The Makings of a GM: The GM's Role

Hey everyone! I know I've spoken about RPGs in previous posts (actually quite a few times already), but as of now, I'm actually quite new to the RPG world. So as a bit of background, my first ever experience with an RPG - minus a brief D&D starter pack thing I tried with my brother when I was probably about 12 - was an Apocalypse World campaign that a friend of mine ran two years ago in the spring. It was a lot of fun, but it only lasted two or three sessions. Still, it was enjoyable enough that when another friend said he would be starting up a Pathfinder game after that summer, I was willing (even if I wasn't overly excited) to join in.

As it turned out, I really became hooked, and two campaigns later, I found myself running my own games. And while I do quite enjoy playing the game, I also very much enjoy running the game as the GM - in fact, I'm not really sure which one I prefer. (I have decided to normalize my posts and only use the term "GM," rather than "DM," since it's a bit more general.) Since it's something I like to do (and I like to think I'm pretty decent at it), I figured I'd make a few posts about my philosophies when it comes to running an RPG, starting with the GM's role in the game.

So over the past few years, I've seen and played in several different RPG campaigns, each with different GMs. And when you play in multiple campaigns, you quickly notice that every GM has a different style. What I've determined is that there are two main philosophies behind the GM's role in a game, so I'll talk about those two broad ideas and which one I prefer. There is no "right" way to GM, of course - these are all just my opinions on the topic. Feel free to disagree with me - I'll only dislike you a little.


Style 1: The GM vs. the Players

The first style of GMing is what I like to call "the GM vs. the players." Essentially, the way this works is that the GM is the villain of the story. And in many ways, this is always the case regardless of your GM style. The GM is the one playing as the NPCs, of course, and that includes any monsters and villains and Big Bad Evil Guys (BBEGs for short). The GM is the one making all the dice rolls for those monsters, too, so when your ranger gets hit with the orc's greataxe for 13 damage, that's mostly the GM's fault. But while this is going to be true in any RPG, this antagonism is the goal in the "GM vs. the players" style. The GM throws monsters and traps and challenges at the players in an attempt to kill their characters, and it is up to the players to overcome these challenges and emerge victorious.

Basically this.

There are pros and cons to each style, of course. With the "GM vs. players" style, I feel that it provides a real challenge to the players, which is generally a good thing. The story and such are important, but if there's no real threat of death for the player characters, the players probably won't be having too much fun. It's like playing Skyrim on the easiest difficulty settings when you've already gone through and beaten Dark Souls four times - it'll be fun for a while, but eventually it will get boring. So in this regard, this GM style works really well. Of course, if you accidentally overtune an encounter, or the players get bad dice rolls, your challenge may turn out to be much more difficult than you'd intended, and that can feel unfair for the players as well. So there is a balance that needs to be struck (and this, of course, applies to GMing in general, but especially for this style).

The major downside I see to this GM style is that it can lead to mistrust between the GM and players, in particular on the part of the players. Let's say one of your players is playing a wizard and casts a sleep spell on the BBEG, and you know that if the BBEG goes to sleep, your campaign will end in a most anticlimactic manner. So instead, you say that the villain succeeds on his Will saving throw, and he stays awake. If you typically run the "GM vs. the players" style, your players may have a knee-jerk reaction of "What?! You can't do that!" and they may accuse you of cheating for the sake of killing off players. Essentially, when you run a game like I described above, you run the risk of players getting bitter when they feel you have done something unfair. (There are ways to avoid this, of course, but you'll have to bear with the mediocre example. You know what I'm trying to say.)

Style 2: The GM with the Players

This style of GMing has a slightly different spin on things. In this style, you can think of the GM as a facilitator rather than as an opponent - the GM and the players work together to create a cohesive and interesting story. The GM still plays all the NPCs and monsters, of course, and is still working to provide a fun and challenging experience for the players, but a total party kill is not his main goal. In fact, oftentimes, if a GM prefers this method of running a game, they may avoid a total party kill at all costs, even using deus ex machina to work around it. In other words, when the GM sees that the evil wizard's fireball will annihilate the entire party, she might have an NPC show up just in the nick of time and counter the spell so that nothing happens. Now again, that's an extreme example, and there are risks associated with that too.

I couldn't find a relevant picture, so here's a platypus.

There are some definite upsides to using this method of GMing. First off, it tends to be a story-focused game, with a bigger emphasis on roleplaying than on things like combat, which can be tedious if done poorly. But more importantly, I think it fosters a sense of trust between the GM and players - if the players know that the GM isn't out to get them, they'll be more willing to do things like split up the party to go explore the scary-looking cave AND the wizard's tower, which can make things more fun. One of the best sessions I ever ran was in a two-person Pathfinder game - one of my players wanted to take a shortcut through a swamp, while the other player wanted to take the long road around, so they split up. Now, a GM using Style 1 may have kept the swamp combat - originally meant for 2 players - at the same difficulty, thereby probably killing the player who decided to go through the swamp alone. Instead, I just changed up some numbers on the fly, and ended up with a really cool and challenging combat, but one that was still possible.

Now as for the downsides, well, as I alluded to earlier, if you're not careful with the "GM with the players" style, you run the risk of removing the challenge from the game, which can take out a lot of the fun. If the players think the GM will never kill their characters, then what's stopping them from trying to get in a slap-fight with a dragon just to see how it goes? As I said earlier, when talking about the first GM style, it would be fun and silly for a while, but soon enough people will get bored with the game. So there's definitely a balance that needs to be struck.

Which style do I prefer?

Well, you could probably guess by now, but personally, I prefer the second style of GMing. I run a very character-focused game - I try to make it so that the player characters, as well as the villains, are what drives the story forward, rather than having the characters forced into a particular course of action. But with that comes a lot of cooperation between the players and the GM to craft a story in such a manner, and if one person just isn't putting a ton of effort into the game, it can throw a cog into the works. That being said, I've been known to let player characters strike off on their own briefly and I'll run solo sessions with that player (while also letting them bring in a temporary character to play with the party so they aren't excluded from regular play), as long as that's what their character would do in the given situation. 

But in general, to try to get around the possible downsides of the "GM with the players" GM style, here's how I handle player characters' deaths. I rarely intentionally seek out a player character death (unless the player for some reason wants their character to die), and I try to avoid total party kills. However, if a character happens to die (an unlucky crit on the part of the enemy, or the player just does something stupid like jumping off a cliff attempting to use an orc as a parachute), I won't do much to stop it. 

So far, my method has worked for me, but every GM has a different style, so it's important to find what works for you. The other thing to keep in mind, of course, is that players themselves also have preferred methods of GMing - some prefer a story-focused game in which the GM acts as a facilitator, but some want that visceral challenge that only comes from a GM that just really wants to kill the player characters. So a lot of GMing is knowing what to do when - gotta strike up a balance!

That's all I had for this topic, really. If you're an aspiring GM and want to know more, I highly recommend the subreddit /r/DnDBehindTheScreen (which you can find here) - it's got a ton of resources and such for GMs, not to mention a very helpful community.

Did you know that the female platypus has a pair of ovaries, but

only the left one is functional? Thanks, Wikipedia!