Musings of the White Haired Man

In the previous installment of The GM’s View, I discussed what occurs when players approach challenges along a line of least resistance. In these situations, the players may surprise the GM and accomplish something the GM considered very difficult or impossible, which may destroy the GM’s carefully crafted plans. I asserted that the GM’s plans should never be destroyed, because the GM should not become invested in a particular outcome. When a GM becomes invested, he may feel threatened by the “wrong” outcome, and take measures to get things “back on course”. This can lead to heavy-handed tactics that are the hallmark of a bad GM.

I believe that the trust between the players and GM is related to the GM’s investment in particular outcomes. When the players understand that the GM is not an opponent and does not wish to force certain outcomes, they may find it easier to perceive the GM as a collaborator. The players will also accept other GM decisions as honest attempts to adjudicate the game rather than stemming from malign intentions or vindictiveness. Reaching that state of trust can be difficult, especially with new players who do not have a history of friendship with the GM. Yet, when it does occur, the game achieves an amazing degree of harmony, where the understanding becomes implicit that the players and GM are working together towards the same goal.

This post reflects my personal experiences from over thirty years as a GM. The first half of those thirty years I was not a good GM, and was sometimes a very poor GM. Eventually I realized that I was the problem rather than the players. My first steps toward improvement were observing people I considered good GMs. The subsequent accumulation of experiences led to my current Kith’takharos campaign, where I feel that solid trust has been established between everyone at the gaming table.

A confluence of three events generated this post. First, I am reading the book How Great Generals Win. I have learned that great generals often strike along a line of least resistance, which generally precludes a frontal assault. Although this may sound obvious, apparently most generals do not follow it, even some generals who are commonly considered great, such as Robert E. Lee or Ulysses S. Grant. On the other hand, Scipio Africanus and Stonewall Jackson well understood the lesson.

Second, I was reminiscing about exciting RPG moments of years past. I realized that we often remember individual incidents rather than the totality of a story or campaign. Soon after, I was pointed to a related post post by Jeff Carlsen.

Third, I participated in a Google+ conversation about bad GMs. Bad GMs are more common than I would have expected from my own experience. Among other things, bad GMs railroad players and treat characters as story props without giving them freedom to develop their own path.

How are these topics related? They combine to illustrate a principle I follow as a GM.

I first became a GM for the joy of creating adventures, encounters, and creatures. I would imagine how the characters might defeat these challenges, and would build in a number of options to deal with expected character actions. I would get angry when the characters got off track or came up with ideas that nullified my carefully prepared plans. I would try to force them back onto the path I had devised, or would arbitrarily decide the enemy survived, escaped, or otherwise thwarted the characters.

Unfortunately, I was one of the bad GMs described on Google+. I did not appreciate this for many years. We were also very young and seemed to have a high tolerance for things we would never accept now. The game was still new to us, and we just wanted to play.

Too many years passed before I realized that the players and GM are not on different sides, and that my purpose as GM was not to oppose the players. I still create settings and adventures, but the emphasis has shifted. I force no particular outcome and encourage the players to pursue whatever path they desire. While it is impossible for me to avoid considering how the characters will perform against various challenges, I don’t get invested in the outcome. If the characters defeat a difficult foe and disrupt the expected course of an adventure, I take this as an opportunity rather than a set back. I’ll follow the new direction wherever it goes. Likewise, if the characters suddenly decide they want to pursue a course that had not occurred to me, that is also an opportunity and I embrace it.

I don’t let myself be surprised because I do not assume that any outcome was preordained. To me, this now seems obvious, but given the apparent number of bad GMs, it might not be so common.

This ties in with the practices of great generals. The players cannot disrupt the campaign by taking a line of least resistance, because there is none. I don’t decree that any particular outcome is more or less desirable, so that the adventure as a whole cannot be disrupted.

I played in a campaign where I tended to follow the line of least resistance, and the campaign was disrupted multiple times. These instances were part of the reminiscing I mentioned at the beginning of the post. They occurred during a Pathfinder campaign where I was playing a Fighter named Jogaila.

Our characters were attempting to thwart the goals of a god. Powerful forces sought to stop us and an army of the god’s mortal servants had conquered Jogaila’s homeland. Our group was ambushing an enemy supply train from atop a 50 foot cliff. We achieved surprise and the battle was heading toward a victory. Then a flying creature swooped past and picked up Watseka, a young girl Jogaila had sworn to protect. The creature flew past the cliff and banked, ending up parallel to the cliff and just below Jogaila’s level.

The GM expected to carry away Watseka and further the god’s plan. What could we do? None of us could fly. This is where Jogaila took the path of least resistance. With a running start, he leaped off the cliff and onto the back of the flying creature. At that point in Jogaila’s career, if he had missed, he may well have been killed by the fall. The GM counted on Jogaila avoiding that risk. Even so, I needed some hot die rolls to pull it off. Jogaila forced the creature down and rescued Watseka.

Another event occurred when Jogaila was at his full glory of massive Hit Points. The group was fighting a fallen god in a cavern system. Despite her reduced abilities, the former deity was still quite powerful. Like the previous encounter I described, the fallen god wanted Watseka, but to kill rather than capture. The former god was slowly wearing down Watseka while we seemed unable to harm the god.

From Jogaila’s perspective, the situation was desperate. He was watching Watseka die but could do nothing. Then he realized the line of least resistance. The god was near a crevasse that dropped hundreds of feet. Jogaila charged her, wrapped his arms around her, and leaped into the crevasse. Of course, this required some successful die rolling. However, the GM decided that the fallen god would free herself from Jogaila’s grip and fly away, no roll required. Soon after, the former god was defeated, but through the method the GM had planned all along and not by character effort.

This pissed me off. Jogaila would risk death to fulfill his promises, and had displayed this trait numerous times, but the GM never seemed to get it. My efforts were discarded out of hand, even though they may have resulted in the same end. I had achieved tactical surprise against the GM.

These examples seemed obvious to me as a player. When a frontal assault could not succeed, attack a weakness. The GM did not see this until Jogaila accomplished his goals. In both cases Jogaila wrecked the GM’s plan, although only in the second case did the GM employ heavy handed tactics to prevent it. The GM was otherwise very inventive, devising interesting challenges and mesmerizing descriptions. But numerous times I hit his blind spot: sometimes he wanted the story to go a certain way, and would resist efforts to move it from that path.

All of this leads back to the title of the post. Players should never achieve tactical surprise against the GM. Players should never be able to find a line of least resistance. Not because they will be denied success, but because the GM should never be so invested in a particular outcome that a line of least resistance appears.