Here's the secret to GMing: its not instinctive. No more so than writing good code

Here's the secret to GMing: its not instinctive. No more so than writing good code, 

A friend was at Gencon, and saw some really great GMing behaviors. Just this morning, he asked what about some behaviors I have. Namely, how to ask players the questions that spur them to greater creativity.

And well, it is a pleasure and honor to be asked. I have a lot of impostor syndrome, and that sort of question helps push it away and makes me feel pretty awesome.

My own GMing style is from a conglomeration of games, advice, and thought over the years. And a lot of watching and thinking about how other people GM, to bring what they do into my own style.

First, some really fantastic early role playing. This GM was on the forge (and spoke very poorly of it), and ran games where he asked questions. I picked up on that. He also pushed hard for particular themes, and knew the direction he needed things to go.

Some of this I picked up for my own style, other of it I dropped. I was half-assing it for a while, with no real coherent thought. I knew I wanted my games to be less about any plot I came up with, and to bring in the players own creativity more. I struggled with that, but didn't have the vocabulary to describe what I wanted. I knew I didn't want hours of prep and plots and rails. I knew I didn't want laptops at the table, and I didn't want games that required that sort of math.

And then, two things happened. At a wedding, Ted Cabeen  introduced me to Fiasco. Not to put to fine a point on it, but Fiasco changed my relationship to role playing games in a fundamental way. I played a lot of Fiasco. For anyone reading who doesn't know, Fiasco is a GM-less 2-3 hour game that plays like a Cohen movie. This game is written by Jason Morningstar, and published by Bully Pulpit Games.

Things Fiasco does that changed my gaming: distributed decision making, facilitation and GMing separated, GMing is distributed (mostly), and -- perhaps most importantly! -- the situation the characters are in is developed on the fly in about 30 minutes before gameplay begins. Imagine that: the creative power at the table, directed by the game (and playset!) creates an interesting web of characters in a shorter time period than it takes to make a first-level 4e wizard.

Then play it through and absolutely wreck the characters. I've seen characters die from an unexpected shotgun blast, bleed from all the coke, or just do some dope with the hot girl in high school. And all of this emerged in play -- the plots and stories mattered, and the characters were vehicles for that. The characters are a disposable play piece, to be used and used hard. Like a dwarf's hit points.

I could talk for a long-ass time about Fiasco. If you've not played it, do so. Key thing is you setup relationships in motion, which will fall apart.

But, Fiasco was just one of the two games that changed my relationship to gaming. Fiasco has no prep, no GM, and (generally) no ongoing setup from one session to another. What about campaigns? What about the role of GM? What about world building? I was still struggling with this, trying to incorporate the lessons from Fiasco into traditional RPGs. Like Fate -- I ran a Diaspora game, which was delightful. I didn't know what would happen, and found out through play. Fate sets up relationships between the characters, and I tried to push towards that. It didn't quite do what I wanted.

Well, my friends, that's about the time I discovered Apocalypse World, by Vincent Baker. I don't remember how or why -- possibly through Dungeon World -- but AW games are the second great inspiration. AW takes the role of GM and treats it like another player at the table. That is, even the GM is playing a game -- and has rules! -- even if it is a bit less obvious. The players don't need to know this. At all.

Apocalypse World sets up a world in motion. It sets up -- during character creation! -- a set of PC relationships that are unstable and will fall apart. There are questions on the sheet that the players must answer. That is, in about 30 minutes, you've done some initial world building, have a set of player characters who have relationships to each other, and the characters have the tools to make lasting changes in the world. I think that's the key difference between AW and Fiasco -- in Fiasco, the characters don't really have the tools to make lasting changes. (I mean, sort of, but not really.)

Anyway, this is supposed to be about GMing. And it is: my GMing is a distillation of what I've found in these games. My initial GM taught me to ask questions, Fiasco taught me to setup unstable relationships, and AW taught me that the GM is a player, too.

What do i mean? What, the hell, do I mean by the GM is a player? Well, in Aw and its many derivatives, the GM does not have true ultimate power. Sort of. The GM has a few things that bind them:
1. Agenda.
2. Principles.
3. Moves.

I've taken the notion of GM Agenda and Principles and would use it in any damn game I run. Ever. The Agenda for Dungeon World (one of AW's more famous children) is:

1. Portray a fantastic world
2. Fill the characters’ lives with adventure
3. Play to find out what happens

That's it. That's the core of what the GM does during play. By the rules, every damn thing done by the GM flows back to one of these. 

Notice that last one -- play to find out what happens -- which means you, the GM, do NOT know what is going to happen. You don't come to the table with scenes in mind, or knowing who is going to beat up on whom. Once you do that, goes the reasoning, you're no longer playing a game and the players could just go read a book for as much agency as they have.

This is probably the most important principle in an RPG. This is what makes both Fiasco and AW (and derivatives) so good. This is the magic of RPGs -- the conglomeration of emotion and creativity from multiple minds. The convergence of pull from people that aren't me.

One of the GM principles is "Sometimes, disclaim decision making". And another is "ask questions like crazy". I find myself combining these. 

Here's an example: I've got a player at Thursday Night who comes at things from a very different perspective than my own. He always pushes the genre line, as we've started calling it. He seeks out the weird, and all his answers are towards that. In a WWW game (another AW hack!), the championship match was held on an oil derrick. He joins it by coming in on a submarine, with a dozen fans dressed as him.

It was amazing. It was so close to being out of genre, while exalting in how weird it was.

When I first met him, I got pretty frustrated with him. Then I stopped trying to control everything and asked him the questions where I wanted truly bizarre answers. Now, he is one of my favorite players. 

This goes to a meta principle of my own: push your players to be the best themselves they can. Accept who they are, and enjoy the hell out of it.

When I want an answer that's emotional, I know which player to turn to. When I need one that's about strategy, I know who to ask. Basically, know your players strengths and push towards them. I wind up not making a lot of decisions --- instead, I ask the player who will provide the category of answer that I want. Or, sometimes, just the player I'm looking at. I provide a framework, and let them know what questions to answer when. I try to get the best out of each of them, based on where they truly excel.

What sorts of questions? provocative ones. Reading straight out of Apocalypse World, start simple and, as time goes on, ask for immediate and intimate details of the lived experiences of the characters. Then add your own details, and bring it back into the game later. And use it to inform your own developing sense of the game world.

Things like "What do her lips smell like?", or "Where does it hurt when you open your mind to the psychic maelstrom?" Or, for wrestling, maybe "The crowd goes crazy. What do they chant when they see you?"

Whatever the questions are, they should be directed and targeted to engage a player. Use a bit of psychology here -- and know it is trial and error. I've asked questions that don't work, where I've misjudged the players or the scene. Move on.

I can write more about this, if there's interest. I can also recommend some books -- Fiasco and Apocalypse World are the most obvious. The GMing section of AW is written in an intentionally dense style, and some of its children have easier to read -- and very good! -- GM sections. Dungeon World, World Wide Wrestling, and Urban Shadows all have really great GM advice.

I guess that's it for now.