Recently at Con on the Cob, I ran a one shot of Monster of the Week and also stumbled into an opportunity to play Dungeon World. Both games use the system first created in Apocalypse World, and while I’m not completely sold on Dungeon World as a replacement for long-running D&Desque games (either D&D or Pathfinder, pick your poison), there are some integral concepts to the games that really speak to my narrative GM soul. One of the primary rules is simple and actually kind of profound in the grand history of roleplaying games:
“Be a fan of the PCs.”
This system makes it so easy to run a Supernatural or Buffy game.
It might be a little melodramatic, but I can almost hear the collective gasps of shock across time from thousands of basements in the vast suburban landscape of the early 80’s. Maybe that’s a little unfair since the best GMs have always understood that a good game is fun for everyone at the table, but an adversarial relationship between the GM and the players was considered to be at least somewhat normal. Even today many GMs that were introduced to gaming with that style of play still take a certain glee in causing a TPK (total party kill) or in finding other ways to frustrate and impede their players’ characters. I recall one particularly creepy GM from just a few years ago that was actually cackling maniacally (without the slightest hint of irony) as we voluntarily entered the dungeon in front of our characters.
Whether you call them World Games, Ax Games (Apocalyse x), or simply Powered by the Apocalypse (PbtA), these games require a give and take between the GM and the players that absolutely requires the GM be rooting for the PCs to do interesting and amazing things. With the narrative nature of the system, the GM has to cede control to the players on occasion while the players need to trust the GM to provide them with choices that make the game’s story interesting above all else. If a GM were to take on an adversarial role, the game would quickly spiral into something that’s not much fun for anyone at the table. At their core, the World Games understand that EVERYONE is there at the table to create stories filled with adventure and awesome.
Being a fan of your players’ PCs is probably one of the most resonant GMing suggestions I’ve ever had explicitly spelled out for me. The longer the idea sunk into my brain, the more it made sense. If what I love about RPGs are the stories we bring to life, then why wouldn’t I be a fan of the central characters in those stories? The other thing that struck home was that, as integral as the concept is to World Games, it’s something that can be applied to any roleplaying game.
D&D? Sure. Pathfinder? Of Course. Savage Worlds? Yes. World of Darkness? Absolutely. Doctor Who? You MUSTÂ be a fan. Call of Cthulhu? Even there, insanity and all. Paranoia? Well, maybe not… just kidding! It doesn’t matter which system you’re running, bringing a desire to see the PCs be their best can only improve the game for everyone at the table.
This doesn’t mean you don’t want the PCs to have obstacles and challenges, though. Things being too easy for the PCs would be boring for everyone. Having hovered at the outskirts of several different fandoms, I’ve seen some folks take being a fan of a character to mean they don’t want ANYTHING bad to happen to that character and any writer or director who puts a beloved character through troubled times is evil incarnate. While sometimes creators can go too far (I’m looking at you, Martin, Moffat, and Whedon), it’s absolutely crucial to remember that what makes us fall in love with these characters is often how awesome they are in the face of adversity.
As a GM, I don’t want to go easy on my players and their characters. I want them to face down trouble with panache and style and come through the other side of adversity with a well won victory. I am absolutely rooting for them to do awesome things, and it doesn’t matter which game I’m running. I’m going to be their number one fan.
I couldn’t agree more. In my own games I tend to error on the side of “too-easy” challenges, and I often have to remind myself that these guys have, like 50 total levels between them, and they can face tougher challenges… then when it looks like a TPK might result, I am on the edge of my seat right along with the players.
What I cannot imagine is intentionally creating a situation in which I discourage my players from following my hooks. They should expect a challenge — that’s what makes for excitement, after all — but actively rooting against the players doesn’t seem like a good GMing, and it will tend to result in exactly what you describe: “Oh, he’s laughing again; how about we don’t go into the dungeon?” You mean the dungeon I spent five hours on this weekend? Now no one is having fun.
I actually have that ‘too easy’ problem as well. It always gives me a little bit of a shock when I see players taking a challenge deadly seriously when I know it’s not that hard.
You are absolutely right on that last part. If the players start to realize that the GM is out to get them, they’ll stop playing nice with the plot and eventually even stop coming to the game. The only people I know who subject themselves to that type of thing on a regular basis either don’t know any better or have limited options in finding a new group.
Does anyone seriously think that the GM’s true goal in a roleplaying game should be to kill the party? Sure, there have been plenty of jokes about it, but come on.
I have known GMs who operate that way. It was much more accepted 30 years ago when RPGs were a new hobby, when the “D&D Murder Hobo” mindset was abirthing. However, I still encounter GMs who believe that they should be doing their darnedest to kill at least one PC in any particular session they run. Sadly, this is the only way they think they can challenge the players. I don’t see it as much now, but definitely the mindset was common back then.
The story-focused GM is an invention of the ’90s, around the time the World of Darkness really began to challenge D&D for sales, although it’s always been present in certain genres like superhero games and such. Don’t get me wrong: I love D&D as much as most of us older gamers do, flawed as it is, and I know that storytelling can be done with it (or pretty much any system, even some of the bad ones). That just seems to demark the timeframe when gaming saw storytelling become ascendent over murder hoboing.
I would absolutely agree with you that it’s a myth if I hadn’t played in the late 80’s and actually seen some GMs doing this in recent years. The example I cited above actually happened and that GM was disappointed when he didn’t kill us.
You’re right, it was great to spell it out, even though most of us were already running games in that style.
Blackjack: I suspect that some of the difference is the strong encounter building rules that the Apocalypse World games have. You can push hard and feel fair, while in games with more varied power levels, you can’t push hard if you miscalculated the threat level in the first place. (I hope that makes sense.)
It is definitely trickier with crunchier systems since it’s very easy to miscalculate and throw the PCs up against something that’s too tough.
I don’t really think it’s safe to say that “most of us” were already doing this. Seldom does a day go by when I don’t hear about someone who isn’t.
Well, when I say ‘most of us’, I’m referring to those reading Gnome Stew. Hopefully the folks coming here to read about GMing are already doing this type of thing.
It is sad that there are still GMs out there playing the game as a me vs. them scenario.
I agree with the idea of placing the spotlights on the pcs, but I think there’s some over reaction to the “adversary†approach in the game table. I believe it’s a valid approach if you are fair. It’s a matter of sportsmanship.