(Note: What I write is largely setting agnostic, but not necessarily system agnostic. It is usually constructed from a DnD/Pathfinder/fantasy viewpoint. You may or may not find it applicable to systems you run)
Buckle up, this is a long one.
People advocate for players a lot. There are dozens of articles and blogs devoted to it, numerous boards for players to seek support and advice, and several groups that are player-centric in their discussions. But one thing I see a little too often for my liking is a common thread with some vast overstatements: how responsible the GM is for any given player's fun and any problems that arise. As a long-running GM myself, this position is riddled with issues. So I decided to do a bit of GM advocacy.
What Does A GM Really Do?
Let's start with something unambiguous - the GM, no matter what acronym is used, runs the story and is the one responsible for processing actions and formulating responses and results to/for actions. Think of them like a gaming console. The campaign is the disc you insert. The GM is the actual hardware. Players get to play the game using certain controls, and what occurs is supposed to be reasonable and in line with what the player chose to do.
This seems simple enough on the surface, but you'd be surprised how many don't make it this far without presuming that the GM is out to get them. This goes for some of you GMs too. You're not out to kill the party anymore than your PlayStation is out to kill you. You're simply there to tell the players that the person who does want to kill them is attempting to do so. And how.
But, surely most people understand this simple fact, right? So the article must be very short and redundant, right?
I wish.
There is an apparent culture where people have completely redefined what a GM does and is for. In my perspective, it might even be the current majority opinion.
So let's nail down what a GM actually does first.
GMs are supposed to provide:
- Rules fluency
- Consistent application of rules
- Meta and social boundaries for players in the campaign
- Permissible behaviors in and out of game
- Plot
- Reasonable choice in game
- Characters
- Dialogue
- Places
- Events
- Everything that a player does not have control over
- Everything a player interacts with
I'm imagining a lot of readers out there might be confused, because this seems apparent. I don't think people question these parts much. In fact, I might even agree that only fringe opinions would take issue with these being in the list of what a GM actually does.
So where is the disagreement? From what I've seen, a growing amount of people have very warped ideas of what else should be on this list. Conveniently, they all fit on the list of what a GM is, in fact, actually not responsible for.
The role of a GM should not require:
- Conflict resolution
- Managing distractions/player attention/time
- Keeping the players focused on goals
- Lorekeeping
- Permitting unreasonable actions
Now I'm thinking some of you are going to disagree. Possibly heavily. I've seen the arguments before. They're mostly not good arguments. I'm not even sure where the mentality stems from. I'm going to break these down bit by bit.
Conflict Resolution
Why people view the GM as an authority of anything beyond the facts of the world in front of them is beyond me, but I'm guessing it has something to do with the fact that GMs are also expected to be the one and only ones who can kick people from games. Which is silly, because everyone should have a voice to that end.
Let's nip this in the bud. I'm not saying GMs should stand idly by as problems occur. I'm not saying they shouldn't oppose things on the ground of them being inappropriate. I'm saying that generally, when players push this responsibility solely to the GM, they are being disingenuous and unreasonable. I'm saying that GMs are not your babysitters, and they're not HR. I'm saying players have a responsibility too.
In fact, I would say players at the table are every bit as responsible for the content that is generated as the GM. I know this will be unpopular in some circles, but it's true. In fact, players admit this all the time without realizing it. We even have a term for it; player agency.
Generally speaking, when we talk about player agency, we're talking about how players get the chance to enact whatever they want their character to do. This is a bit simplified, but the idea is clear. Players are given agency to interact relatively freely in the world.
If you believe in player agency as a necessary part of the game, then you can't consistently argue for GM intervention on matters by default.
Let's examine an easy to imagine scenario as an example.
Alice and Bob have gotten into an argument at the table. Alice is playing an elf ranger, and Bob is playing a halfling rogue. Bob, after the argument, tries to steal from Alice. Bob succeeds in stealing, and Alice is mad. Alice demands the GM do something about Bob.
Here's the thing. If the GM did something about Bob because of his actions, the GM would be removing player agency. Bob would now be penalized for meta reasons, and if the GM walked back the decision to steal, that would be removing his agency.
So you can't have it both ways.
"That's different. Bob clearly instigated a pvp scenario. Bob is the jerk."
I agree! Bob is the jerk here. Well, unless pvp is okay. You do know some groups allow that and still get on fine, right? Context matters, is my point. But assuming pvp is disallowed, then yes, Bob is a jerk. The GM should probably have a stern talk with Bob. But not because Alice has been affected, but because an agreed to rule was broken.
Now, if the GM never made pvp's status clear, but still decided to have a talk with Bob on Alice's behalf, this is fine! I'm not saying a GM should never step in. I'm saying it should be a choice, not an expected duty of being a GM.
So what should a GM do, then? Just let Alice get stolen from? Doesn't that remove her agency?
It does remove her agency. But the word "let" is the issue here. Because it's a big clue to how someone is framing the discussion. The GM only "lets" things happen insofar as concluding if they are reasonable, and could happen. You can't jump 50 feet in the air, because that's not feasible without magic. No one cries foul about that limiting player agency because we all collectively agree, explicitly or not, to play the same game. And in this case, that game is one defined by reasonable suspensions of disbelief. And unless a 50 foot jump is established as realistically possible in the setting for the characters present, it's just not going to fly, because everyone agrees - that's absurd.
So therein lies the real truth and the real solution. The GM isn't the one responsible for walking back the decision alone, nor are they the only ones responsible for world consistency. The whole table is.
The GM isn't the one affected by Bob's actions, Alice is. And if Alice is, then the whole party, indirectly, is affected. The GM should only weigh in enough to disallow certain actions based on historical evidence. If Bob had a chronic history of stealing from the party, then there is no reason to scrutinize this one instance, and the GM should remind them of this. If Bob never has, and never showed any signs of doing this, then there is, and the GM should make this point.
The GM really should only make a call on if it is reasonable to walk any given action back based on prior information, but the players - the ones actually playing the game and who are impacted by this sort of action and decision - should be the ones to hammer out what should happen, generally speaking. And not in a jury-handing-a-sentence-down manner, but in a "Bob, that made no sense and seemed to bring an out-of-game matter in-game. We're all wanting to walk this back unless you can justify why on earth you would do that" way.
Side note: The GM should probably weigh in on if something seems too punitive or disproportionate as well. Just because Bob was a jerk, doesn't mean that Bob will always be a jerk, and maybe Bob will soon realize it was wrong of him to do that to Alice. We are, in theory, here to have fun and play a game.
So, see? This is a player-player matter, not a player-GM matter. The entire party, with GM support, should see to these matters, not put it squarely on the GM's shoulders. And this should go for any and every matter, generally speaking. Finding one person to scapegoat into having the difficult talk is unfair, and if multiple people have a problem, it should be noted by each person.
In other words, not solely the GM's responsibility.
Side note: So, yes, obviously if a GM were to engage in one of the taboos we all know not to do, that is bad. But again, we're talking about player-player conflicts. The GM is not responsible for those, but should be involved in the overall process, with very limited ability to direct that sort of thing.
Makes sense? Good.
Managing Distractions/Player Attention/Time
I think it's insane that players will be the ones to have side conversations, show things or browse lengthily on their phone, space out when it isn't their turn, and have the gall to act like the GM is the one who is failing because they aren't "more engaging". Worse still, there are some who insist that sessions that "drag" or combat that "takes too long" is robbing the session of time, and that this somehow is purely the fault of the GM. Ludicrous.
I don't know if this is just a stubborn naïveté, or what, but in case you somehow missed the memo, if you bring a distraction to the table, that's not the GM's fault, it's yours. And they shouldn't be tasked with monitoring you to make sure you're not deliberately interrupting the game. I'm not saying that technology is even necessarily bad. Adept users can utilize it to easily aid their gameplay so they can be reminded of their abilities on the fly. Spells too - great resources in theory.
But if you end up browsing reddit and texting, only to see the GM slightly deflated because you didn't have your turn prepped, that's entirely on you.
People detract from this by saying things like "Battle takes forever, what am I supposed to do?"
Or, "The GM was doing a different player's questline and I wasn't there."
Or, "I was just having a tiny little chat on downtime, chill out."
In order:
- Pay attention, or find a different system/group.
- Pay attention; this is an absurd statement to make.
- And finally, no, you were being distracting, PAY ATTENTION.
As mentioned, the GM puts in hours of work into each session. As a player, you are there, ostensibly, to play the game. That's what you agreed to. So is and so did everyone else. Every minute you take up by distracting the table is a minute that everyone loses for that session.
Side note: I'm sympathetic to those with attention disorders. This doesn't apply as a criticism to you, but if you do struggle with this, there should still be measures taken to ensure that you are accommodated appropriately as to help your inputs go smoothly.
It's self-centered to act like paying attention to important character developments are somehow a chore just because they don't involve you. Do you stop watching your favorite TV show when it focuses on another character? Do you skip around until you only see the perspective of the character you want to watch? No, you watch the whole thing. This isn't different.
Side note: I also hear people talk about how this violates metaknowledge because "their character wouldn't know this". Well, I'm just going to shut that down right here by strongly recommending reading Angry GM's ingenious article: Dear GMs: Metagaming is YOUR Fault Despite the title, it really goes over how metagaming as a concept affects everyone, and how we all need to re-up our understanding of what the concept even really means at the table. The short version is: acting like you can't know something because your character wouldn't know it is a fallacious approach to playing the game. You're at the table, so you're going to occasionally hear or know things that your character shouldn't. Instead of avoiding it altogether, you should pick more reasonable ways to work with the information you end up with.
And if battle is taking too long, it's either the GM's fault, the players', or both. In my years of GMing, I'm rarely the reason it is taking so long unless I foolishly attempt a horde battle, despite knowing how much of a slog it's going to be (I swear every time it will be different... never is). So when it's the players, it's almost universally because they didn't have a plan and a backup plan. One for the ideal, one for if plans happen to change. Know what would help that? Paying attention even when it isn't your turn.
It's hard enough to be engaging. It's an uphill battle when players are willingly distracting themselves the second their turn is done, and until their next turn is coming up.
I think this position, most people can probably see my point on. But I want to really drive in that I reject equating 'keeping attention' with 'being engaging'. The players agreed to play a game at a set time for a set duration. If they come doing anything other than that, they are the ones hindering engagement, not the GM, and I'm really tired seeing people pass the buck, insisting that the GM is the one at fault for "not being engaging enough". It's nearly insulting, when considering how much work a GM puts in for each session.
Anyway.
Keeping Players Focused on Goals
I have had campaigns where players, disgruntled, insinuated that I was at fault because I was not corralling other players more efficiently and keeping them on task. This is a really strange notion that, admittedly, I see less than other points, but I see more than I used to.
Forget player agency, I'm the GM, and you're telling me how to do my job when it's your teammates that aren't pulling their weight? This is not the GM's job to curtail.
As a GM, my entire goal is to take what the players want to do in the world I have put forth and reason out what happens in response. So, no, I'm not going to "keep them focused". If a player wants people to pursue certain tasks, then they should make this known.
Now, let's say the GM is laying hooks that the party isn't taking. This is a bit more intricate, because now the GM is attempting to initiate something, and the players are demonstrating either a lack of interest, a lack of perception, or a lack of care. The first two are important.
If it is from a lack of interest, then lay different hooks. Ask the party what they are interested in. This is, though, something that a well-done session zero, in all respects, should filter out. But occasionally it happens in good faith.
If it is from a lack of perception, it's not verboten to say "Hey, I've been laying a few plot hooks that you guys seem to be passing up on. Have you been doing so on purpose or did I make them a little too veiled?" In the end, this is like the other option - have a talk and hash out what you can do better. This much is the GM's responsibility, because the contractual agreement you form is that you're hosting players who want to play your world. They're only agreeing to play your world if the events presented to them are congruent with what was advertised.
However, if it is a lack of care, because the players want to do something else, be it because of some bizarre attempt at getting under the GMs skin (this, unbelievably, happens more than you would think) or because they just don't want to take "obvious hooks" then this gets to a point where now, the players are intentionally disrupting the game. No longer is the GM responsible, the players are, and they should absolutely be reminded of what they agreed to by joining the game.
I'd like to believe the differences apparent here are agreeable.
Lorekeeping
"Hey, GM, what's the name of the place we're going again?"
"Hey, GM, remind me what happened in that personal story event two months of sessions ago?"
"Hey, GM, what's the king's name again?"
I'll say it. If you do this instead of taking notes, you're a problem player.
I'm not talking about the people who blip here and there or generally don't find a need for note taking to remember these things. I'm talking about the people who habitually do not take notes, do not try to take notes, and still look at the GM as if they are their repository for events that have transpired.
I run it this way: If you don't remember, roll INT. Think that isn't fair? Take some notes.
"My character would remember it! You're being mean."
You'd remember it too. If you took notes.
And I'm not being mean. I'm just tired of people acting upset because of something they could have prevented by engaging in a reasonable manner with the game. Of all the duties a GM has, they really do not need to be interrupting the narrative because a player or three never remembers who they're talking to, why they are important, or what transpired the last time they engaged with them.
This is staunchly in the players' set of responsibilities, not the GM's. Though I'll admit, the GM can greatly help post-session by providing certain notes that might encourage others to keep better notes.
Permitting Unreasonable Actions
Ok, ending as contentiously as we started, probably.
This probably runs the risk of being the most unpopular opinion among what I'm putting forth here, but I stand by it adamantly. Sometimes, players do stupid things, and player agency be damned.
A lot of the talking points were briefly touched on in some form in Conflict Resolution. The main crux here is: "Sometimes, the players do something insanely out of character, or insanely out of setting. In these cases, the GM should not allow them."
I'm consistent. Player agency is important. But world consistency trumps this. So does character consistency. I know there are a great many horror stories, though, about GMs taking this concept way, way too far, so let me be pretty precise.
A player, generally, knows their character best. A GM, though, remembers what they have done. It's a hard sell to discount the latter point. If someone has been playing a lawful good person reasonably convincingly and suddenly approaches someone and decides to kill them without cause, this is a giant issue. The GM absolutely should halt the game and ask what's going on.
As mentioned way at the beginning. The GM is essentially a processor, taking information and computing realistic results. If you turn heel out of nowhere with no prompting, "Does not compute" is a fair response, and it doesn't make you a bad GM for resisting this.
But that's an extreme example. So, what about something smaller?
Let's say players hear that the next session involves a heist. So they go in with minimal planning. Nothing wrong so far.
What if they plan a little? Some of them are above average intellect. Makes sense.
What if they plan a lot? Well, it's a heist. Those could go really bad, really quickly.
How about a lot of planning? Say, two sessions worth. Complete with Scooby Doo-meets-Parent Trap levels of kookiness? Well, that's a lot... but they can go south really quickly, and it could be fun.
What if the heist's location, had the players actually engaged at all with it, had an alternative that could have completely nullified the insane amounts of planning? Well... how were they supposed to know?
By playing the game reasonably.
This is the sort of thing I'm talking about. Actions that derail the game for extended periods of time, actions that make little sense when you think about it contextually. Actions that probably would not have been done if you were actually there. Methods that would almost certainly not work, and would be a waste of time to try.
The GM being expected to allow these under the argument of player agency is disingenuous, because even if the players are having a fun time, the GM often isn't. And not just because they're sitting on the knowledge that there is a simpler option that takes less time and moves the plot along faster, but also because in so, so many cases, these plans are completely, and utterly, fruitless.
I cannot tell you how many times I have seen an insane amount of planning go to almost complete waste. And the players realize this and don't like it much after the fact either. I've seen a lot of "Can I do..." followed by something that doesn't even make sense when they explain it. You can see them realize that it doesn't make sense, and they still end up asking for permission.
GMs. If you're reading this - it's very important that you enable players to have freedom in the game. But you are not, in any way, shape, or form, required nor (if you ask me) encouraged to enable things that are patently ridiculous. I mean again, this is the kind of stuff session zero is supposed to filter out. But sometimes this happens out of honest mistakes and overestimations. And that's fine. I don't hate my players for doing this.
But I don't just sit there and accept it.
"You know, you're doing a lot of planning. You'd definitely be aware that you've yet to stake out the location and case the joint to see what's up. You sure you want to continue planning without necessary information?"
That usually does the trick.
"Can I [use a cantrip in a way that makes it equivalent to a level 2 spell]?"
"I'm sorry, it sounded like you were trying to make a cantrip as effective as something you can't even cast yet, maybe I misunderstood."
It's a bit snippy, but it conveys the point. Hopefully this will explain that I'm not anti-player, just anti-absurdity.
Afterword
Ok, I don't think this is as contentious as I initially thought it would be after writing it out, but perplexingly, while writing this, I still recall many, many times where people actually genuinely argued against the positions I presented. Not against me specifically, but against others who suggested this.
GMs are oddly getting a bit of an antagonistic reputation among the communities at large, based purely on the discourse I see cropping up most. It's extremely bizarre. There are, by numbers alone, vastly more problematic players than there are GMs. I mean, think about it. Most tables average about 1:4 GM to Player ratio. There are more players. By virtue, there will probably be more people that, as players, do something that is worthy of a horror story.
And ironically, I think the only reason so many people have something bad to say about GMs is not because they are bad GMs, but because they aren't even GMs.
This is a bit of a no true Scotsman argument, but seriously, if you're running a game in a way that completely exiles player agency, then you're not a GM. You're a despot who should've written a novel. There is a lot of room for debate for how GMs can and should conduct themselves, and these are all extremely fair points to analyze.
But what I absolutely can't stand anymore are all the people who conclude that GMs must also do a bunch of other things that have nothing to do with the primary functions of the role of GM.
In fact, I'm actually advocating for more player authority at the table. Easing the burden placed on GMs, while focusing on elevating the socially accepted methods players have for control over their experience in the game.
There is another point, though, and that's over where some of this belief may be coming from, or at least reinforced. Paid GMs, be they from Adventurer's League or anything else are often tasked with maintaining cohesion, fluidity, and enjoyment at the table, going vastly against what I've argued are oversteps in what should be placed on the GM alone. To be fair, though, they're also paid. Or, rather, the players are paying, and they have been sold the idea of seamless, consistent, and engaging gameplay.
I think because of the commodification of the hobby, we're finding a lot of people making promises on behalf of GMs, and now they're baring the weight of this, because in order to GM for these places, you have to agree to do all of these things that, really, shouldn't be a thing to worry about in the first place. In a perfect world, people would be mature enough to just play the game. In a less perfect world, they'd have someone tasked with overseeing these exact issues - someone separate from the GM altogether.
Regardless, players are shelling out money more and more now, and with that comes unreasonable standards. And I say unreasonable not because a GM cannot reasonably perform these duties, but because they shouldn't have to. Again, these are all aspects that, largely, the players influence and the players often cause or are affected by. I find it disingenuous to put this all on one person who is just trying to deliver the adventure everyone is there to play, when they're also juggling rules, mechanics, tactics, and the entire narrative all at once.
If you disagree, in spite of my tone in the article (it's mostly just a cheeky tone for readability), I'd love input and discussion on this. I don't hold any delusions that everything I said is flawless, but the core of what I've said is something I don't believe would easily change.
But anyway, if you got this far, I hope it gave you vindication or something to think about.
GMs have it hard. Be kind to your GMs.
Hope you enjoyed!