Whenever you sit down to GM a game, you think about a few things, but do you ask the most obvious question: "What do I, as a player, want out of this game?" Because you're a player, Mr. GM! You're supposed to have fun. You are not beholden to the group for the type of fun you want to have. If anything, they're at your mercy, since you're the one who's directing the game. This isn't to say that you abuse this: it's a game, everyone needs to have agreement of some sort. But GM's sometimes forget they're players too. They just play a different role.
What role is that? Well, your chief role is that of arbiter. You are the the representation of the other side of the imagined dream-space, the laws of physics, you represent adversity. All other roles are secondary to this one, because without this one the vast majority of games fall apart. Yes, there are GM-less games. If you're reading this article you're obviously not playing one of those games, so arbiter is your chief role. Everything else is secondary in running the game, but no less important.
You'll notice that nowhere in the previous paragraph did I say that the GM made up the stories, that he put forward his own vision for a game, or even that he had anything to do with the story at all! But he does, doesn't he? Since the beginning of time the GM has something to do with guiding the game. We could go into why, but that's a bit beyond the scope and intent of the article. We're here to discuss how you want to be a part of the story your group will make. There are three basic extremes, each based upon the three things I'd talked about earlier. They're that of passive, active, and aggressive.
Passive: The Passive Extreme is fun because it allows the GM to sit back and just let the players do their thing. They don't really want to effect the shared dream-space more than they absolutely have to. Think of a drop of water: it falls into another body of water. What happens? The drop of water falls, and the laws of physics take over. This type of GM usually just makes sure that that drop of water's effects take place, but nothing more. You might stick your head in and take care of things every once in a while, but for the most part the GM has fun enforcing the natural consequences of actions. Dungeon World is an RPG that sets this up the best. The GM just prepares the fronts, throws them at players, and watches what they do. He then applies consequences based upon the player's actions more than any agenda he's got. The weakness of a Passive Extreme is that they often don't come up with an overarching plot, making the game meander.
Active: You don't sit back,you stick your nose in. Fail that Climbing check? The bishop whom you hate more than anyone else is at the top, and he helps you up. Now you have to deal with him. The Active GM has an idea, he wants to get his point across, he has a vision. While he does make sure that the natural gaming world gets enforced, he's far more interested in throwing his own two cents in. Usually these people come up with incredible plots and characters and want their players to experience what they came up with. Burning Wheel is the quintessential Active Extreme game. The weakness of the Active Extreme is that they are prone to rail-roading on the drop of a hat because they forget this isn't just their story, it's the everyone's. 
Aggressive: We all know those GMs, don't we? The dicks. The ones who love to beat up their players. The GMs who, on failed checks, make the world go to hell in a hand-basket because they think it's fun. Yeah, that's not the type of GM I'm talking about. He's just a jerk, the perversion of this type. I'm talking about the GMs who openly tell you that they're out to get your characters. That your character is a piece in a wargame, and he is intent on winning. Notice that? He wants to win. He'll play by the rules (hopefully), and he's not a jerk, but you know he's out to get you. And that's fine, actually. As long as he's open about it, and the players are fine with the fact that this GM is so damn competitive that he wants to turn the story into an epic struggle in and of itself. Old-school Dungeons and Dragons is usually what we think of, but a more clear example is Burning Empires. The GM is out to win, and he is bound by the rules of the game, same as the players. Granted, the rules grant him different abilities, but that doesn't change the fact that the GM's open and stated goal is to kick the crap out of the players.
Now, the important thing to remember is that these are extremes. One is not likely to always want the same thing out of a different game. I know GMs who were playing it passive for a while all of a sudden become very aggressive. But can you "fit" into one of these extremes? Of course you do, otherwise everyone would be the same and it would be boring. So think about what you want out of the game, and how you get enjoyment out of it. It'll help you not only pick a game that'll help out your style, but it'll signal to the other players what you're in the mood for. And clear communication is always helpful.
Hmm. I'm not sure that I agree wholly, especially because one of the tenets of Dungeon World is "hammer, hammer, hammer". When players miss, when they don't do anything, when they meander around, you're supposed to hit them with a hard move, and not pull the punches. There's also an explicit GM agenda. ;-) (You should probably finish reading the book. :-P )
ReplyDeleteI'd actually flip Burning Wheel and Dungeon World as examples here. "The GM enforces consequences of failure" is very definitely how BW plays in default mode. I think that BW, more than anything, is an organically passive-GM game--the story is supposed to grow out of the situation you set up. DW, on the other hand, is the game where you set up plot arcs and prep Fronts for the players to face.
Gonna hafta disagree. The basic mechanics of Dungeon World set up the theme that the players take care of their own rolls for the most part; only in the cases of the worst failure does the GM step in and do something to the players. Burning Wheel requires constant GM intercession. You are supposed to constantly be jumping on players' Beliefs and Instincts, forcing them to react.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, both games have a completely different approach to starting. Dungeon World has you make a few fronts and just toss them in, and see what happens. You're not SUPPOSED to have plans (and it's considered bad form if you do), and you're not ever really supposed to beyond the Fronts. You just make pieces and they move.
Burning Wheel requires you to enter the game with a theme and focus, and requires that all the players agree on it, and that the GM accommodate for the players a bit. Notice that it doesn't say that the player determine the theme; the theme and driving focus of the game is entirely in the GM's camp. The players merely agree to act toward that endpoint. So if the GM wants a game of bloody revenge and the players agree (a passive action by the very nature of the context), they'll make Beliefs about bloody revenge and run towards it with all their might. In addition, a player may make up facts about the world via Wises, but ONLY if the GM hasn't already thought of something. The GM's initiative trumps every time. The final nail in the coffin is that Luke has expressively said that Burning Wheel was created because he was a bad GM and railroaded his players. And, on top of that, you've seen the way he GMed the Sword. He guided even there, there was nothing passive about that GMing of his. The difference was that the players let him, because everyone agreed on where the yellow brick road was going in the first place, allowing the GM to open up and let'em have it. And I found that, whenever I came to the table wanting a specific thing to happen, made an arrangement with the players, and pushed it as hard as I could, that the game ran the smoothest. You want a plan in Burning Wheel, you just have to let the players join in.
Doesn't sound very passive to me.
I think you really need to see DW in action first. ;-) You've had a lot more BW experience so far. But DW is all about plans--that's what Fronts are. It's all about the idea that "no plan survives contact with the enemy". That's the general principle of the *World games. And they are definitely proactive. The GM is supposed to be pressing Fronts forward, advancing to Grim Portents and making the players react if need be. It's very often framed in terms of "this is happening; what do you do?" You make pieces, yes, but you move them.
DeleteDungeon World is all about creating the frames for moves to fall into, and about provoking the players through GM moves. Hard moves exist for a reason--you're supposed to slam the players to fulfill the GM Agenda.
Flip back to Burning Wheel. I think that having a theme and a focus for a game (which you also have to have in Dungeon World, or any coherent game, really--there, the tone and story still rest in the GM's camp) is far less of a "plan ahead" than the Fronts. Other than that, there's really no specific focus on the structure of the game. Furthermore, the intent behind Wises is definitely for players to influence the game. The GM having a trump to a Wise is the exception, not the rule. See in The Sword, where Luke suggests having players make tests to invent facts about the titular weapon.
(Side point: the fact that Luke created Burning Wheel as a reaction to his bad railroady tendencies is a point in favor of the game being more passive in nature. When you react to something, that means you head in the opposite direction.)
I don't see how the Sword demo shows a concept of "The GM has a vision to get across", either. Leaving aside the fact that the game itself is versatile enough to be run in a number of ways, note that Luke had no point to get across in The Sword. It is quite literally the definition of "play to see what happens". It's all about "here are these people, they each have a reason to want the same artifact, now what?"
If there was a plan behind the scenario, it would end similarly each time. The GM would be guiding them to a conclusion. But Luke wasn't. Luke wasn't guiding them. Luke was provoking them and encouraging them to go forward. (It's a little deceptive, because he's helping newbies out--that's why he made a point of bringing up some of the subsystems.) Read through the GMing advice in The Sword, and this much is clear: there is no plan whatsoever behind it. It's just filled with advice on how to put the players on the spot.
I think most of the observation is just a reading of personal style into what's ultimately a pretty flexible game. I do definitely know that DW is a better representative of an Active GM game, though. That's the biggest reason why it works--the GM doesn't roll dice, but instead levels the force of opposition at the players. Moves are how they respond.
Alright, you have some very good points on Dungeon World. I'll play in a few games first, and think of a better passive game in the meantime.
DeleteFor Burning Wheel, however, that we still have contention on.
The Sword as a demo itself does not concern me, considering that it more resembles Burning Empires in the way it runs. It was Luke's actual style of GMing that I was remarking upon. While he can be very passive (as stories he relates in the Adventure Burner attests) a lot of Luke's plans that he talks about in said books are things that he himself suggested and then pushed to his own ends.
And there is a structure in Burning Wheel, and GMs are told to use it: Beliefs, Instincts, and Traits. The GM is supposed to use these to give shape to their characters, and even award them with Artha that they get to use in game! If anything, the GM just has a larger stable of characters that he gets to flip through. He has to be very proactive, but not so proactive he squashes the players. The players give him relationships and Instincts to stomp on, and stomp he must.
Not all people make something as a sheer reaction against a tendency. Burning Wheel acts more like a channel of said tendency, putting it in it's rightful place as the unifying action in the party. Again, the most fun was had when I had a VERY clear idea of what I wanted to do, why I wanted to do it, and that the players were with me on it and aware of what I wanted in general terms.
But I do think it's a fallacy to say that Burning Wheel is an active game by nature. Considering that a lot of strong play can stem from intra-character dynamics when faced with a situation, the GM sorta has to stick them in there and watch the fireworks. That's what The Sword is all about, after all. (I also think that DW is a much better example anyhow.)
DeleteI think that BW is a game that covers a lot of ground, without focusing on active or passive. The big challenge with any classification is that most games have elements of all parts of the classification. You're predisposed, then, to see the elements of a game that match the style in which you run that game. That can cloud the objective view of what the game is slanted towards. Likewise for the Adventure Burner, which still remains Luke's take on the game.
Considering that the Sword is only a demo of mechanics, and mechanics only, the argument is invalid. You can't hold up something that the creator (and vast majority of the people who play the game) has said is not actually representative of the game as an example, for the simple reason that if anyone has a good idea on how to run Burning Wheel it would be Luke Crane. The man's done much more work on the subject than you or I ever could. He says that's how the game works, I'm gonna take him at his word for it, given his research.
DeleteBut I can guarantee you that, after the experience I've had applying his experience, that I agree with him 100%.
Dungeon World is something that, again, I"ll find a better substitute for. I still have leagues to go in understanding that game.
In addition, none of the other Burning Games feature passive GMing styles; the closest passive thing established is MouseGuard, where the players take a turn trying to accomplish what the GM set up for them in the first place. Burning Empires is so damn aggressive it's almost painful at some points to watch the GM beat on the players, targeting the weaknesses they had to leave open so they could earn Artha. Both are Burning Wheel games, and they didn't change that much from the source material. Burning Wheel is an active GMing game.
ReplyDeleteNot really evidence. They're different games. ;-)
DeleteYes evidence, because they're based on the same engine, just taken and used different ways. Burning Empires takes of a lot of the GMing advice of the Adventure Burner and takes it to an extreme that you're not supposed to go to in Burning Wheel.
Delete