Advice/Help GM's that don't play

[Blue Aisle]

I've recently played a RP where the GM was just the GM. They didn't have a player character and is just there to facilitate the roleplay. They introduced events, encounters, and new locations. I actually really enjoyed it. That being said, my GM was very, very good at writing immersive settings and NPCs, he also gave us morally challenging situations to deepen our characters. I do realize that kind of GM is hard to come by.

On RPnation though I haven't seen this kind of RP. How do you guys think about it? Do you think it's better to have the GM be an active character? One problem I've seen with this kind of GMing (and every type tbh) is people not bringing stuff to the table and expecting GMs to do everything. They only react, and are never proactive. There was one point where my GM got pissed and told off one guy to decide for himself what he finds in the treasure room.

Guy: opens the door to the king's treasury
Everyone else: waiting to see what he finds
-------long time later-------
GM: What did you find?
Guy: I don't know, what did I find?
GM: Choose something.
Guy: You didn't give me a list.

Which one do you prefer? Any tips if I want to run a no character GM roleplay?

 

[official clown business]

I have no tips, but y'know, I was thinking this exact thing when I first looked at 1x1s here. I don't believe I've ever done a one-on-one where it's between two characters, and I don't see myself doing one of those anytime soon. Something about that 'character x character' deal throws me off for whatever reason.

Outside of this forum, I have been in several one-on-ones where the GM does exactly as you described, and damn were some of them great. I certainly wouldn't mind being a part one of those again.

 

[Blue Aisle]

The one on one concept is interesting. I've only tried with a group and now I want to try 1x1 with a GM xD. I think the reason why 1x1 characters is difficult (at least for me), is because it's a pain to pull the plot forward, and there's no element of surprise since you discuss everything with your partner anyways.

 

[Idea]

If I'm not mistaken the kind of GMing you describe is common one in many classic tabletop RPGs, namely DnD. And it can certainly be a pretty exciting way of telling a story. I never tried it, though I believe even if I had, I would still prefer the other kind though.

First of all, credit where it's due by no means is GMing without using characters yourself bad. It's a lot less work if you don't have to worry about the character on top of your work as a GM and I might even recommend it to new people looking to try out GMing a roleplay, since it can help make a distinction (which many unfortunately find hard) between the person as a GM and the person as a player. While in the common kind of GMing here in RPN involves character usage many confuse their interests as a player with their aim as a GM which is the primary reason for bad GMing in my opinion and to my knowledge. However, because you are not, effectively, a player in the kind of GMing we are discussing here, you can much more easily detach from that and focus on providing a good and fun plot, world and so on... Speaking of which, those can get much more detailed in some cases, than in the other kind and last but least, no-character Gming makes it easier for the plot to adapt to the new characters as the kind of mindset people go into it with is one of exploration of the world, rather than necessarly the following of a linear plot.

However, it's not all fun and games either. You're already mentioned the risk of players relying too much on the GM by default, but it can also easily go the other way around. The GM's interests will naturally have to be pretty attached to the world or plot they created and they may grow unable to adapt of simply not go in a particular direction. The rules will easily be nonsensical as well, as the GM will have a harder time understanding the rules they set for their players as they are not the ones experiencing them.

But the biggest issue with no-character GMing is precisely when that doesn't happen, and why it's not that popular in here. That has to do with one of if not the biggest reason why anyone becomes a GM: They want to make the roleplay about and how they like to participate in. The roleplay they would have liked to participate in if it existed without them having to make it, but now that they did make it, they have to GM it. How is this an issue? Well, have you ever had one of those interactions where nothing seems to go where you want it to? You say something hoping for a particular response and time and time again the other person says something else and it just kinda stings a little? Gming without a character of your own is pretty much like that, all the time, unless you are tyranizing your players into doing the actions you dictate for them. Players will more often than not have the same perspective you have, and will have different interests. The things you wanted to bring and create may never see the light of day and worse, you don't get to experience what you love either unless the players are doing it for you, which as established, rarely happens anywhere near the depth at whcih you would have liked it.

And on top of that, you find yourself on a roleplaying site without actually roleplaying yourself.


By nature, the things you like are robbed from you in that kind of GMing. Does it have to be like that every time? No, no it doesn't. But it's still too risky without an established group of friends to do it with and one which is willing to do it to begin with. In fact, unless you adore the world you made to the point of just wanting to share eveyr last corner of it, half the incentive is gone. Even at that point, one my wonder why not just write a book?

So I guess that's my preference and my advise. Use these types of rps as tests for somehting else, like to experiement GMing if you're new, or if you think you want to diverte your attention to other aspects of the roleplay. Don't start one of them unless you love worldbuilding to death. And make sure to spell out for the players what will or not be up to them or up to you in great detail.

 

[CabalAnomicPotato]

The common missconseption, it that just because the GM creates and regulates the world, doesnt exactly mean they're god per say, the gm regulates and rules according to their self set guidelines, but most gms love an amersive story just as much as the player. Gms ultimatly are above players, they make the rules and control the story, but when it comes to contributing to the story, the gm should really only do half. If the gm controls everything, the story feels boring, stale, and predictable, if the players control the story, the plot is broken, the rules are usually disgarded, and no one is really comming together for the untimate story line.
So, to sum things up
Advice: be cooperactive.

 

[Blue Aisle]

If I'm not mistaken the kind of GMing you describe is common one in many classic tabletop RPGs, namely DnD. And it can certainly be a pretty exciting way of telling a story. I never tried it, though I believe even if I had, I would still prefer the other kind though.

First of all, credit where it's due by no means is GMing without using characters yourself bad. It's a lot less work if you don't have to worry about the character on top of your work as a GM and I might even recommend it to new people looking to try out GMing a roleplay, since it can help make a distinction (which many unfortunately find hard) between the person as a GM and the person as a player. While in the common kind of GMing here in RPN involves character usage many confuse their interests as a player with their aim as a GM which is the primary reason for bad GMing in my opinion and to my knowledge. However, because you are not, effectively, a player in the kind of GMing we are discussing here, you can much more easily detach from that and focus on providing a good and fun plot, world and so on... Speaking of which, those can get much more detailed in some cases, than in the other kind and last but least, no-character Gming makes it easier for the plot to adapt to the new characters as the kind of mindset people go into it with is one of exploration of the world, rather than necessarly the following of a linear plot.

However, it's not all fun and games either. You're already mentioned the risk of players relying too much on the GM by default, but it can also easily go the other way around. The GM's interests will naturally have to be pretty attached to the world or plot they created and they may grow unable to adapt of simply not go in a particular direction. The rules will easily be nonsensical as well, as the GM will have a harder time understanding the rules they set for their players as they are not the ones experiencing them.

But the biggest issue with no-character GMing is precisely when that doesn't happen, and why it's not that popular in here. That has to do with one of if not the biggest reason why anyone becomes a GM: They want to make the roleplay about and how they like to participate in. The roleplay they would have liked to participate in if it existed without them having to make it, but now that they did make it, they have to GM it. How is this an issue? Well, have you ever had one of those interactions where nothing seems to go where you want it to? You say something hoping for a particular response and time and time again the other person says something else and it just kinda stings a little? Gming without a character of your own is pretty much like that, all the time, unless you are tyranizing your players into doing the actions you dictate for them. Players will more often than not have the same perspective you have, and will have different interests. The things you wanted to bring and create may never see the light of day and worse, you don't get to experience what you love either unless the players are doing it for you, which as established, rarely happens anywhere near the depth at whcih you would have liked it.

And on top of that, you find yourself on a roleplaying site without actually roleplaying yourself.


By nature, the things you like are robbed from you in that kind of GMing. Does it have to be like that every time? No, no it doesn't. But it's still too risky without an established group of friends to do it with and one which is willing to do it to begin with. In fact, unless you adore the world you made to the point of just wanting to share eveyr last corner of it, half the incentive is gone. Even at that point, one my wonder why not just write a book?

So I guess that's my preference and my advise. Use these types of rps as tests for somehting else, like to experiement GMing if you're new, or if you think you want to diverte your attention to other aspects of the roleplay. Don't start one of them unless you love worldbuilding to death. And make sure to spell out for the players what will or not be up to them or up to you in great detail.

Thanks for the insights. These help a lot. I didn't really think about the players taking things into their own hands and frustrating the GM, I've never experienced that personally. I seem to be plagued with groups of lazy rp'ers instead. The DnD is great, to be honest, but the complexity and extensive stats needed to build a character kind of turns me off, it just seems overwhelming. It's just that a lot of roleplays (I'm talking 8/10 here) gets stale because no new stuff on the table. Having a dedicated GM can fix that problem.

I suppose there's a fine line of balance. The GM should provide tools to advance the plot, but which direction the plot goes is up to the players. I agree that a GM who is super strict about his lore would not be fun to play with either, because there's little room for creativity from the players. I struggle with this myself, when I play a GM and a character, I wonder to what extent should I pull the story, while still maintaining that equality between my character and others.

Interestingly, I did ask that GM why he enjoyed doing this. I told him I loved his writing and that he could write a book with this plot, but he said having people play his story is much more exciting because it takes the plot places he never thought before. That's what's fun for him.

My problem is that I'm stuck in an awkward place. I like a rp that's kind of like DnD... but not DnD. It's similar but with much more focus on writing and character development, and little emphasis on actual combat.

The common missconseption, it that just because the GM creates and regulates the world, doesnt exactly mean they're god per say, the gm regulates and rules according to their self set guidelines, but most gms love an amersive story just as much as the player. Gms ultimatly are above players, they make the rules and control the story, but when it comes to contributing to the story, the gm should really only do half. If the gm controls everything, the story feels boring, stale, and predictable, if the players control the story, the plot is broken, the rules are usually disgarded, and no one is really comming together for the untimate story line.
So, to sum things up
Advice: be cooperactive.

Yeah I pretty much agree with all of this. It's all about the balance.. which many and myself included find terribly difficult.

 

[Idea]

Thanks for the insights. These help a lot. I didn't really think about the players taking things into their own hands and frustrating the GM, I've never experienced that personally. I seem to be plagued with groups of lazy rp'ers instead. The DnD is great, to be honest, but the complexity and extensive stats needed to build a character kind of turns me off, it just seems overwhelming. It's just that a lot of roleplays (I'm talking 8/10 here) gets stale because no new stuff on the table. Having a dedicated GM can fix that problem.

I suppose there's a fine line of balance. The GM should provide tools to advance the plot, but which direction the plot goes is up to the players. I agree that a GM who is super strict about his lore would not be fun to play with either, because there's little room for creativity from the players. I struggle with this myself, when I play a GM and a character, I wonder to what extent should I pull the story, while still maintaining that equality between my character and others.

Interestingly, I did ask that GM why he enjoyed doing this. I told him I loved his writing and that he could write a book with this plot, but he said having people play his story is much more exciting because it takes the plot places he never thought before. That's what's fun for him.

My problem is that I'm stuck in an awkward place. I like a rp that's kind of like DnD... but not DnD. It's similar but with much more focus on writing and character development, and little emphasis on actual combat.

I think you misunderstood about half of my post, but I'll let it slide lol

The best advise I can give to you regarding an RP that is focused on writing and character development is an RP whose internal workings make that clear. And that, I think, starts with having a clear idea of what the ideal of both of those things are. Which is something that takes effort to figure out for yourself, but the hardest part of GMing is applying the consequences of that as rules.

 

[Blue Aisle]

I think you misunderstood about half of my post, but I'll let it slide lol

The best advise I can give to you regarding an RP that is focused on writing and character development is an RP whose internal workings make that clear. And that, I think, starts with having a clear idea of what the ideal of both of those things are. Which is something that takes effort to figure out for yourself, but the hardest part of GMing is applying the consequences of that as rules.

Lol I think I'll need a manual for this. I don't really have an ideal of anything when I come up with an idea, I want it to surprise me. Sadly surprise is rare when you're the storyteller. It's so hard for me to GM anything because I don't want to come out as too aggressive or controlling; but then the story doesn't move *sigh*.

 

[Idea]

Lol I think I'll need a manual for this. I don't really have an ideal of anything when I come up with an idea, I want it to surprise me. Sadly surprise is rare when you're the storyteller. It's so hard for me to GM anything because I don't want to come out as too aggressive or controlling; but then the story doesn't move *sigh*.

Yes, a lot of people feel that way. But is perhaps the #1 mistake GMs make, being too lenient. I will openly admit though, I am not some master GM myself or anything, and if anything I have the opposite problem, being a tad too controlling.

Anyway, how about not starting with GMing? Perhaps it'll be easier for you to find the answers you need in a more familiar environment. Join the roleplays you can as a player. Keep track of how GMs make decisions and look over characters. And more importantly, explore these questions with your character. How do you do it's character development? What do you need to be able to work on it and how does it turn out when you do it in this or that way?

On the side of that, I also recommend research into writing itself. In particular, the podcast "writing excuses" was a huge boon for me in terms of learning and developing what has beocme my current knowledge of writing and writing style.

 

[AtlannianSpy]

I think there's kind of this misconception that being a GM is mostly work and something you only do in order to play in your ideal RP. I don't think that's true at all.

Being a GM without also being a player can extremely fun and rewarding in its own right, it just requires you to drop your ego and be able to be invested in other people's characters more than your own, to be excited about other people exploring and twisting something you created.

To me being a player and GM is kind unappealing because you lose the mystery. When you're a player the mystery comes from the GM moving things around behind the scenes and springing things on you. When you're a GM the mystery comes from seeing how your players react and what direction they take the scenarios you present them with in. For me the best moments as a GM come when my players come up with some crazy solution to a challenge that I never anticipated but that works perfectly within the ruleset I gave them. That's an experience you don't fully get if you're both player and GM and you're seeing two sides of the same coin.

If you do want to do both the best way to handle is probably to have one or two really good co-GMs, who you can leave whole arcs in the hands of and who can create stuff for your character while you create stuff for theirs and for other players. Of course you have to find those people first.

 

[Idea]

I must veemently disagree with the notion that GMing is somehow not mostly work. Yes, the work of a GM can be fun for themselves and others, but it's still work, and if isn't odds are you're just being lazy about it. Character reviewing, designing the plot, creating the first post, the rules, and everything, pretty much every part of GMing is work, Irma a task that requires effort and care. If you're not putting that in, I'd say you're a bad GM (note: while this is a response to the comment above by "you" I am not specifically addressing the one that made that post).

I also want to point out, though i don't know if it's the case that I was being replied to, but given the specific content of that part of the post, that not once did I say the only reason for one to become a GM would be to make their ideal roleplay, however, I did say and stand by the fact that it is the main reason. Even the person disagreeing with the notion went on to justify the disagreement by describing their ideal roleplay, which I think should be proof enough for my word's veracity.

 

[AtlannianSpy]

It's possible for something to require effort and care but still be inherently fun and rewarding you know and in fact someone who's passionate about and enjoys something is far more likely to put in effort and care then someone who views it as work. Designing plots, helping people with their characters, constructing an engaging front page, even coming up with the right ruleset. Those things can actually be enjoyable when they aren't approached as a means to have some other enjoyable experience.

What I'm saying is that I think people are missing out by primarily focusing on creating "their ideal roleplay" rather than the inherent joy in GMing itself and I also think the more satisfaction from the actual day to day aspects of GMing the better they'll be at it.

 

[Idea]

I see. What I was saying is that even if it's fun, it's still work, but I see your point. I can't say I fully agree with you, as per principle I do things with the aim of them being worth my time, more so than immediate gratification, but I guess we'll agree to disagree there.

 

[AtlannianSpy]

Yeah it's not really a question of whether the gratification is instant as it is about whether gratification is inherent to what you're doing or whether its derived primarily from some external source. But whatever, you do you.

 

[Bone2pick]

Being a GM without also being a player can extremely fun and rewarding in its own right, it just requires you to drop your ego and be able to be invested in other people's characters more than your own, to be excited about other people exploring and twisting something you created.

I'm not sure I follow you. I don't write stories to build my "ego" — I write to summon and manifest my imagination. And whenever I have done so I haven't experienced an inability to "be excited about other people exploring and twisting something I've created." Are you suggesting it's an either or?

 

[Nogoodname]

Coming from a background of D&D this is just how I like to play, it feels like the "Right" way to GM. (Though there really is no right way obviously). It helps the players think of you as a completely neutral arbiter. Plus it just doesn't feel satisfying to me to play as a DMPC, because it's a constant balancing act to make sure he/she doesn't over power the players characters. Plus plus it gives me time to focus on my world and tailor it to the player characters in it, which makes it feel better overall. It's very much a labor of love to use this type of style but it feels much more satisfying to me personally.

Also I can understand being frustrated at players who aren't invested in your world. But if you design a castle, I expect you to fill it, because otherwise if I enter a treasury and you ask me what I find it's gonna be a +5 holy avenger and no I'm not sharing.

 

[AtlannianSpy]

I'm not sure I follow you. I don't write stories to build my "ego" — I write to summon and manifest my imagination. And whenever I have done so I haven't experienced an inability to "be excited about other people exploring and twisting something I've created." Are you suggesting it's an either or?

I think there's always a little ego involved in putting our imagination and creativity on display for other people. That's not a bad thing! it's sort of necessary to be creative. But I think it's somewhat rare, or at least is an acquired skill, to be able to get as or more excited about what other people are doing with your ideas as what you yourself might do with them. If you can already do that then great! good for you, I think it's a helpful mindset, especially for GMing.

 

[Bone2pick]

I think there's always a little ego involved in putting our imagination and creativity on display for other people. That's not a bad thing! it's sort of necessary to be creative.

So ego is necessary for creativity? I couldn't say. But if it is then a healthy ego would certainly be a positive attribute for those yearning to create. Telling a story, building a sandcastle, playing an instrument, or decorating a room—whatever your passion is I recommend pursuing it unapologetically.

 

[Blue Aisle]

Coming from a background of D&D this is just how I like to play, it feels like the "Right" way to GM. (Though there really is no right way obviously). It helps the players think of you as a completely neutral arbiter. Plus it just doesn't feel satisfying to me to play as a DMPC, because it's a constant balancing act to make sure he/she doesn't over power the players characters. Plus plus it gives me time to focus on my world and tailor it to the player characters in it, which makes it feel better overall. It's very much a labor of love to use this type of style but it feels much more satisfying to me personally.

Also I can understand being frustrated at players who aren't invested in your world. But if you design a castle, I expect you to fill it, because otherwise if I enter a treasury and you ask me what I find it's gonna be a +5 holy avenger and no I'm not sharing.

Yeah, I feel the ups of dedicated GMing is just that, you have one job. It allows the GM to be much more detailed and introduce interesting plot twists as opposed to doing that with a PC. As player, I definitely prefer the DND's style of GMing than GM+PC.

In DnD I can see the DM telling them what they find from treasures, loots, etc. But our RP was done over a chat app, not in person, so the GM wasn't always there to tell us what gave what. He sometimes wrote only 2-3 a week, and we were fine with that because we could make up whatever we wanted within the general setting he gave us. It was kind of agreed upon that he builds the house, and we fill the rooms. Our RP wasn't based too much on combat, so there wasn't stats associated or anything.