Staffing If the GM doesn't have a character, is the game still being led?

[Deep Sea 326]

Food for thought. I've tried running roleplays both ways, where I have a character, and where I don't.

 

Pros of having a character with the rest of the players:

• I'm down in the dirt with them, so to speak. We're playing through this shit together.
• I'm just like one of them! Probably less intimidating for new players (aka people who don't know me yet)

 

Cons of having a character with the rest of the players:

• Well that's just another profile sheet to fill out, ugh.
• I am not the main character, and yet, players' characters will follow mine like lost lil ducklings
• Players think I know what I'm doing in-character, just because I know everything out of character.

 

Pros of not having a character:

• I AM FREE FROM THE TYRANNY OF MY OWN PROFILE SHEETS
• I enjoy observing the beads of sweat as my players over-analyze every single comment I make while trying to figure out what their characters should do.
• I can play the monster of the week without ending up in a weird situation where I'm writing my character versus my character.

 

Cons of not having a character:

• I no longer get alerts for the thread because I stopped checking because I wasn't needed and now everything is stalled and I'm oblivious.
• Thumb-twiddling. So much thumb-twiddling.
• I have no idea how excruciating my profile sheet is because I haven't filled it out for myself.

 

Now, in your experiences, what works better? What do you prefer?

[Sparky Muse 16]

My main question is, does any game really need to be led? I know that's probably a pointless question, but......

[Deep Sea 326]

1 minute ago, Sparky Muse said:

My main question is, does any game really need to be led? I know that's probably a pointless question, but......

 

That is a goddamn WONDERFUL question for this topic. Why DO we "lead" games and roleplays? Do they really need to be led? This is collaborative storytelling, and all players collective own the means of production, aka, contributing to the story. Perhaps roleplaying is the ultimate communist hobby, and capitalist notions of GM "bosses" that profit off the work of the other playe --

 

I can't follow that train of thought because I don't actually know enough about communism and capitalism to make a satirical inappropriately political post.

 

But also, genuinely, sincerely, from the bottom of my heart, that is a damn good question. Does a referee lead a football game?

[Death Kitten 200]

I think the need for a GM to have a character, or not, really depends on what sort of game you're running.

 

As a veteran Tabletop RPGer, I'm used to games where the GM does not have a personal character, and they just handle *everyone else* in the setting. This is normal enough to me, and it's usually a pretty good approach for a managed plotline where all players are running through one series of events. Though I did have one GM that had a personal character they ran along side the PCs, which allowed them to jump in and help guide us or support our efforts if they misjudged how we'd handle a particular situation and they wanted to prevent us from dying or missing a major clue that helped the plot.

 

For a more sandboxy setting, especially one where players write NPCs and multiple characters, the GM having a character of their own becomes much more important for a few reasons: sandbox sites mean all the players have equal hand in creating and driving plots and they don't necessarily overlap in their efforts... so the GM, or rather the site staff (which is a better description for this situation), in this case need characters of their own to avoid just being the site maintainers.

[CovertSphinx 710]

As a site admin, I consider my personal character to be....an "unshared NPC" of sorts. I don't lead the plot (or at least try my best to avoid getting stuck with a DM role) but I do like to nudge people toward situations and characters that I think will benefit both players, and enjoy watching them branch off from there. 

[Uaithne 543]

I've always had characters.  For me, making and playing characters is the reason why I create my own RP site.

 

But recently I've started getting into being more of a DM, and I can see in the appeal of not having a character.  Really, though, it depends upon the type of site you're running.  Most of our RP boards would look really weird if the admin didn't have a character playing, and you wouldn't get people joining your site if they saw that the admin wasn't participating.  But if you have a site that functions more like a tabletop and there are lots of characters and players, you could get away without having a character.

[Sparky Muse 16]

True, I agree with the idea of having a character. That's what makes it fun. But, the idea that the character I have is "leading" the roleplay, or that anybody's character is, it makes me think, first I should ask, "why", or "what for?" I would almost argue even if the GM does have a character, is the game still being "led"? Even with Tabletops, if we assign a bunch of monsters random numbers, and roll a dice at encounter to determine which monster we face, not that I've ever done a tabletop and would have no personal experience with that, it's like, we're not technically leading it, it's making its own path, and we're just being pulled along.

Isn't it that nobody ever actually "leads" a roleplay that's actually good, it makes its own path, and even our characters are doing their best to survive?

Although I could also be entirely and absolutely wrong and misguided and have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about, as I might be confusing this with something else, too. I want a nap now.

Edit: I suppose the heart of the matter is more, should we lead the roleplay, or should we just let it develop naturally? The same question can be applied whether or not the GM has a character; if the gm is leading with a character, it almost feels as though they're gonna have to make it about their own character or something to do with their character so they know the plot points that need to be hit; if they don't have a character, they're probably focusing on a writer's tool like a magical artifact or ritual to "lead" a roleplay which in itself isn't too different from having a character. If they're not leading a roleplay, isn't it just an adventure made by whatever the characters feel like doing? I dunno. I suppose I don't really know anything and am just talking out of being tired, I guess? I dunno, XD

*falls asleep*

Edited January 14, 2018 by Sparky Muse

[Guest BETA BLUE]

I actually I hate the idea that people feel that they SHOULDN'T and CAN'T take the lead.  It causes sites to die because let's face it "admin burn out"  Look at how many closed sites say admin didn't have passion or muse for the site anymore. This one reason major reason for that issue. People tend to want to be sheep instead of being lions and don't contribute. 

[Death Kitten 200]

41 minutes ago, BETA BLUE said:

I actually I hate the idea that people feel that they SHOULDN'T and CAN'T take the lead.  It causes sites to die because let's face it "admin burn out"  Look at how many closed sites say admin didn't have passion or muse for the site anymore. This one reason major reason for that issue. People tend to want to be sheep instead of being lions and don't contribute. 

It's hard because there are admins who get pissy if players take initiative. Like, even though my game has a focused plot, I want my players to contribute, do side plots, etc... And a lot of them are so used to staff who micromanage (very common in trek rp), they're afraid to take initiative even when I tell them to.

 

So, while I agree with you, I also get why some people are hesitant to make that move.

 

[Deep Sea 326]

I want to encourage my players to do sideplots and even instigate their own main plots, but I'm too much of a micromanager to truly let go and give them the freedom they need.

 

It probably doesn't help either that the two or three people who volunteer to help the most are also as flaky as I am...

[Vellamo 74]

Whether an admin should have a character or not: it wouldn't matter to me either way.

 

About whether there should be a GM: admins already kind of play that role. But in the sense of leading a game like a Tabletop, I have no issues with it in RP as long as there's transparency.

 

Do games have to be led? No. But can they? Why not? People want different things in their RP. I no longer RP where there's a GM, but in all my years, it was the best site I've ever been on. But I've also been on two sites since that have tried to encompass GM-leading, factors, levels, and/or dice roll elements and failed. For both sites, the system and expectations of the staff (there's a word for this but I don't know it) were not outlined clearly or at all. This meant that the admins didn't have a handbook or set of rules to answer to, ensuring everything is fair, in contrast to my experience with tabletop (granted, I am literally just a week into it) where a company put time into creating GM/player handbook and rules or where information is peer-reviewed. There's just an element of accountability there that having the same in RP is hard to element without the admin taking the time and effort to have. Like I said, as long as there's transparency, I think it's fine.

 

Side note - I have to hand it to you, @Deep Sea, if you're able to play without a character! I wouldn't be able to do that, so I'm very impressed. What interests you about taking on a GM role? 

 

[Deep Sea 326]

27 minutes ago, Kullervo said:

What interests you about taking on a GM role? 

 

I'm bossy and dramatic.

 

That's it.

 

The first roleplay I ever GM'd was a magic high school roleplay on Gaia. It wasn't even mine, I joined it because I was just starting to RP and I wanted something to do, and a way to recycle a character from a previous RP that only lasted two pages.

 

Eventually the original GM had to bail for school reasons, so he left the thread to me. You can almost pinpoint the exact moment I sold my soul to the devil. I wasn't a GM from hell, but I was enthusiastic. I posted regularly, made a new thread, helped everyone update their characters, and butted heads with the stoner from Indiana who didn't seem to understand why godmodding was a bad thing and why the others couldn't just deal with it.

 

These days my friends all joke like, "Oh, there goes Sea, she's off to make another RP that'll die in three weeks because she'll disappear off the face of the world to binge video games" and they're not wrong.

 

It's just that I've made like,  at least thirty different RPs over the years. Reboots of reboots, every iteration refining the setting and adjusting it, revising how I organize characters, lead the group, etc. I'm not exactly out there winning literary prizes - I actually, legitimately hate real writing and find it to be a pain in the ass - but my shit is reasonably well-written compared to the usual fare you'll find on the boards I frequent.

 

And my friends have made like, what? Two RPs, maybe? Three?

 

"Oh, I don't really have it in me to run an RP. That's Sea's thing."

 

"Honestly, I don't really ever join RPs anymore unless Sea's in them."

 

"Sea has kinda spoiled me, every time I join a new thread I can't help but to think how she'd do it better."

 

My throne is built upon pillars of dead threads. But it's not so lonely here at the top, because I have you all.

[CovertSphinx 710]

I absolutely HATE that players won't take initiative anymore and expect the admin to lead everything with a Narrator's Stroke. It's made me consider quitting RPing entirely a few times. 

 

[StormWolfe 557]

9 hours ago, BETA BLUE said:

I actually I hate the idea that people feel that they SHOULDN'T and CAN'T take the lead.  It causes sites to die because let's face it "admin burn out"  Look at how many closed sites say admin didn't have passion or muse for the site anymore. This one reason major reason for that issue. People tend to want to be sheep instead of being lions and don't contribute. 

 

I'm facing this situation myself at two of my three sites. Both of them have people that tend to wait on me to do absolutely everything and I'm burned out. I repeatedly encourage them to offer ideas, take the lead and let their characters shine. I'm not the type of GM or Admin that always has to have their character covered in glory. Happy to sit out a plot and read along, offer ideas, etc. My 3rd site is relocating to forums and everyone has stayed engaged despite the slowdown due to moving. It's completely different from the other two.

 

1 hour ago, CovertSphinx said:

I absolutely HATE that players won't take initiative anymore and expect the admin to lead everything with a Narrator's Stroke. It's made me consider quitting RPing entirely a few times. 

 

 

Yes, yes, YES!

 

And, in the aforementioned two sites, I have encouraged, helped, threatened, cajoled, catered to, tried everything that I can think of to get the players to engage - with one another. But, no luck so far.