I’m about to say “engaged” a lot, so it’s worth being clear exactly how I’m using the term. I’m pulling from several definitions of “engaged” here, but the resulting composite is the definition I think best applies to roleplaying: involved, drawn in, engrossed, held fast and interlocked.
Observation 1: As a GM, I’m 100% engaged by default. Even if I’m not doing a great job, all of my attention goes to my players and the game. That doesn’t mean I won’t make the occasional joke, or need a quick break from time to time, but I won’t be flipping through a book, glancing at the TV or otherwise getting distracted.
Observation 2: From what I’ve seen, that applies to good and bad GMs (and good GMs having bad days) — if you’re trying to do even a halfway decent job GMing, it’s nearly impossible not to be fully engaged.
Observation 3: As a player, I’m rarely 100% engaged — and based on my highly unscientific observations over the years, that’s pretty common for other players, too. Being less than 100% engaged doesn’t mean I’m not into it, not having fun or not bringing my A game, but it does mean that when I’m not directly involved in a scene, my level of engagement drops.
Observation 4: For me, being 100% engaged as a player means that I’m not only deeply invested in what my character is involved in, but that I’m also focused on the game with laser-like intensity when I’m not directly involved. When this has happened, it’s led to some of the best gaming sessions I’ve ever had.
Summing up, then: As a GM, I can be 100% engaged and still not be doing a great job — needing to devote all of my attention to the game is part of the GMing package, more of a default than a goal. As a player, though, being fully engaged means that I’m on, not just firing on all cylinders but helping everyone else at the table get into it as well.
Which begs two questions: What does it mean that a GM can be 100% engaged in the game and still not be GMing at their best? And if 100% engagement is the key to being a good player (or at least a major factor), how best can we, as GMs, encourage that level of intensity at the table?
Great topic.
On GMing: There are days when my best isn’t good enough (to really simplify things). Sometimes the data stream is larger than the mental bandwidth, sometimes I’m just not running on eight cylinders, sometimes I spent too much prep on the wrong thing… Practice makes perfect, so even when I’m “not good enough”, I’m getting better. (At least that’s what I tell myself.)
On Playing: Immersion is (for me)
one of the big payoffsthe big payoff. When the rules disappear and you’re there. It’s an awesome thing, and I feel sorry for the gamers who never see it. Like most things, you get out of gaming what you put into it, so focus is the primary factor.But other factors will keep the immersion level down. Poor GMing is obviously one of these, as are any number of distracting elements (comments from the peanut gallery, rules discussions, television, phone calls, etc). As GMs, we can strive to identify and minimize these factors.
(Yes, I used the word ‘strive’; I’ve been reading some Gygax recently and I guess it’s showing.)
I have had situations as a GM when I am not 100% engaged… Lately I have realized it’s probably because something serious is wrong with the game, and player expectations are clashing. Sometimes it is honestly because I’m just wiped out, but I’ve noticed over the past few months that I’ve had days when I’ve taken to napping just before the session because I’m so drained, and I half expect to bail on the session. Then the players show up, and soon it’s 11:00 PM and time to quit…
A GM who is 100% engaged but who also isn’t GMing at their best may be struggling with a game that just doesn’t totally captivate their interest (not so bad they start daydreaming or fall asleep, but bad enough that they misfire occaisionally), or it may be that the GM and player expectations are not in synch.
Frank
To encourage more player engagement (and lesson the effects of GM engagement), my current design efforts are focused on ways to make a system that forces everyone at the table to take a “turn” frequently and regularly. Ideally, any kind of conflict will involve more than one player in the resolution (and the additional players involved will also rotate).
It’s a big part of the motivation for a system where “players play all the monsters”. I agree with ScottM’s suggestions above, but I think I’ve pushed them as far as they can go with my current group (stable for many years). I’m not satisfied with the results. So the next effort is to actually change the system to make what I want necessary for any kind of play to occur.
My ideal is that the percentage of engagement should be fairly constant for all the players in a group, at any given moment. If we are clowning around, making Monty Python jokes, etc., then it might drop to 50% or less–for everyone. In normal play for us (which always has a small amount of OOC chatter, though that has its own kind of engagement), we might hit 75-90%–again, for everyone. When things get really intense, I want the rachet effect to happen for everyone there.
So the sister system changes to spreading the GM workload around more evenly is that when a player changes his engagement level, this should tend to pull other players in the same direction. Note that for my purposes, that pull could be towards more or less engagement. So what I produce might not be very handy for someone striving for 100% engagement as much as possible–such as an immersionist stuck in a group with a bunch of social gamers. The system would tend to lower his engagement. On the other hand, if the players are predominately in agreement, a new players will get pulled in their established directon.
There are really three (broad, with variation) ways to approach the issue of controlling the amount of engagement, IMHO:
1. GM and player nature and habits–such as the things Scott listed.
2. A focused design that produces engagement of a certain level, in a certain way–because that is what the game does–such as with many of the Indie games.
3. (Theoretically), a design that adapts to reinforce whatever the players (including GM) bring to the table–such as with Ars Magica troupe play (probably as a nice, even unintended, byproduct).
I don’t think much as been done with #3, yet, but that’s a big part of my goal. There may be some LARPs or PBEM design slants that I’m missing, because I’m focused only on tabletop here.
I think possibly the best way to keep players engaged even when they’re not in the scene that is playing out is to suprise them.
Primarily through revelation of story clues/ NPC secrets, good characterisation of recurring NPCs that evokes an emotion in the player usually laughter or curiousity but the best is fear and anticipation (linking to the suprise factor). I also create a mental checklist of small ways to help & hinder PCs based on their backgrounds, which does suprise some players when you as a GM strengthen their character concept.
In my opinion its the GM’s job to spot the player whose engagement is dropping and throw them something juicy to work over either in combat or in social.
I agreed wholeheartedly with Scott. I’m currently running an immersive (he says) free-form urban campaign where the party splits regularly so I have been working extra extra hard to try and make the story threads and NPCs in the setting grab players attention and then always leave them wanting to know more, forcing them to work to get the extra info.
But… at the end of the day it is a game so never take it too bad when one PC falls asleep (happened to me Monday, although she has got a nasty cold… or thats what she said anyway)just keep trying different things to engage players and their characters including asking them what WILL engage them!
“In my opinion its the GM’s job to spot the player whose engagement is dropping and throw them something juicy to work over either in combat or in social.”
I’m ambivalent about that point. On the one hand, that is how I GM’d for many years, and still do with most games. It can be incredibly effective, especially with players you know well. Plus, in a game where the players are somewhat stuck in a situation (for any number of reasons), they may not be able to get engaged until you provide them such fodder.
On the other hand, I’m particularly tired of that responsibility. It seems to be a little too much like work to me–aka not fun. It’s not unlike being on the offensive line for an (American) football team, where if your efforts get noticed, it’s because they were lacking.
Lately, my players have changed a bit. They are much more willing to drop out of character and explicitly ask to do something else, if what we are doing isn’t working. The more they do it, the more I appreciate it. You know, when we had this little scene:
Me: “So where do you want to go next.” (implying a bunch of ingame choices)
Players: “Where we can whomp the bad guys.”
… it broke the characterization for a few seconds–and led directly to the next couple of hours being a whole lot of fun–glorious, engaged fun.
“On the other hand, I’m particularly tired of that responsibility. It seems to be a little too much like work to me–aka not fun”.
LOL I know what you mean… too much leading can make your players lazy and they kinda sit back and (seem to) have the attitude “I don’t have to work so hard, the GM’ll sort it out”… which isn’t the point really is it?
In any story thread there’ll be some PCs drooling over it (hopefully) and some that it doesn’t fire up, it’s these guys n girls who need to be thrown something that’ll get them more involved, EVEN if you take them to one side and have them secretly working against the goals of the party (only when they think the story concept is completely pointless).
As a GM I do have the tendency to put in 100% effort (work) in establishing the setting and then improvising 99% in the game (fun), one of the reasons I very rarely go for detailed session prep. I enjoy the PCs tearing the setting apart and then suffering the consequences in the next session/ adventure.
I agree with you on so many levels it’s untrue about not being unafraid to break characterisation… it sounds so much better when you ask out of genuine interest what the party wants to do rather than out frustration/ borderline psychosis.
At the end of the day, you’re all there to have as much fun as you can get together, PC imput is, as or more important in adventure types/styles than the GM.
One final point without any brackets or strokes >=0) I am a workaholic kinda person, I enjoy the responsibility of ensuring PC engagement as I find that when you have the entire party cursing and begging you for having a strategic cigarette break to create a cliffhanger effect in-game because they HAVE to know what happens next, that is incredibly rewarding and gratifying.
You have to be at least slightly megalomaniacal to GM… how else could you do it?