So, here’s part one of the GM as God series. This article is pragmatic and tip-filled. I’m going to jump around between straightforward business and the Art, though.
Let’s get started.
Though the forceful GM looms large in the imagination like a petulant god, the truth is that many GMs don’t use force wisely. GMs have access to more force in the game system, have more information about the game system and are part of a social setup where you have to listen to them – but they often miss the opportunity to learn what the players are thinking.
It reminds me of playing at Tai Chi push hands. Push hands is an exercise where you try to maintain constant contact with the other person with the end goal of staying balanced while knocking the other person of balance. It’s easy for larger guys like me (I’m 6’5″) to use physical strength to just blow through your partner, but there’s always a bigger or more skillful guy. You can’t improve without learning to sense pressure as well.
But this isn’t about “Yielding to get your way, Maaaan.” Tai Chi players sometimes fall into dysfunctional ideas about power. You need to push, too. You need to learn from that response. Otherwise you have two weak people barely making contact and falling into fixed patterns.
Yeah, so it is with GMing. You have incredible power, but you need to use it to draw out information. Here are three examples, techniques, whatever – just read ‘em:
What’s Your Intention?
One of the most common destructive patterns in game play happens when players treat their characters’ inner lives as a secret from the GM. That’s when you get a surprising “I stab Ally McBuddy in the back!” and grumbling that quiets down as soon as you look at the player in question. Get in there and ask the player what her character is thinking, what her hopes and dreams are – they should have no secrets from you. If the player wants to keep it a secret, stick to email or private conversations.
Stop thinking of yourself as the World and NPC Guy alone. Your dominion goes right into the characters’ heads. This also helps players by getting them to better define their characters.
Opinion Polls
I figure that about half of your mistakes are going to feel like they’re going to be a screwup before you even do anything. You have the power to stop at that point and get player feedback. This is especially handy when it comes to difficult bits of the rules that intersect with very subjective aspects of play. For instance, I almost always do this before pushing a Morality check in World of Darkness games, because the system really does rely on a community standard of what’s right, wrong and psychologically taxing.
A word of caution: Don’t provide an easy channel for player gratification here. People do not always want the same thing in the long term as they do in the short term, and sometimes suffering is necessary for a meaningful session. Save this one for when you’re genuinely stumped. Also, this is not a vote. You can’t use democracy. As GM, it’s your job to build participatory consensus. Note that I said “participatory.” That means that nobody “stands aside.” They all get on board.
Post-Game Notes
Many groups automatically fall into a post-game bull session about what worked and what didn’t. Add some structure and detail to this. Elicit opinions and manage the spotlight so that everyone has room to provide detailed feedback. It’s a good idea to jot questions down before the session or while it’s happening, but once the session’s over use these as an inspiration, not a list. Otherwise, the post-game chat feels like tedious work, when it really should be an extension of normal socializing.
In a troubled group this kind of thing can generate recriminations. I have to admit I can’t tell you much about what to do here since I haven’t experienced this since I was a teenager. The best solution, I think is never to leave any feedback hanging without a constructive solution that draws upon the responsible party’s strengths. It’s your job to observe and suggest those. Players are often not aware of their own merits.
You are the godlike GM. You are omniscient, but sometimes you talk before you can listen. That’s your duty and privilege. Take the role of a benevolent inquisitor and get to it.
I’ve found the casual bull session can be a much more open conversation than trying to directly elicit feedback from players.
“So what do you think?” tends to garner nods and vague murmurs of agreement, unless a player was really, really unhappy with something.
Do you have any general purpose questions a GM can ask to break the critiquing ice?
You know, I think I’ll write an article to follow up on that.
I’d go with “So, last session when happened, you guys seemed sort of pissed about how that went down. What do you think went wrong?”
Of course, you can only do this if a) they’re honest and b) they were generally miffed about how things worked out. I’d definitely follow Malcolm’s advice about having a solution prepared, but be flexible with that solution because they might be ticked about something completely different that may catch you off-guard.
In fact, Malcolm missed the session of my game where I did something similar to my players except *I* was the one explaining what they could do to help me out.
I philosophically agree with you. It is key to listen to players. When the scenario is complicated they will discuss their theories. Sometimes they come up with a better one than I did and I have sometimes adopted their plot theory as the actual reality so they feel like they figured it out. This makes it more of a collaborative storytelling game even though they do not know that I did this.