I recently read an article online that suggested that most GMs didn’t know what they were doing, and to be honest, it annoyed me.
Generally, at the start of an article, I spend some time setting up my point, but honestly, the article I read made me worry about how we are thinking about the hobby, the act of running games for people and how we need to rethink things. So I’m just going to jump into it.
The article I read presented a few ideas about GMing that seemed reasonable on the surface. It posited that:
- Most GMs did not understand the difference between a narrative that counted as a story and a series of events that happened.
- hat just providing a series of events was not serving players correctly; a narrative would provide a much deeper play experience
- A GM who wants to improve should take a literature course to better understand what is required of them
- That the correct way to play a game is to lean into what the game is asking of you, and in the case of most roleplaying games, this was epic narratives solved through violence, so you should lean into that and the hero’s journey.
While this could be an argument I can see someone making, and maybe one that makes a few points I agree with in how you can improve a game, it draws some very disheartening conclusions. I think I need to just unpick it because it speaks to something that happens a lot in our hobby, especially amongst those of us who are trying to push the medium into new places or think of it as an art form. And that is, we have a tendency to get a little bit caught up in the grandiosity of the form or ourselves.
Now I’m to blame for this as much as anyone else. I’m an advocate for pushing RPGS into new places and have written at least one article here over the years that in reflection got a little bit to esoteric. But I think it’s important to occasionally balance the scales. So let’s look at those suppositions.
Events Vs Narrative
While the article suggested that narrative structure would create a deeper and more lasting story, and it seems like that is good advice, we have to be careful. Imposing a narrative on players (rather than allowing them to find one themselves) is a deliberate choice on our part, and a lightness of touch is always appreciated. We’re playing to find out what happens and sharing the story.
While there’s something to be said for having an idea of where a plot is going and having some idea of the form, we can overdo it. Rather than forcing a narrative, consider that we are creatures whose brains make automatic connections between things. It’s in our nature to fill in blanks and create links between ideas. We can use that to discover emergent narratives within in story. It’s possible to start a campaign with five completely disparate ideas and work out as you play how they connect.
The Skill Lie
Did that sound like heresy? Is ‘start with no plot and work out as you go’ seem a little slapdash or like someone is ‘cheating’ and GMing? That’s because we’re told over and over by advice pundits and sourcebooks to plan and create, and that the skill level of a GM is in the prep before a session.
But honestly, I think that requirement scares the hell out of players wanting to transition to GMs. The idea of suggesting we take a literature class in order to be able to GM properly is abhorrent to me. It creates the feeling that ‘good GM’ is a lofty title that only the chosen few can achieve.
But at the same time, it makes a sin of only focusing on a few of the skills required to GM. Some GMs don’t do a lot of prep but specialise in having a rough idea and being quick enough to create things on the fly. Improvisation is just as important a skill set. While taking the class would probably teach you about narrative, what would it teach you about reading people?
It’s important to remember that while yes, it is possible to do very interesting storytelling with a roleplaying game, that this hobby is built on the backs of people who had no idea what they were doing, making their own thing and talking about it. The moment we start imposing a need for lofty ‘narrative standard’ on a game, is the moment we are gatekeeping who can be a GM. Then next we start looking down on players who don’t do things in a way that aligns with the rules of narrative according to whoever taught the course.
Unexpected masters of storytelling
In fact, some of my favourite moments in games come from players who zig when they should zag; make the choice a character in a novel wouldn’t. The ones who upend my narrative don’t take what is in front of them for granted and think sideways. As someone who did study performance and narrative, I’ve seen people make choices that university professors would consider amazing subversions of the form. But they did it because we were sharing the spotlight, allowing them to play.
And playing is the important thing here. People should be allowed to create without expectation or standard. Yes, we should be thinking about where things are going, so our continuity of events follows a believable and logical sequence. But aren’t we writing a novel? We’re exploring a world together. The ‘plot’ is the lives of the people in the game and a real person’s life isn’t a ‘narrative’ sometimes they have to live with being denied closure, sometimes they spend months in a relationship that eventually breaks up and goes nowhere. Sometimes they try a thing and it adds nothing to their life. It’s ok for some events to just happen and have existed and been memorable but not be part of the greater narrative. Just have fun and tell each other stories that meet your standard without crushing the enjoyment of other players. Don’t worry about people outside that wheelhouse.
Leaning into a game
The point of leaning into the game seems on the surface that I’d agree with it. I have been a big proponent of choosing the right game for the type of story you’re telling. I don’t want to watch you hack D&D into Star Trek when there’s like six different Star Trek RPGs to choose from. But on another level, taking the game you love and modifying it for a slightly different play experience is part of the heritage of this game. It’s why I dislike the modern usage of the word ‘homebrew’ – because it suggests modifying this game in any way beyond what is in the core setting and books isn’t what the original intent of the game was. I’s also why I wrote my first 50 articles or so – to give you a toolbox to make existing games feel like they belong in a genre.
On one level, yes, lean into what rules of a game are telling you, the types of narrative it wants. But just for a minute, can we imagine what the article imagines a D&D game is – one that follows a narrative path already dictated that gives you little choice but to solve problems with violence that becomes increasingly more widescreen in that violence but doesn’t really change. That feels like a railroad.
I know all this is just a reaction to one viewpoint, but I think it needed to be said that we can get so focused on ‘proper’ play that we miss what is front of us, which is getting to the table and surprising ourselves with what emerges. Go forth, and surprise yourselves.
Creative Commons: The Frog and the Black Knight by Blazbaros, Bandersnatch by Raphtor and Mousefolk by DonFuchs.
