the definition of hardcore roleplaying, well... you know better than I do, because any actual roleplaying whatsoever is more than what my group does 90% of the time. Is there any level you consider to be too much or too little? If I invited you to a game and laughed whenever you talked in character, would it be a deal breaker?

I've asked my players to write long essay form responses to this question, which I will post on my blog this week. If anyone on this thread wants to respond on my blog or just see what my players have to say, they can do so here: https://alonzocredanzo.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/why-do-players-play/

I've been having an argument with a certain blogger about the potential usefulness of player feedback, and he's put together a fairly convincing case that it has very little value in actually improving the game. I still find this very interesting academically, even if it won't help me much. Be warned that if you post on my blog, there is a small chance that you will attract negative attention from him or his followers.

If you want to see the argument, you can do so at this blog in the posts and comments from February 12th, to February 14th: http://tao-dnd.blogspot.com/

I recommend that you do. He makes a lot of very interesting and well reasoned points that are enjoyable to read, even if you disagree with them. I wouldn't suggest broaching the subject with him though, as I think he's had enough of it.

I got up to the part where he was claiming that all RPG players are primarily interested in being gargantuan tools, and nope. That's nonsense. Why are you listening to this person?

Well he was obviously being a huge asshole, but so was I. His main point is that people more educated on a subject are much better at expressing opinions on it, and that uneducated people will even change their opinions simply to make them easier to express. If you watch the entire 48 minute video, the speaker gives several examples to back up this claim.

The next part of his point is that dungeon masters tend to be more knowledgeable about the game than players, and that if a player really does care about the game, they will eventually try running it, so they won't count as "players" according to my definition.

Then, he went on to do a post about improvised jazz music, which I didn't exactly understand because I haven't played music since middle school band class. I thought his examples actually supported my idea in some cases here, but overall he'd supported himself well and I decided I was done arguing.

If you read some of my initial comments on the post "No Such Thing As A Free Lunch", you'll see that I was quite rude and dramatically overstated the significance of my idea. To some degree I was intentionally baiting him into discussing it with me, to make sure my idea was heard. Based on the account I gave of my experiment, he drew a lot of conclusions about me that I don't like to think are fully accurate. But, if you look at my first few comments, it's not hard to see how he got those impressions.

He's a very arrogant and abrasive person, but I respect him because of his ability to think through a problem and state his case logically. He wrote several thousand words in response to my comments, but from nicer bloggers I'm lucky to get a fraction of that. I don't exactly like him, but I respect him and his opinions.

Listen to the players, but never give them everything they want. You have to make them work for things. Instant gratification is boring. However, don't ignore them to the point of destroying the group.

Your job as a story-teller is to make sure everyone has fun. Not to be a pretentious douche. If you remember that, you'll do fine.

edited 14th Feb '13 6:36:23 PM by DrTentacles

Hmm... I draw the line at LARPing, personally. I mean, I understand that they have rules and mechanics behind the scenes, but there's something about that actually detracts from roleplaying for me. It might be the fact that (owing to safety issues) they have to dial back on swinging at people and such, which to me seems counter to going to all that effort. This is probably why I have no issue with airsoft and the like, even though it's basically just a different kind of LARP.

And it depends on the kind of laugh. But mostly it'd be fine. A lot of the people I played with put on some truly hilarious voices when speaking in-character.

EDIT: Also, my stance is very similar to . Related to whoever this other person you're talking about is talking about; just because they can't express themselves well doesn't mean that they're incapable of insight or offering suggestions of improvement.

edited 14th Feb '13 7:16:45 PM by disruptorfe404

Hm, perhaps the blogger really wasn't being all that logical. He doesn't credit players with much introspection or self awareness. I've been getting a lot of great responses here. Nothing that will singularly change the game forever, but a lot of reflective, intelligent, logical posts. And when someone doesn't know the answer to a question, they often honestly state that they don't. I don't think he'd guess anyone would do that.

Anyway, I ended the conversation with him and I'm not very interested in starting it again here. It's very hard to compress several days and thousands of words of correspondence into a few paragraphs, so anyone interested should go straight to his blog.

http://tao-dnd.blogspot.com/

I've been playing for a bit under a decade now. I play D&D, World of Darkness, GURPS, Pathfinder, an old game you've never heard of called Dragon Quest, Shadowrun, FATE, and Legend, and I like but haven't got any good chances to play Cthulhu Tech and the new line of 40K games. I also LARP. Furthermore, I am a (newbish) GM; I have G Md campaigns of Legend and am starting a FATE campaign. I got started playing in fifth grade; I was, as always, the new kid, a title which came with moving every year or so, and I chanced upon some kids rolling dice on a table and mentioning something about a meteor storm. I observed a bit and have been hooked ever since.

I roleplay because it's fun. It's the funnest thing on Earth to me. I don't think tabletop gaming is remotely inconvenient; it's hard to put a group together, sure, but I'm hardly going to mope about not having a group when I lack one, unless it's Bullshit-Over-Some-Jaeger-With-Bates-Day, which is a holiday celebrated at least twice a month in this house. But when a group is had, holy hell is it fun. I like roleplaying because I like roleplaying, as in the acting portion; I like socialisation, and all the fun things gamers bullshit about; and I like a well-made combat system that flows smoothly and allows room to narrate awesome battles. Basically, I'm a roleplayer to the core, but I like roleplaying people who kick ass, and describing how ass is getting kicked. Roleplaying holds emotional significance for me in a rather odd way; of course it's a thign to do with friends, it's fun, etc etc., but I also like the traditions and superstitions. I like comparing book collections, I like dice, I like bullshitting about old games, and I like in-jokes. The weird quirks that make gamers gamers are just as much a part of roleplaying as the game itself.

I play video games on occasion; no, I don't see them as similar. Usually. I can get into a good, solid RPG*

. I also like real-time strategy games, and action games like Dark Souls. I'm pretty good at Halo, also, at least when I'm not sober.

Railroading is a very nebulous term. It can be used to mean, in essence, undermining a player's autonomy over their character. You can avoid railroading by simply giving good reasons for things, rather than saying "no, you can't do that." One handy trick I picked up from a GM I once had, Dusty, is to do things like have a character who is about to do something monumentally stupid roll a Perception check or suchlike. Even if they fail, it's more about letting the player know something's off without forcing anything from them. A smart player will back down after that- and they'll feel like it's them doing it. That said, player choice is important. It's what makes a tabletop game much, much better than any other media ever could come close to being, if done well. What separates tabletop gaming from a multi-player roleplaying video game, in my mind, boils to two things: one, the freedom of customising everything to an unprecedented degree, and two, player choice having an impact. The fact of tabletop games being a different experience every time also has much importance; a video game will be mostly the same, unless it's very, very well done, but a tabletop game will be different every time.

I would consider myself a "hardcore" roleplayer, yes; I see my characters as characters, not avatars; living, breathing beings with their own motivations and vices. I incorporate props whenever I can, and use my skill in acting to impart emotion into my characters- which is generally well-received.

I did start off acting, yes; I've been acting since I was around six, off and on, and I seem to have a natural talent for it. I do see roleplaying as being similar to acting- specifically, improv acting. Trying to figure out within a split second what your character would do or say, and how he/she would say it. I can safely say I would never play in a non-roleplaying group. I'm fine with newbies (a thing which surprises most people); I just don't like people who have been gaming for years and refuse to try and roleplay. That's the whole point of gaming.

I draw inspiration from a bit of lots of things. Fantasy, sci-fi, history (not historical fiction, real history), and definitely music. (When I GM, I make heavy use of appropriate music for situations.) I would consider myself to be somewhat artistic. I see roleplaying (and GMing) as an art form when done correctly, yes.

Mura: -flips the bird to veterinary science with one hand and Euclidean geometry with the other-

Those are really good and really tough questions, but I'll give it a shot.

It is partially an obligation, mainly because no one else in my friend group wants to GM. That being said, there are definitely parts of GMing that gives me a great deal of joy. It lets me write a setting for the game to take place in. It lets me create a large group of bit characters who can be every bit as human as the main characters. It lets me do so much. But that's the catch; it also requires me to do a lot. GMing is a hell of a lot of work, which is where my lack of organization kicks me in the ass.

Which segways nicely into your second question. I would definitely run more games if I had the ability and talent to do so. But I wouldn't want to do it exclusively. Much as being a GM allows you to do and enjoy things you can't as a player, being a player has some great stuff that you miss out on as a GM. Less work and the ability to focus on developing a single character are just a few examples.

Finally, I think that question isn't how you phrased it. I play a ton of different systems and am willing to GM an equal amount. If my group were willing, I'd happily run one campaign in one system and have someone else GM another campaign. Variety is the spice of life, after all.

"Evii is right though" -Saturn "I didn't know you were a bitch Evii." -Lior Val

These are fascinating, logical responses that I would never have given myself. I have to say I'm very happy with how this thread is going.

@Exelixi: Thank you very much for your response. I agree with your assessment of railroading. There definitely are times when the DM needs to nudge player decisions, but if it really is necessary, it shouldn't be too hard to explain. I also think it's fair to hold players to plans they make. In my current game, the entire group including me is sick of the area the game is currently in, and it's agreed that they will migrate soon. The thing is, there are four interesting hooks in all four directions, but nothing I've thoroughly planned yet. When the players pick a direction, I will expect them to stick with it, because it will be the one I planned for. On the subject of roleplaying, I have two questions, if you're willing to write more: First, how large of a responsibility is there on the DM to roleplay well? If a DM has no acting skills and doesn't like creating characters, do you think they have any business running games? Second, or well third I guess, do you feel you develop a bond with other people through roleplaying together? Do you know them better through their characters? I feel that in a certain sense I learn a lot about my friends when I see them in game ignoring roleplaying and being themselves. My opinion is that the truest immersion happens when you simply are your character, and that this is easier to achieve by leaving the character as a blank slate for the player to project themselves upon than by asking my friends to act. I disagree completely with your statement that roleplaying is the point of gaming, and that's why I'm absolutely fascinated by your answer and hop you post more.

@Evi: Thanks for answering so many of my questions. I promise I'll stop asking you things eventually. But for now, could you speak a bit more about how D Ming "lets me create a large group of bit characters who can be every bit as human as the main characters"? Is this a very important part of it to you? Like I asked Exelixi, would you consider a DM to be bad if they didn't work on roleplaying and developing characters? I've never really done that, and I'm wondering if it might be a serious flaw. I hate to use Godwin's Law on myself, but my games sometimes remind me of Hitler's paintings, which were semi competent but unoriginal renderings of architecture and landscapes, with a disturbing lack of people of any detail. Another question for you, which is different from the original topic but that I hope you'll answer anyway: How much enjoyment do you take from planning games? If you cold somehow run games of normal quality without planning, would you? Because for me, the planning is often much more fun than the playing. In fact, you could almost say my games are experiments to see how well my plans have worked. Is this at all similar to your experience? I know my questions are getting rather strange, personal, and off topic. If you don't want to answer, that's fine. You've given me a lot of good information already.

I forgot to respond to someone in my last post.

@Dr Tentacles: I notice you use the term "storyteller" instead of "dungeon master". Why do you prefer this term? Do you consider the game to be a story told by the DM? What is your opinion of nonlinear or player directed games? You say the primary job of the person running the game is to make sure people have fun. How do you define fun? Do you think the DM ever has the right to do something their players dislike? Is the DM closer to an entertainer, or an artist pursuing a creative vision? How much patience should the DM expect from players? Like in film, is there a sliding scale between the cheap thrills level of twenty minute action packed TV episodes and three hour silent Russian dramas that are supposedly "deeper", but also often considered "boring"? How far from their comfort zones should a DM push their players, if at all? I know you probably weren't expecting a a whole paragraph of questions, but I find the interview format fascinating and I would appreciate it very much if you responded. If anyone else wants to answer these questions too, feel free.

That's probably because he's just used to the White Wolf stuff where the GM is called "storyteller". In the same way as somebody used to World system will call G Ms "Master of Ceremony" or MC, Dungeon Master for old-school Dn D, etc.

edited 15th Feb '13 5:45:04 PM by IraTheSquire

Haha, it probably is. I seem to be overthinking things lately. Still, it's an interesting question: what term best defines the role of the dungeon master/game master/referee/storyteller/whatever else it's called, and why? Everything I've come across seems a little bit awkward, like the different words for gender neutral singular pronouns. I use "DM" because it's the oldest and most official sounding, but my games aren't particularly focused on dungeons.

I favour GM. It's the least loaded term I could find.

(That or Hollyhock God, but that's pretty niche as terms go.)

Oh, hoo boy.

I'm a somewhat new GM. I've been gming for two years, and been playing tabletop games for around five.

I use the term Storyteller both because of the White Wolf connotations. (Currently I'm running a NWOD and an Exalted Game), and also because my secondary goal, besides "have fun" in a game (and this is me personally) is to tell a story. I enjoy fleshing out a world, making interesting places an character and situations, and letting players run loose. I'll often bend/even break the rules if I think it'll be a more interesting or fun experience, because I consider rules secondary to that goal.

I'll accept it's not everyone style. I've got one or two rules monkeys in my group, but as one my favorite sayings go, all the GM's dice are blank. I'll hold the rules as much as I can, because we need that framework, but when that framework gets in the way of fun/telling a good story, I tend to ignore in favor of what I think will be cool. This doesn't mean I don't put my players through the wringer. I try to make it so they have to work for their victories, but I don't try to be pointlessly cruel. I like them to feel good/clever about figuring out a way to defeat some fiendish situation I've put them in.

And I will punish them (realistically/within reason) if they screw up. (Though I tend to be merciful when it's just the Random Number God having a bad day.)

I think it's acceptable to do things player will dislike, but you should do them if you honestly think, in the long run, that it'll be more fun if you do them. Without players, you don't have a game. For me, they're the core of the game. An example is my current Exalted campaign, where, by a strict reading of the rules, they've got there hands on stuff that amounts to instant-win buttons. (Even more than the standard Exalted level.) I've houseruled them to be toned down, simply because instantly winning everything, although fun, doesn't make a good gaming experience. It gets boring fast. They didn't like, but they understood what I was doing and why I'd do it.

Another good example is asking a player to tone their character down to avoid overshadowing the group. I have a player who's a rule junky, and min-maxed out the gate. He was massively outshining the other players, so I asked him to tone it down, and told him in exchange, I'd make sure to come up with some creatures to specifically challenge him. Player's aren't always going to be this good. I've got a really good group, I'll admit. But I'd rather keep people happy (possibly in the long run) than make it all about ME as a Storyteller.

I think you should push people's comfort zones, but not break them. I try to get the players that are less comfortable at role-playing to at least try some, and enjoy placing people in situations that, although they're not necessarily prepared for, they have a chance to shine at least.

I guess my main theory is that you should always work *with* your players, rather than against them. Feel free to change things around, push their limits, and challenge them, but don't treat it as a contest.

EDIT: Also, my Exalted campaign is mostly free-roam. They decide what to do, and if they look paralized by indecision, I'll toss them a plot hook. (Sometimes I do that anyway) but mostly I just let them decide on a course of action, and have it planned out ahead of time a general idea of what will await them in that direction. Their original starting goal was literally "Conquer the East of Creation" (For reference, that's a landmass roughly the size of Asia.) I do tend to favor Schrodingers Choice when there's a plot element I desperately want to introduce, however.

edited 15th Feb '13 7:05:11 PM by DrTentacles