When I talk about my inspirations to be a good Game Master, I’ll often reference the great GMs I’ve had the privilege of playing with over the years. If I’m really honest with myself, though, the bad GMs I’ve had the misfortune to play with are just as strong an influence in my desire to run good games. Have you been sitting at a table in the middle of a poorly run game and thought, “I could totally do this better.”?
As awesome as our good game stories can be, it’s usually the bad game stories that can be the most fun to tell. Almost every gamer has bad game war stories they share when sitting around the figurative camp fire with fellow gamers. The commiseration combines with one-upmanship as everyone exchanges horror stories of the worst they’ve run into during their gaming history. While the ‘that guy’ stories about one awful player abound, it’s often the bad GM and bad game stories that get the most mileage. Heck, I’ve heard them so often, I could actually tell you some of my friends’ horror stories.
Here are a few of the things I’ve learned from the bad games I’ve experienced:
Give every player time in the spotlight. While I’m not the most outgoing person, I’m also not exactly shy when it comes to participating in games. So, when I run into a GM that plays favorites or actively prevents every player at the table from having a moment to shine, I get angry. It’s become a core part of my GM philosophy to make sure that every player at the table gets a moment in the spotlight. Sometimes this requires asking overly enthusiastic players to wait a moment while you coax a couple words out of a shyer player, but it is crucially important to do. Making sure everyone has an opportunity to participate and do something cool is one of the best ways to make sure everyone has fun at the table.
Help move the plot along when your players are stuck. Have you ever been in a game that ground to a halt because the players and the GM weren’t on the same page about what needed to happen next? One con game I played in was stalled out for over an hour because the players didn’t explicitly state they were looking for the crucial MacGuffin in the exact spot the GM had it placed in his notes (the air duct in the ladies room). By sticking so tightly to his script, the players grew dissatisfied and frustrated with a game that had otherwise been going fairly well. It taught me the importance of keeping an eye on the game’s momentum and to not be irrevocably tied to my own cleverness. It does no one any good if the players are stuck. Knowing when to throw them a hint or nudge them in a particular direction is an important skill to develop.
The game should be relevant to the PCs. It’s incredibly frustrating to show up to a game and find out your character may as well have stayed home. I’ve seen this happen in both con games and campaigns. It usually happens when the GM knows what they want to run and the PCs involved are an afterthought. They don’t pay attention to what characters the players create or they just grab some generic pre-made PCs to hand out. It’s one thing for a GM to push characters out of their comfort zone, but another for them to plan multiple encounters and scenarios that completely sideline some of the PCs. I’ve run into this so many times, it’s become a major crime in my book. The wizard focused on charm and enchantment thrown into an endless dungeon of undead. The space con-artist confined to a ship on a mission into unsettled space, with no one but PCs to interact with. The kobold fighter given absolutely nothing to hit with his shiny sword. That last one should have been so much fun, but was the most boring game I’ve ever played. Ultimately, it’s taught me that whatever game I plan on running, I need to make sure whoever the PCs are is an important part of the planning.
Each of these could be an article on its own and have probably been covered by other Gnomes over the years without the explicit inspiration of a bad game. Feel free to take a look through the archives to expand on the topics.
For your own game skills, have you ever found yourself brushing up on a skill or changing the way you run games after a particularly bad game experience? I’d be curious to hear your stories.
I’ve played in Con games where the GM stuck too closely to the script. In one case, we ended up wasting a ton of time trying to figure out his obscure puzzle. In another, we never really finished the story because they weren’t willing to move the climax up a few rooms or handwave us along to the end.
If it’s not about the players (as you said), then it ain’t a cooperative game. It’s a monologue.
There are still GMs out there who are too tied to their own worlds and creations to remember that.
I was in a con game recently where the GM ended the session an hour and a half early because we didn’t do what he thought we would do and he had nothing else planned for us. I was quite irritated by that one.
Give every player time in the spotlight. That’s one of the most important jobs of the Game Master, imho. Every player needs to feel engaged at some point, otherwise it feels like watching someone else’s story, which can be fun – sometimes – but isn’t really what you sign up for as a player.
If I know I’m going into a game that’s intended to spotlight a particular character (which we’ve done in campaigns before), I’m completely on board. But if it’s a regular game, or especially a con game, the GM better be making sure everyone gets a turn to do something. It’s usually just as simple as making sure to hit each player with, “What are you doing?” It amazes me that there are still GMs who don’t get that.
Giving feedback to the GM is also essential in helping them improve their game; if you find a GM is somehow missing the mark for you it can be helpful to provide some positive feedback on the session/s and what isn’t doing it for you and what could be done to make the game more engaging.
Sometimes bad GM’s are blissfully unaware of their shortcomings until a helpful player takes the time to fill them in.
(It also helps when a GM solicits feedback after every adventure or two to gauge player interest and satisfaction.)
Back in the day, I was way too intimidated to offer advice. Nowadays, I try and gauge the GM and see if they’d be receptive to suggestions. Sometimes it’s obvious they’re not going to want to hear what anyone has to say. Other times I’ve sat there after a game for quite some time chatting about different ways to improve games.
I have corrected–sometimes over corrected–after a bad session. (Sometimes a bad session I ran, or the game following a game that flopped). It’s easy to fall into the romantic comedy style of over correction, or trying to create the opposite…
While I agree that the game should be relevant to the PCs, if the GM didn’t make the characters, it’s a bit of a two way street. I actually did play a campaign with a 2e bard in a war setting filled with undead and little else–but I’d bought into the fish out of water concept from the start. (It did wear after a while, but I had been forewarned.)
In my case, it was a situation where I had cleared the character with the GM first and he never cautioned that the build would be sub optimal. I’ve got no problem with GMs who explain up front what type of campaign they’re going to be running, it’s when they don’t give you that information and then you as the player are stuck.
Of course, I have also dealt with the players who insist on making ONE thing even though they’ve been warned that probably isn’t ideal for the game. 🙂
Sometimes players just don’t get it. I had someone insist on playing a burglar sort of thief in a setting much like early colonial America – not much of value, everyone knows everyone, there are basically no locks to pick, no good way to unload stolen goods without someone saying “Hey, isn’t that my grandmother’s candlestick?” etc. I pretty much explained all that, but he insisted. He finally figured it out after a few sessions of play, and tagged in a different character, but no amount of explaining seemed to get the message across.
Sometimes it helps, as the GM, to try and figure out what the player wants out of the character. Is it stealth and a slightly shady background? Well, he could be a scout then who *used* to be a thief back in London. There are always going to be players that march to the beat of their own drummer, but I’ve usually found that most aren’t trying to be trouble, they’re just trying to get a particular thing out of the character they’re creating.
My worst con game ever story taught me three things:
One, come prepared. Don’t show up to a con game and assume you can improv the whole story. It doesn’t work. It might work at home, if you’re good at improv. But at a con you are tired, over-stimulated, and dealing with people you don’t know.
Two, keep any of your own war stories to a bare minimum at the table. Even in my home game, I try to limit asides. (I still stick in-jokes into the action entirely too often, though.)
Three, momentum is everything. Build it fast, get it pointed in the right direction, and get the hell out of its way. (The terrible GM in question finally actually got us into the mood halfway into the session by describing the spooky woods we were camping in. Then ruined everything by saying, “You guys know that there aren’t *really* any ghosts, right?” The momentum died, and none of us ever had any interest in rebuilding it.)
All very good things to learn.
The preparedness part can work in so many ways. Make sure you have something prepped for the game. Make sure you’ve got the materials you need. Make sure you’re there on time. So on and so forth.
The war stories can over run a game, especially if you end up with a couple of people who were there. It can be fun when everyone’s on board and wants to hear it, but I’ve been there when you get the tale whether you wanted it or not.
And yeah.. momentum is key. 🙂
OK, so I have never run a game at a con (I know, I know, its way past my turn, its on my to-do list OK?), so I have a questions or two for those of you with more experience.
are con games often weaker than regular games for entirely valid reasons? e.g.
you are trying to run a scenario for a bunch of people you have never met and getting the balance right means no one will be completely satisfied?
are con GMs running scenarios that they didnt pick themselves and so they are less ‘into it’ and so less able to bring their A-game?
are there certain games that are simply not suited to con-style gaming? Horror for example relies on mood a lot, and in my experience its not uncommon to have two or three gaming groups in the same room making horror games at conferences harder to get right?
Running at Cons is definitely something to put on your GMing bucket list. It may not be for everyone, but it’s worth a try, just to see the different muscles you stretch.
I wouldn’t say that con games are weaker, it’s just that you’re more likely to run into the potential problems from sheer volume. The majority of con games I’ve played (and I’ve played a LOT in the last ten years) are good experiences. The bad ones tend to stand out, though.
If you’re doing official organized play or playing a game sponsored by a particular gaming company, then it may be a scenario the GM didn’t write and the inspiration, or lack thereof, could be part of the problem. Those GMs don’t tend to run for those groups very long, though. Companies want people running for them that will inspire people to buy the game.
As far of genre of game, I think most genres can work pretty well at cons. I’m not a fan of horror games, but there are plenty of them being run at cons. Rogue Cthulhu is a popular group that always seems to have full tables at the cons I see them at. Dread is HUGElY popular at cons (it’s hard to get into a Dread game because they sell out so quickly) and those are horror/suspense games that all hinge on the tension.
While the number of games being run in a room can be a challenge to getting the mood right, I’ve found that *most* GMs and cons try and find the right balance. Groups like Rogue Cthulhu will often have their own room, so the GMs try and be respectful of one another. In situations where conflicting games are scheduled in the same room, GMs will usually try and work something out. Having Dread and Paranoia scheduled in the same room is a recipe for disaster, but neither GM wants to be the bad guy and will try and work something out.
Long winded, but that help a little? 🙂
many thanks 🙂
Running a “con” game is all about fitting what you have into the time slot.
There are many articles in the GS archives on how to go about this and the pitfalls to be avoided, all written by people who’ve done it for years.
My own method involves trying to pick a game that will be popular (hard) and then figuring out a simple story with easily understood (if at first hidden) goals and then breaking that down into scenes, each of which may be many actual scenes but each of which encompasses a discrete chunk of the action needed to get the challenge solved.
Each of these is timed out to about 45 minutes (I like games to last four to five hours).
There will be slippage at the game start as people ask questions and the game system is explained to those unacquainted with it. This must be stolen from the other scenes.
I pick a drop-dead time at which we absolutely must start the final scene, which will involve something apropriately cataclysmic such as a boss combat, a mass ritual spellcasting to put That Which Should Not Be back into the folds of time and space or a frenetic chase/escape sequence. I spend a lot of time planning this bit as this is what the players will likely remember from my game.
I also spend a lot of time on the opening scene, the hook which must be set before the players will invest in the story we are going to tell.
After that I need three more scenes, at least one of which must be discardable in the interests of time. If possible I make them interchangeable too, though that is very hard.
For a five hour game I’d have four scenes, one of which would be entirely optional.
After that, there’s just the work of writing the scenes themselves (more advice is available on this, especially the articles on using “Islands” to plot) which is fun but grueling the first couple of times you do it, and rehearsing it all in your head until you have the pacing down. Then comes the playtesting.
Of course, you could avoid some of this by buying a copy of Eureka (see links on GS home page).
Have been the “bad GM” a few times in the 30 plus years I’ve been wearing that hat. I try and not make the same mistake twice, but sometimes it’s as much that a player expects a very different experience than the game is geared to give.
I’m still trying to figure out how I could have improved the experience for one player in a Delta Green game I ran, but she had only played storyteller fantasy before and expected every facet of her game experience to be negotiable, and was seated in a D20 sanity sponge game. Everyone else had a blast chewing the scenery and being terrified (I outdid myself with a couple of the set pieces).
I think the perception of a Bad GM usually arises from not empowering the players, not listening to the players and not responding to what they are saying in a positive manner.
That doesn’t mean saying “yes” to everything they come up with, but being more forthcoming than “no”. That said, if it has been a very long time since you said “yes” there’s probably a problem brewing.
I run a lot of Savage Worlds for the small conventions I attend as a GM (the sort where no extra charge for playing is involved) and after reading and absorbing stuff from Realms of Cthulhu I came up with what I think is a great way to empower players while still ensuring that a basic minimum overlapping skill set needed to solve the problems is at the table.
I make pregens, but only allocate the essential skills. Then I explain that the players may add “x” points to the skill builds as they see fit, with some simple rules to keep the characters legal (so experienced players don’t feel shortchanged) and unmunchkinny (so the experienced players can’t shortchange the newbies).
Then we use the idea of “defining interests” from RoC. Each PC has a given number of these, and they convey specific fields of knowledge on the character. In this way the lack of,say, a boating skill can be covered by a defining interest in rafting, or fishing, or any likely hobby-like stuff.
The rule I use is that these are picked out-of-the-blue, in-game as need arises and can literally encompass anything, and the players should be prepared to role-play the “Did I ever tell you about the time I climbed Everest? I had to train in rock climbing for nearly a year!” moment to the hilt.
Once picked they are carved in stone (so no re-defining them) and (and this is the fun part) first player to claim it gets the glory. This has literally been the best idea I ever stole and retasked. So successful that I’ve ported versions of it into other game systems for one-off convention/games day events.