Almost from the moment I discovered roleplaying games, I've primarily been a referee. To some degree, I was thrust into this role by necessity, since few of my friends were all that interested in sitting behind the screen themselves. Fortunately for them, I liked being the referee. I enjoyed making maps and creating adventure locales and thinking up new ways to challenge my players. Despite my perpetual stage fright – I still struggle with this before nearly every session I run – I also enjoy describing situations to my players, roleplaying NPCs, and thinking on my feet in response to their harebrained schemes. In short, refereeing is fun, which probably explains why I've got three different campaigns on the go at the present moment.
Of course, I've been a player, too. Right now, for instance, I'm playing in a dear friend's Traveller campaign set in the Crucis Margin sector and am really enjoying it. Nevertheless, there's no denying that, by most standards, I'm a terrible player. I don't say this lightly; this isn't studied self-effacement. I really do think I'm a pretty mediocre player, especially when I compare myself to the dozens of people whom I've refereed over the years – certainly when compared to the players of my House of Worms Empire of the Petal Throne campaign.
What do I mean when I say "terrible player?" Firstly, I mean that I rarely immerse myself in the world of any game I play. Instead, I retain varying degrees of detachment, sometimes to the point of treating my character as something akin to a token in a boardgame, which is to say, an abstract playing piece with little distinctiveness or personality. That might not seem like much of a sin, particularly if, like Gygax, you don't equate roleplaying with amateur thespianism. That's not quite what I mean here. Rather, I mean that I don't make much effort to play my character as something distinct from the rules he brings to bear on a session – abilities, skills, spells, gear, etc. He's not a fictional avatar but mostly a game construct.
Secondly, and perhaps more damningly, I get bored easily and don't pay attention to what's going on during a session when my character's not directly involved. To some extent, this is a consequence of my detachment. Since I view my characters mostly as vehicles for game mechanics, it's uncommon for them to engage in other activities that don't directly relate to them. Combat, for example, always catches my attention, as it directly involves all the characters present. On the other hand, lengthy discussions of in-game problems or details often leave me cold and I have to work hard to keep myself focused on the game. This second sin is an odd one. When I'm refereeing, I absolutely adore listening to the players spend long stretches of time discussing and debating new pieces of information their characters have just obtained or planning the strategy for their next endeavor. Indeed, those are among my favorite things about roleplaying. Perhaps I find them so appealing precisely because these are the kinds of in-game activities of which I don't seem to be capable.
I do think there's probably a connection between my long years participating in the hobby primarily as a referee and my terrible skills as a player. As a referee, I am constantly engaged in each and every session. As I mentioned above, I love roleplaying NPCs, describing details, responding to player queries, and so on. Even when I'm not directly involved in what's happening, I nevertheless have to pay attention in order to keep up with the action and determine what happens next. Likewise, after a session ends, I'm frequently thinking about the next session and what might happen during it. I can't tell how many times over the decades I've fallen asleep thinking about some aspect of a campaign I'm currently refereeing, pondering its possibilities.
Could it really be that, because a referee is such a large role, that having to take on the role of a "mere" player feels small and uninteresting? That seems the most obvious explanation, but I'm not sure if it's the right one. The difficulty in assessing this is compounded by the fact that, for all of this, I still enjoy playing. The aforementioned Traveller campaign is remarkable in its scope and imagination. I like the people with whom I'm playing and I look forward to each new session. Yet, for all of that, I still feel as if I'm not a very good player: I'm too distant and uninvolved most of the time and I worry it impacts others negatively.
Does anyone else feel this way?
I can definitely identify with a lot of this. It sounds like you have a great deal of self-awareness about how you present yourself to others during play (both playing and refereeing), and I've found with my similar tendency that I don't really know how well grounded it is. When I'm a player, for example, I've found I do best when I keep things as simple as possible so I don't slow everyone else down with my inability to follow the plot, but then when I run games I wonder if I'm expecting folks to remember more of a plot than I would be willing to follow.
ReplyDeleteI enjoy it all even if I never get it all quite right.
When I came back to role-playing games after a hiatus I felt exactly the same. But I'm an even worse player because I can't stop thinking how I would run the same scenario if I were the referee and how much better that would be (for me and my style, obviously). I'm also shy, so I rather keep the small colour commentary for me rather than taking the spot and make the current scene longer.
ReplyDeleteI'm with you a hundred percent. Always the GM. I love running games for a lot of the same reasons you mention (I even get similar stage fright/jitters). I really love the give and take of running a game and the challenge of keeping the feel of seamless course of events when players take things way away from what you had planned. As a player I feel like I'm a little too reticent and unwilling to really let go engage in the game and provide the challenge to the referee in the way that is fun for me to deal with when I'm running a game. But I'm still going to keep working on getting better on that side of the screen.
ReplyDeleteThat's pretty close to my own story! The few session I really enjoyed as a player was before I ever was DM, after that it kind of ruined it for me. Or at least I recall those sessions as "fun", even if see that the playing style was different; not only because it was a different system that I never DMed, but because the DM on those sessions was more combat focused, perhaps?
ReplyDeleteI don't play much any more, sadly; but the last session I played I found that I ended a bit like another NPC tagging along the party and kind of helping the DM once I saw what was going on. I'm an awful player!
Yes, I do. However I actually do enjoy "character as token" quite a lot, being free of vast setting lore and lengthy backgrounds is one of the things I like of a simple approach like the OSR's.
ReplyDeleteAs for getting detached from game events, to be fair I prefer fast paced games as a DM too, not that I jump at players screaming mind you, but too much planning quickly gets me wandering.
I usually leave the players to scheme and ask for a summary once they are done.
I have a friend who keeps the session journal for the group. He says that he likes doing that because it keeps him engaged. The journal isn't a blow by blow accounting of what happened, more a story to help record the activities, throw a few zingers at players for doing silly things, and generally remind everyone of what transpired.
ReplyDeleteWhen he isn't present, I do the journal and find that I'm a lot more attentive than usual.
That is what I do. However, it's more to compensate for my lack of memory and help out the GM/DM and other players than an engagement tool. If I didn't, I'd be asking at the beginning of the next session, "So ... what happened last week?"
DeleteYour self awareness indicates you are probably a better player than you think. Over the last 40 years, I've met far more bad DMs than bad players. How often does someone admit they are a bad DM? Almost never, that's why they are still out there wrecking havoc. - Always the Ranger
ReplyDeleteThis raises an interesting question then: do you think that, if you were a player in a campaign you were DM of, would DM James find Player James to be annoying or aggravating?
ReplyDeleteA good question! I don't think so, because, for all my faults as a player, I'm not disruptive or obstructive, mostly disengaged a lot of the time.
DeleteSo you enjoy playing; you don't hinder others from enjoying playing; you don't irritate the DM, and you say a player like Player James wouldn't irritate DM James. Then what's so terrible? How would things be better if you were a different kind of player?
DeleteNo real issues, I suppose, just the sense that I'm not engaging with the game as much as other players. I suppose it's more a sense that I might enjoy the game more if I were less detached.
DeleteMy experience is that, on the occasions I do get to play, I tend to be very nervous, even paranoid. I'm so accustomed to knowing everything about what's going on behind the screen that making decisions (especially in deadlier games or those with a lot of faction intrigue) without such total information puts me on edge. In a good way. It's exhilarating to be in the dark for a change, and I like getting into the head of a single character. I am, however, one of those amateur thespians you've been warned about.
ReplyDeleteI suffer from similar issues
ReplyDeleteI'm more or less a "forever DM", but I also consider myself a "good" player. I just try to think about how I'd want my players to participate in the game if I were running it, and I try to model that behavior.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that being a player is not as satisfying as being a DM, and when I "tune out" as a player, it's often because I'm unsatisfied with the DM's style or not entertained by what's happening in-game.
Yes, I feel the same. It may not help that I am sometimes playing in a system where I am very rules-knowledgeable as a GM, so I often find myself stepping to assist. I often ask to be reined in if I am felt to be rules-lawyering, but I haven't been slapped down yet.
ReplyDeleteI enjoy following along as others roleplay and plan and interact, but when focus shifts to my character, I suddenly feel deer-in-the-headlights and freeze up. It might be a desire not to dominate others' fun?
Not to engage in 'psychiatric diagnosis over the internet syndrome,' and 'bandwagonism' but as someone of the same age who recently discovered that I'm ADD (and have been all my life basically) it sounds very similar to my modes of engagement. It 'didn't exist' for our generation. Being a DM may tick off all the right boxes to satisfy your need of stimulation.
ReplyDeleteI relate to most of that. The last comment about ADD may well be the reason for my disengagement (I can also get disengaged some as a GM when the players get too rambling in their planning and plotting). For a long while I didn't enjoy playing much because I was so anxious about character failure, this was partially driven by some hard mode gaming that left my character out of action for most of the session. It was also interesting observing playing in a sandbox campaign where there wasn't really enough information for us to set our own course so we sort of floundered.
ReplyDeleteI have thought the same. No matter what, I just can't get hooked by playing. I'm even more detached than you. Over the years I have pondered this and my answer is that the DM and player are playing different games together. The DM uses different skills, engages different parts of their interests and brain than the player. It is possible to love DMing and have no interest in playing at all.
ReplyDeleteI enjoy both DMing and playing. As a player in combat, I very much treat my character as a token, as I enjoy the tactical elements of the game. And I think that's fine, whether you do in inside or outside of combat, because that's just leaning into the "game" part of a roleplaying game.
ReplyDeleteThere is also a bit of gamist in me outside of combat, however. I generally set goals for my character, and I leverage my wits and my character's abilities as much as possible to achieve those goals. And that requires me to understand and manipulate my environment by engaging in various out of combat activities. So even the out of combat parts of the game are tactical problems. Maybe that appeals to you?
I also don't find a big difference between running a PC and running an NPC, maybe because I like to get into the heads of my NPCs and make the decisions they would make. I don't generally create an NPC as a device to make something happen, so much as I make a stable of NPCs, and have them interact with the world, and the PCs, according to their own motivations and personalities. So in that sense, playing is like DMing a single NPC.
ReplyDeleteI have similar feelings. I think as DM part of the fun and involvement is slotting everything the players say and do into the world I'm running, formulating second and third order effects, etc. As a player, without all that extra information, what my character says and does only impacts the immediate situation for the most part. Sure I/my character can have some ideas about how that may affect the bigger picture, but not to the degree of the DM.
I feel the same way. I’ve finally learned that being a player is just futile. I’ll join a one shot or some other limited game as a player, but for the most part I am a terrible player. But I’m also the best player at the table because I know what the DM is looking for. I try to keep the story moving, I don’t fight with the other player “because that’s what my character would do”, and I try to steer the players to the fun options rather than the safe ones.
ReplyDeleteI’m a terrible player for all the reasons you mentioned. Also I find myself being too critical of the game and obvious problems I just want to correct. That’s how I started running games back in the 1980’s…I knew I could do it better.
I like to role-play a situation and I love to play out my NPC’s, but I hate when the game becomes collective story telling. I get bored. Most of the rules concern combat and other mechanical effects and that’s what we are here to do. I shudder when someone “brags” that the majority of their game sessions do not have a single fight. This is just not my game style.