Sweet Kate

Writing and GMing* are both creating stories, but I have found them to be very different ways of creating stories. I thought that it would be interesting to my fellow GMs and fellow writers to explain the differences (although this comes with the major caveat that writing styles vary a lot, and GMing styles also vary a lot, so your experience may be entirely different).

Perhaps the biggest difference between writing and GMing is that GMing is inherently collaborative. When I write a story, I am the sole creator. I control the characters, the setting, and the plot. I am also not a collaborative writer. I have tried collaborative writing, and I'm quite bad at it. I don't like sharing my stories. But of course in a role playing game, the point is to create a collaborative narrative. The GM directs the narrative (to a varying degree depending on the group and the GM), but it is everyone's story. For the steampunk RPG that I'm currently running, I have to hold the story loosely because it isn't just my story; it's everyone's story. 

And because it's everyone's story, the players may take things an entirely different direction than what you, as the GM, intended. For instance, in a recent session the players entirely avoided combat. I had not planned on this. I had plot points that hinged on combat. But the players decided that they really didn't want combat and had several exceptionally good dice rolls, so I just more or less winged it and they never found those particular plot points. In a story, I could have had someone fail to see a trap or decide to confront the villains, but in an RPG the players can sometimes avoid plot points or take things an entirely different direction. 

This brings me to another, related point. When you GM a story, you are at the mercy of the dice. Sometimes players fail when you expect them to succeed, and sometimes they succeed when you expect them to fail. I had one session in which the players needed a vital piece of information from the barkeeper. This was supposed to be an easy roll, and yet one after another, they all failed it. I had a moment of not knowing what on earth to do, because I had no backup plan, before quickly bringing in another NPC. And that barkeeper who was supposed to be helpful is now a tough and acerbic barkeeper, which wasn't my intention at all. And on the other hand, as I mentioned above, the players had several exceptionally good dice rolls and managed to sneak past the Russians (twice) and then disable all the (difficult) traps, and I didn't think it would happen at all (I did manage to improvise an overheard conversation with the necessary information). 

Additionally, when GMing you have to be careful not to throw tantalizing hints or clues at the players unless you are prepared for the players to go haring after them. The players don't have the same sense of what is important to the story, and they may not react how you expect them to react. For instance, I had a beautiful idea for one of my scenarios. I thought that the villain would taunt the players by telling them that their boss, someone who they trust, wasn't being entirely honest and that they should ask what happened to the group before. I liked this, but I wanted it to be a throwaway line. In a story, it could be a throwaway line and the brave heroine could respond that they implicitly trusted their boss. But I cut the line from the game because I didn't know how the players would react. They might laugh at this clear and obvious plan to distract them, or they might find it something interesting to spend three sessions looking into, and I didn't really want to spend three sessions on it. 

Perhaps it comes down to control. When I'm writing a story, I have complete control. I can throw in tantalizing hints or foreshadowing, I can have the characters miss something extremely obvious, I can choreograph a fight so that they defeat a monstrous enemy or are nearly killed by a stupid mistake when fighting a small enemy. But when I'm GMing, I have to consider the players and their reactions and the arbitrary nature of dice, so that the players may ignore a plot point or interpret something entirely differently or roll poorly or roll very well, and it all affects the story. Because when I'm GMing it isn't entirely my story anymore, but something that the players (and the dice) also contribute to and shape. 



*I am currently GMing (that is, Game Mastering or running) an RPG (role playing game). It is an over-the-top steampunk action adventure in a fantasy setting with elves, dwarves, vampires, and Lovecraft monsters using the Victoriana system. 

I thought we were done with the issue of racism in Shadowrun (see previous post), but then a different player posted 'I'm thinking of playing a character that is racist against orks or trolls. Is anyone playing an ork or troll?'*

And here we go again. I think this way of putting it is a little odd, because I'm playing an elf, but an elf with enough moral sense to not want to put up with racism. Characters not of the race being discriminated against may still have a problem with racism. Anyway, I posted something to the effect that I'm playing an idealistic elf and there would be significant friction if a character was racist. I thought it was a good idea to post it, and felt vaguely responsible to object since I'm the one who has an issue with it, even though I don't really want to deal with it (and completely fail to understand the draw of playing a racist character).

Now somehow this has turned into a discussion of racism in Shadowrun, and whether it is ok to have a racist character. This is a discussion I really don't want to have, but am having anyway because it seems important. Bah.

My view is that RPGs can be a totally valid way to explore racism, and, if handled well, there isn't a problem with having a character who is racist. Having said that, racism falls under 'things I don't want to deal with in an RPG because it makes things not fun because there is enough of it in the real world' along with misogyny, misandry, violence against kittens, and such. 




*I wanted to (snarkily) post in response: 'I'm thinking of playing a character that is a misandrist. Is anyone playing a male character?' which I think is amusing because our group nearly exclusively plays male characters.

 I haven't actually committed to running a Stargate RPG. I'm just doing all the research and planning right now while I'm interested, and then I may never run it. After much research, I think that using a fan made conversion for Savage Worlds is the best option. 

(Feel free to skip this if you're not as interested in the details of the various Stargate RPG options.)

When I started looking at various systems to play a Stargate RPG in, I wanted something that would capture the feel of the game, give various options for playable characters (including Jaffa and Tok'ra), and be a simple system. I prefer a system that is light on rules, but heavy on options (I liked the Star Wars d6 system which is pretty fast paced but has many race and skill options, but didn't care for Numenera which is fast paced but very limiting when it comes to character options).

I took a look at the Stargate d6 system. This system has a lot of potential, and was created based on the Star Wars system. It also wasn't finished. I started tweaking (with Joel's help), but it seemed like a ridiculous amount of house rules, as the system has some weird issues with skills, and also lacks stats for creating Jaffa or Tok'ra playable characters.

So, I decided to take a look at other options. I stumbled across a fan made conversion for Savage Worlds, which looked promising. I also took a look at the official d20 system, and was less than impressed. It sounds like the d20 system is crunchier than I prefer for RPGs, has some consistency issues, and was designed by someone who didn't know that much about Stargate. The Jaffa and Tok'ra options are also not that interesting.

At the moment, I think I'm sold on the Savage Worlds conversion. I don't love the system, but it seems decent enough. Savage Worlds is designed to be a fast system, light on the rules, and to be an open ended system (it doesn't have a built in setting), which makes it great for tweaking. Further, I'm impressed with the conversion. It seems elegant and really makes the Jaffa and Tok'ra stand apart from the human options, giving them specific advantages and disadvantages in a way that harmonizes well with the feel of the show (instead of some weird ideas involving split personalities and dual character sheets).

We'll see what happens with this. If I'm still interested, I could see running a campaign after Joel finishes his Shadowrun campaign. 

 I need to find an icon for RPGs . . . 

I am currently contemplating GMing a short Stargate SG-1 episode (set sometime during the first few seasons, so as to avoid major spoilers) because I'm crazy like that. Basically, I have an idea that I want to do something with.

I should be writing stories, but that hasn't been happening, so maybe plotting out a mission will help me start feeling creative again.

I've been reading a few different writer's blogs lately, and I find it interesting to read different perspectives on GM-ing RPGs. Some authors seem to be saying that RPGs helped them learn how to develop certain things, like characters or backstory or dialogue or world building. Others seem to be saying that RPGs take away valuable time that they could be spending writing. Interestingly, neither perspective covers my experience.

For me, co-GM-inig an RPG takes up story space in my head, but in a different way than writing a story does. I discovered that I can't work on writing on the same day that I'm going to be GM-ing, or my GM-ing seriously suffers. It's a very different way of looking at a story. In order to GM well, I have to have a developed set of characters, an idea of setting, and occasionally some type of set event (such as the Fey attacking the village). But I can't have a set plot. I can have a general idea of where the story is going, but I have to be willing to change it on the whim of the players. They may spend an entire session interacting with the carefully created village obsessed with llamas, and then turn around and blithely kill off archaeologists by sending them into danger. They may entirely ignore carefully crafted characters, or throw a wrench into things by doing something entirely unexpected (like replacing the artifact they are after with a perfectly constructed fake). In order to be a good GM, I have to be flexible with what the players want. I have to scrap my lovely plan because they have come up with something else (which I may not like quite as much). I have to interact with their characters in whatever direction they decide to take things. As someone who plots things out ahead of time*, this is a very different way of thinking about a story. I come up with a situation and let the players react, rather than coming up with a story. I can't expect the players to have a predictable reaction to the situation.

In the story that I'm currently co-GM-ing, I'm working with certain constraints. I didn't write any of the setup. I'm trying to resolve a story that someone else started. If I were starting from scratch, I expect I should set it up a bit differently. I would have a villain (or set of villains) with an agenda and a plan, and the main characters would encounter the beginning of the plan (with many hints as to the ultimate plan) and then I would let them react to the plan (it would be a somewhat morally ambiguous choice). I can't do this to near the same degree because of earlier constraints of the story, but I'm still trying for this as much as I can.

Writing is a different use of story space for me. I have to know where a story is going before I write it. I have to have it plotted out. I don't always have to write the plot down, as in the case of a very short story, but I have to know before I start writing, or the story will stall. I rarely make changes once it is plotted out (I made some changes to my novel when I was doing NaNoWriMo, but considering the scope of it, they mostly weren't large changes). This is similar to how I think about plotting out something to GM; I want to know where things are going and how they are getting there. But, when I write, I know exactly what will happen. There can be a specific set of events that has to happen. More than that, I know what the main characters will do. I know how they will react. I never ditch my beautifully constructed set of challenges because there is something I don't like quite as much. I always know what will happen with those challenges, and I never have to stack the dice to have it happen.

For me, GM-ing is certainly related to writing. I use similar skills, and both, after all, are about story. But they are about story in different ways, and some good GM skills would make for bad writing (for instance, having to remind characters multiple times in multiple ways of important things, because they've forgotten or not noticed or been distracted by the llamas in the story or the brownies on the table). Some aspects of the way I write would be bad if applied to GM-ing (such as the way I poke at an idea until I have it just right and it clicks, and then I don't want to use any other idea).

As an aside, I can make up a story without having it plotted out. I can take a first scene and go somewhere with it. It is almost certainly invention and not inspiration, though. There isn't the sense that everything clicks and has to be a certain way. The sort of stories that I invent aren't alive in the same way an inspired story is.


*Joel, on the other hand, is the sort of GM who has a vague notion of what is going on, and wants to make things up on the spot. I'm not really sure how we GM together, because I want to know what's going on ahead of time.

I think playing RPGs can be very much like writing fan fiction (or vice versa, if you prefer). The more that Joel and I talk about RPGs, the more I find that it is a systematized way of doing collaborative storytelling. There is one major difference, which is the combat system, but I'll come back to that. I'm familiar with collaborative storytelling, of playing by some agreed upon rules and creating a story together. I've played the letter game twice, and with three of my friends I've created an alternate world where we have superpowers, and we've given story arcs to our superhero selves. The more I think about collaborative storytelling, the more I find that it seems to be essentially the same in it's many forms. If Joel as the GM agrees with some of the players that they can animate dead horses to storm a castle, is that really any different from my friends and I deciding that our first epic battle as superheroes will be at an Italian Renaissance Faire?

Further, though, the more I hear about how Joel thinks about RPGs, the more it sounds strangely familiar. Playing around with stories within a community within a setting that is bound by certain rules sounds oddly like fanfiction. I've dabbled in reading fanfiction, and I know that most of it happens within a community. It may not be collaborative to the extent that RPGs often are, but it often happens with the input of other readers. It happens within a set universe. In RPGs, one plays by the rules, of, say, Exalted. With fanfiction, one plays within the rules of, for instance, Harry Potter. The GM or the author may determine how much tweaking of these rules is allowed, or how generous one can be in interpreting the rules. Further, I think there's a parallel of those who are really into the rules. It isn't an exact parallel, but I think the type of person who spends their time researching all the various Charms in Exalted and how exactly they work in combat is similar to the type of person who spends all their time researching the details of the Silmarillion and knows Elvish of either variety.

I'm not sure if there is a parallel, or if I'm seeing patterns from staring at this too long.

It's something I keep turning around in my head. I'm also wondering why there are more men than women who play RPGs, and more women than men who write fanfiction, at least anecdotally (there are so many possible causes, I'm not even sure where to begin). I wonder why the girls I know who play RPGs are more interested in story than mechanics, and if I have a large enough sample size for this to be relevant. I wonder if women really are more collaborative when it comes to playing RPGs, and if so, why.