Evil Narrators

[calguard66]

I have to say that I've been wanting to comment on thius thread for a while, but couldn't figure out what to say.

The reason why is that Dan is correct.

It doesn't matter what your GM's solutions are, he isn't playing.

It doesn't matter that he may be a better tactician or commander, because he isn't filling those roles. He is filling the role of a gamemaster... and at that he seems to be dooing as poor a job as he THINKS you are as a Captain.

One should also point out that it is easy for him to figure out what to do, he set up the puzzle. His job is to provide a fun game, not a puzzle that can only be solved his way. Part of the fun of being a GM is setting up a scenario and then seeing your players solve it in a way you never even thought of.

Go ahead and have your fight if you want, but it won't prove anything. Might as well have a boxing match, or play tiddly winks... it's jut as relevant.

[C5]

Quite true.

Your problem reminds me a bit of what my group is experiencing with our SW GM (but not that bad).
This guy doesn't like to lose (he's been becoming famous for that in fact), and sometimes many of us get the feeling that he sees the game as an competition between players and GM... so we get guards popping out of everywhere, knowing exactly where we are and what we are doing, and always, always superior in strength.
OTOH, he never lets a player die, but it's not rare to hear him say at the end of a game "Hey, you know you missed a whole subplot, you could have tried that and that", and usually we wonder how the hell we could have done to achieve it (one example : we are aboard a cruiser docked to a space station, trying to kidnap the captain. We manage to incapacitate most of the crew, miss the captain, then run for it while guards of the station are patrolling the cruiser with their usual superplayer efficiency. After the game, the GM tells us that we could have tried to hijack the cruiser - well of course, only two out of the five characters remotely know how to pilot such a thing, but who cares )

As many said above, players and GMs don't share the same goal. The goal of the players is to solve the GM's puzzle. The goal of the GM is to create an interesting puzzle... then to resist as long as possible to the efforts of the players. It's an elaborate hide and seek game (where the hider can change place), not a competition as to who can solve the puzzle faster.
That's how I see Narrating anyway - we shall see how well I can keep to that after more GMing sessions...

Anyway, good luck for your fight, Vaebn - maybe a defeat could bring your Narrator to listen to your opinions.

[Dan Gurden]

Originally posted by Vaebn
It feels much better now one of us won't have to depart. I don't think there are too many RPG groups around here...

I would like to apologise for moving from Solihull (in the West Midlands for all you non-Brits), to Hampshire... If I was still about, I would indeed offer an alternative...

And as a full-time GM (at least thats what it feels like), who has been through this guys problem and come out the other side stronger and more capable (ie; I had that revalation that the game is fun for player AND GM rather than the player Vs. GM... Trust me the revalation is not the same thing as nkowing the difference...), I would have been able to offer my services as GM.

Sorry.

[Imagus]

I think I'm in agreement with the Dans here... Although your ref definitely has an attitude problem!

And I don't think this should ever be a competition. C5's "GM sets puzzle and tries to prevent players solving it" is one (perfectly valid) approach to gaming, but to me, the GM is trying to tell a story with the players, rather than in spite of them. And the same goes for the relationship in the other direction.

And personally, if the ref thinks you're a bad Captain, why not give him the opportunity to prove it for real? Offer to run the game for a couple of sessions, with him in charge of the vessel.

To keep it within the series setting, you could set it up in a similar manner to "Chain of Command" with a replacement captain brought in while your PC does a special mission.

Just a thought...

[C5]

Originally posted by Imagus
And I don't think this should ever be a competition. C5's "GM sets puzzle and tries to prevent players solving it" is one (perfectly valid) approach to gaming, but to me, the GM is trying to tell a story with the players, rather than in spite of them. And the same goes for the relationship in the other direction.

What I meant was that the goal of the GM is to set up a puzzle, and ensure that the players won't solve it too quickly... while of course avoiding complitely stalling them until they find the GM's labelled correct course of action (hugh!).

In the end, this comes to the same you said : the GM and players build a story together... only the GM knows and decides everything that happens in the universe minus what the players will do, while the players know the opposite.

[Calcoran]

Oh ... do they? I mean, really?

[Vaebn]

DanS, I agree with what you are saying. I believe this guy has a problem with me on a personal level more than a gaming one, he is probably using this as an outlet.
I really doubt if he cares who the better Captain is, I believe he is just trying to find a way to aggravate me.

the problem isn't he is better than you, the problem is he is banging you over the head with it.

Again, I agree. My problem is stopping him banging me over the head with it.

Imagus:

if the ref thinks you're a bad Captain, why not give him the opportunity to prove it for real

It's not the fact that he thinks he is or even is, I couldn't care less, I just want him to leave me alone and allow me to Captain my ship how I want to Captain it.
As I have said, the other players in the group are quite content to sit back and see where this goes

Anyway, I thank you all for your kind support and advice that has been offered. I would like to put an end to the battle before it begins, but with everyone in the group willing to see what happens, I dont really have the backing to accomplish it.

[silverthorn]

Oh, I've had my fair share of bad GM's two spring to mind.

1) One GM who ran RuneQuest and Traveller didn't believe in fudging dice rolls at all which lead to a minor problem when he decided that a major RQ scenario required a NPC to remain alive long enough to get to some place or another. First combat of the scenario, the NPC gets decapitated by something or another (because the GM stuck to the dice roll even though the bad guy had just rolled a critical against the NPC's unarmoured head. The GM then proceeded to slag us off because we'd ruined his carefully planned scenario.

The same GM then banned me from attending his games after I argued that just because my Traveller character was from some backwater planet my character wasn't a complete bloody moron.

2) Another GM I still play games with couldn't know a original idea if it came up to him and gave him a wedgy. He's ran Star Trek games ripping off every ST series since Next Gen. His high spot was deciding to run a Star Trek game for his "elite" players and telling the other half of the (at the time 15 strong) group that they (including me, although I'd turned up every week for 5 years at that time) would have to play something else because they weren't good enough for the "elite" game.

Two weeks after that I quit that group for about three years but for some reason returned to it about 3 years ago and it has got better (slightly).

[Commander Ramey]

I have done that to my gamers, that is if something bad happens go ahead and let them fail. They usually try some way to get around it and try to at least partially complete the mission - of course even Captain Picard fails on occasion. Remember the Romulan spy he missed? It happens to everyone, that isn't necesarrily a bad thing.

INSULTING the players however IS bad. If you aint haveing fun, talk to the other players in advance, if everyone is in agreement confront the Narrator calmly and rationally. Remember ABOVE ALL the reason for gameing is to HAVE FUN. If you aint... Well it's not important enough for you to play. (Heaven forbid you give up though - I would go through withdrawls ha ha)...

[Paul]

In my group, we play two games (soon to be three) - D&D3E (run by another guy in the group), and Star Trek (Narrated by Yours Truly). The new game will be Vampire - but the details haven't been worked out yet - it's also not relevant to the story.

When I run the Trek, I keep my games short (I like the episodic feel of Trek for my scenarios) - they generally last three to fours hours.

I don't carefully plan my scenarios, but I do prepare handouts and GM sheets. I keep my story ideas in a notebook, which I refer to from time to time, although usually I don't forget them once I've written them down.

My games run fairly smoothly - I don't think I'm a bad GM, but I know I'm not the best the world has to offer (or the city, for that matter ).

After the game is done, I ask the players if they enjoyed themselves, apologise if I recognise that a player may have been left out of the action a bit through my bad planning of the story idea(s), and ask for feedback. I then try to incorporate anything into the next game.

Vaebn: Ask your GM if he knows the meaning of the term PRO-ACTIVE. It helps heaps. My group uses it well, and we're generally happy as a group because of it.

[Dan Gurden]

Having followed and participated in this thread... And from personnal experience I can safetly say that there is a guide to being a Good GM, anyone that follows these rules conciously or not qualifies, whether they consider themselves the worlds hottest GM or merely an OK one.


Rule 1 - Have fun and share it with your players.
You are all gathered for a social event, chances are you are all friends outside of the game too. So the key is to tell a story and share it with your friends allowing them to participate in the telling of a story.

When it comes right down to it. Thats the only rule. All the rest about using rules, keeping canon, knowing the world and background are merely fluff. At the end of the day, any fool with an imagination can be a great GM, and wouldn't even need rulebook or dice, although a pen and sheet of paper might be useful!

[silverthorn]

I have a problem with a game of Star Wars that one of the players is running at the Friday night group I go to.

The major problem is that I can't stand the game but the other players like it (I prefer games of SW to be like the movies, the other players are playing cold heartless bastards).

The other minor problem is that I'm actually running the bloody game.

Does that make me a bad GM?

Advice please.

[Dan Gurden]

Originally posted by silverthorn
I have a problem with a game of Star Wars that one of the players is running at the Friday night group I go to.

The major problem is that I can't stand the game but the other players like it (I prefer games of SW to be like the movies, the other players are playing cold heartless bastards).

The other minor problem is that I'm actually running the bloody game.

Does that make me a bad GM?

Advice please.

hmmm. That sounds familiar.

I had exactly the same situation a few years back, with me trying to extol the over-the-top heroism and optimism of the movies, in the hope that the players would side with the Rebelliion.

I wouldn't even have minded if they had sided with the Empire and worked as mercs, but all the group wanted to do was fly about from planet to planet killing and raping... A thoroughly unpleasant experience to run.

In answer to your question. No this does not make you a bad GM, but if your not enjoying running the game, then you are missing out on the experience, and a GM thats bored and a little pissed off, can easily pass this across to the players even without thinking.

Does your group know this is not enjoyable for you?

Does anyone in the group have the capability to run the game too? Allowing you to swap and at least have some influence over the direction the group takes as a fellow player?

[silverthorn]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does your group know this is not enjoyable for you?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, they don't give a f**k. After two (count 'em, two) sessions of the Star Trek game I was running (the infamous STAR TREK: FARSCAPE) the players have decided they're not going to play that again and they want me to run bloody Star Wars again.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does anyone in the group have the capability to run the game too? Allowing you to swap and at least have some influence over the direction the group takes as a fellow player?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All the other players ever run is Star bloody Wars. Although a ray of hope has entered the area. One of the other players is thinking of running TORG (cushdy, time to perfect my Arnie voice for my traditional Renegade Infiltrator).

Now all I have to do is convince them to stop playing Limp sodding Biskit and the games might get a lot better.

[Commander Ramey]

I had that problem once. The players were just going through the motions, not playing "in character" Ie they didnt act like people do in real life. Now we want to play heroes, and that's the point in most games, but even heros have fears... Sooooooo I killed one of them, a character that was over a decade old. After six months of real time, I finally let them find him alive, but caputred. They had turned around alot realizeing that I would kill off a old character and they started acting a little better. Biggest point: if you aren't haveing fun it's time to stop!!!!!!!!!! You won't be haveing fun, and neither will anyone else. My friend runs a SW campeighn like that and I just quit after a few sessions. Eventually they moved that session to another night and started playing something else that we all liked. If it's not possible... Well...