Lead Adventure Forum
Other Stuff => General Wargames and Hobby Discussion => Topic started by: Easy E on July 23, 2024, 07:01:04 PM
-
Game Masters you say? Is this supposed to be about Wargame Design or RPG Design? Game Masters are a Role-playing Game thing. It is one of their defining traits!
Yeah..... about that.
Game Masters (Referees, Umpires, Control) have been part of wargaming since the very beginning. I am not an expert on the history of Wargaming, but some of the earliest examples were Kriegspiel. This was a wargame used by the Prussian General Staff to help train officers in the conduct of warfare after the Napoleonic Wars. It relied heavily on other Officers to act as referees to interpret and apply orders in the game.
This tradition stayed with wargames, and is still used in many Politico-Military wargames run today. In 2024, the US Coast Guard ran a wargame to help prepare participants to think about US Coast Guard doctrine for the next 30 years, and it was run by a Game Master. The same is true of many of the Wargames regarding the Taiwan Strait or the (in)famous Millennial Challenge wargame.
Readers probably also recall that Role-Playing games themselves were just a down-scaled wargame where the players handled 1-character at a time rather than units of troops. RPGs are well-known for using Game Masters. This was a practice taken from the roots in wargaming from early versions like Chainmail.
In the Hobby, Miniature Wargaming market the Game Master was also a common component in the mid to late 70s and 80s. Many of us got our start in wargaming with Warhammer: Rogue Trader. This game heavily features a Game Master for scenario design, balancing forces, deployment, and mission creation. They also ran NPCs, surprise encounters, and made rules interpretations and decisions during the game. This tradition continues in Games Workshop's Inquisitor as well.
Looking at the coverage of Historicon got me ruminating a bit about Gamemasters and their role in the wargaming hobby. My thoughts can be found on my blog if you are so inclined:
https://bloodandspectacles.blogspot.com/2024/07/wargame-design-discussion-game-masters.html
The key points are:
- Gamemasters can do a lot of positive for a game
- Teach the game
- Handle disputes
- Make rulings
- Build narrative
- Add social lubricant
However, they went away for a few reasons, and are not coming back commercially:
- Primacy of rules
- Rise of pick-up culture
- 3 players is a hurdle
- Competitive focus
However, I am interested in your thoughts on the role of Gamemasters in wargames? What can they add? Why did they fall out of favor in commercial rulesets? Can they make a comeback? Have you ever designed a wargame specifically for use with a game master? What benefits have you had with a GMed game? Tell us the story!
-
Make a comeback? They never fell off, even with the current crop of rule books, if you go to a con, the GM will be there, and they are probably not playing on a side.
If there is anything that has changed in the desire of players to use a GM or not, it probably comes from computer gaming or non-plot centric dungeon crawl playing. The very process of shoot’em ups mechanics appeals to a lot of the less imaginatives or who have never seen alternatives, but i think there will always be those who prefer more fog of war, command control friction, using psychological ruse d’guerre and less than straightforward victory conditions and finding the routes to get there. GMs remain the best way to achieve these sorts of scenarios and campaigns.
-
I think they're a superb thing...but it's almost never a reality in wargames.
I'd say namely it's because modern wargames are not written with a GM in mind (this is probably the biggest reason), and it's often much easier to simply play a game against someone.
I'm a huge fan of having a third party for many reasons:
1) Set up terrain.
2) Design a scenario (often with information hidden from one or both players)
3) Can handle information which is "Fog of War", etc.
4) Handle any disputes
5) Make scenario/game adjustments on the fly if the game is going totally sideways
-
Make a comeback? They never fell off, even with the current crop of rule books, if you go to a con, the GM will be there, and they are probably not playing on a side.
If there is anything that has changed in the desire of players to use a GM or not, it probably comes from computer gaming or non-plot centric dungeon crawl playing. The very process of shoot’em ups mechanics appeals to a lot of the less imaginatives or who have never seen alternatives, but i think there will always be those who prefer more fog of war, command control friction, using psychological ruse d’guerre and less than straightforward victory conditions and finding the routes to get there. GMs remain the best way to achieve these sorts of scenarios and campaigns.
Indeed, coverage of Historicon is what got me thinking about GMs again. However, I see very few commercial wargames that explicitly are built to use a GM.
-
Explicitly designed or built to use them hasn’t been in a published rule set I have ever seen, at least not since the seventies, except for RPGs, but it doesn’t preclude them either. I think just about every designer figures that certain mechanics such as double blind play would require it and would expect it to be added by those who want it,without a grudge.
-
I'd really like to play with a game master, but
-for most games finding an opponent is hard enough :)
-designing rules with a GM in mind is a good excuse for lazy rule writing, and that should be avoided. I prefer tight rules- it is always easier to story-ize/GM-ize a good ruleset than to repair a lazily written one.
-
-designing rules with a GM in mind is a good excuse for lazy rule writing.
Tell me more about that?
-
I'd really like to play with a game master, but
-for most games finding an opponent is hard enough :)
-designing rules with a GM in mind is a good excuse for lazy rule writing, and that should be avoided. I prefer tight rules- it is always easier to story-ize/GM-ize a good ruleset than to repair a lazily written one.
All depends who has a better sense of history or game design, the designer with his asinine assumptions and biases which need to be altered or the game master who has asinine assumptions and biases of another sort, that had no business making those corrections!
-
Four of the last five games I played had what were effectively GMs, though they didn't call themselves that.
In each case they added something positive to the game.
-
Don't think I've ever seen a set of miniatures rules that explicitly calls for a GM.
I do lots of gaming at US conventions where GMing is just the norm of how to put on a game. Exceedingly useful to be able to facilitate the flow of the game, explain rules, etc. If I'm running a game, I'll only jump in to play if the numbers of players are low and one more will help round out the sides.
Even for a lot of gaming at the FLGS, I'll GM/referee if we have a lot of players, and jump in to play to make an even number.
-
Directing Staff on exercise. There's yer real Games Master but with the added ability to lob flash bangs, mortar sims and smoke grenades along with the ability to declare selected players dead for the afternoon. No point arguing the toss or making snide remarks about the need for glasses, their word is as that of God and they make up the rules as they go along. Only the magic words 'END EX' frees you from their dread powers.
-
Tell me more about that?
If you go through Warlord's HailCaesar/PikeShotte/BlackPowder books, it contains several references to umpires and scenario rules. I do not like this kind of a design, a game ruleset shall make you able to play pickup games with 5-6 basic scenarios and a customizable-but-balanced army building system. This is the base you can upgrade with custom scenarios, house rules and GM actions if you want.
I really like narrative games and playing with a GM should be fun. But a good system shall work without these too.
-
There are quite a few guys experimenting with miniature wargame campaigns that utilize a GM to preserve such things as hidden movement and fog of war. Most of them are looking at the old masters, like Tony Bath and Donald Featherstone, for guidance because it has become a lost art to have a neutral third-party GM. The advent of online gaming and always-on communications by having a phone in your pocket 24/7 is a huge boon to this style of play, allowing for a Tony Bath style campaigns ala Hyboria again, and at a much faster pace. In some cases, they are even doing the map-based movement using the GM, and when a fight happens, the two players just take turns resolving it and report the results to the rest of the players.
It takes a lot of trust, but with the right group of guys it makes for a really fun experience. You really feel like the leader of a nation when your armies clash and you have to sit and wait for the results from the front lines.
On the flip side, there are a lot of guys experimenting with adding PvP conflict and faction play to role-playing games. One of the things that RPGs lost over the years was the player vs. player vibe in favor of players vs. GM('s theoretically neutrally run NPCs). It turns out you don't have to give up the PvP if you approach RPGs with a more wargamer attitude. These guys are building large factions/armies, and playing out the big sweeping movements on maps as a wargame campaign, but have managed to marry that with the one-on-one aspects of conventional RPG play. It turns out AD&D 1e scales beautifully, allowing for just one set of rules to be used for 1-on-1 fights and mass battles.
[edit to add: Here's a link to the sort of thing I'm seeing out there. This one uses a variation on David Wesley's game Braunstein, which bridges the wargame-RPG gap quite nicely:
https://stephensmith.substack.com/p/whats-better-than-a-battle-braunstein (https://stephensmith.substack.com/p/whats-better-than-a-battle-braunstein)
-
I nearly always play with (or as) an umpire these days.
Multiplayer games particularly are improved with one as they can keep things moving and also allows for different victory conditions/fog of war/scenario specific things.
Scenario driven games are much better if both sides are unaware of the other's victory conditions or forces available.
-
If you go through Warlord's HailCaesar/PikeShotte/BlackPowder books, it contains several references to umpires and scenario rules. I do not like this kind of a design, a game ruleset shall make you able to play pickup games with 5-6 basic scenarios and a customizable-but-balanced army building system. This is the base you can upgrade with custom scenarios, house rules and GM actions if you want.
I really like narrative games and playing with a GM should be fun. But a good system shall work without these too.
Thanks Freddy.
I talk about this a bit in the post. My feeling is that the Warlord series of games is designed from a different cultural perspective than the current market is demanding. Therefore, what is driving the move away from GMs in games is more about the culture moving into an "individual" phase rather than a "group" phase. Therefore, what is consider "solid" game design now maybe out of style in a few generations when the pendulum swings back to more group focused wargames.
This shift maybe closer than we think. The recent rise in popularity of RPGs and board games with middle-aged consumers could be an early sign of these changes happening. Meanwhile, the wargame space is still lagging a bit as they develop more solo play experiences.
Anyway, all that cultural stuff is way beyond the scope of the article, but I think hints at some of the "WHY" behind the shift.
-
I wasn't aware that umpires/GMs ever went away.
-
As I have designed my own rules whch I intend to play with friends who aren't wargamers.. using all my own armies, terrain etc. I intend to be an umpire not a player myself!
I don't want to invite a friend over for a game and have them lose against me.
I want to invite two friends over for a game, with me umpiring as they play each other!
-
Thanks Freddy.
I talk about this a bit in the post. My feeling is that the Warlord series of games is designed from a different cultural perspective than the current market is demanding. Therefore, what is driving the move away from GMs in games is more about the culture moving into an "individual" phase rather than a "group" phase. Therefore, what is consider "solid" game design now maybe out of style in a few generations when the pendulum swings back to more group focused wargames.
This shift maybe closer than we think. The recent rise in popularity of RPGs and board games with middle-aged consumers could be an early sign of these changes happening. Meanwhile, the wargame space is still lagging a bit as they develop more solo play experiences.
Anyway, all that cultural stuff is way beyond the scope of the article, but I think hints at some of the "WHY" behind the shift.
I do not think that this is a deeply cultural thing, it is simply practical- when it is hard to find even a 2nd player, basing your game on a 3rd is just an unrealistic expectation. Those who manage to play such games are just a very-very lucky minority.
Yes, my preference of tightly written rules might come from the fact that I started with 40k (and I still love it), but not because 40k is a tightly written ruleset, but quite the opposite: GW used often cover their rules flaws with the phrase ,,forge the narrative", and man, I learned to hate that. Rules writers shall do their job properly if they want my money, on the other hand I can easily make an umpire led RPG adventure based on the rules of chess if I want to as ignoring game balance and altering game dynamics with random interventions is the easiest thing ever.
-
Here is what I say in the article:
I have a couple of theories on the move away from Game Masters:
1. The primacy of rules
The gentlemanly rules writing style has fallen out-of-favor with many modern players. In the old days, rules could be written a bit looser, as the GM or the players themselves were assumed to be able to work-out the details as fellow gentleman. However, players have demanded that rule sets "tighten up" in order to avoid ambiguity and remove the social decision making aspect out of the hobby. The Rules are suppose to be the final arbiter of what should happen in a game, rather than any other source.
2. The rise of pick-up culture
With the rise of Pick-up Culture in gaming, the primacy of rules is critical. Two random strangers enter a neutral, third space and play a game with no other commonalities between them. The Rules themselves are to create that bridge between these two strangers. If the rules do not cover it, these two strangers are at an impasse.
As this type of gaming became more common in miniature wargaming circles, the rules themselves had to reflect these changes. No more could writers rely on a group of like-minded buddies around a table. They had to make sure that the rules could work if two complete strangers met up in a game store, club, pub, or the street to play a wargame.
The wargame scene was atomizing into smaller and smaller components.
3. I need 3 people to play this game now!
As this atomization occurred, wargamers became much more "singular". They were expected to meet-up and play a game. Trying to organize three players to get in a game was much more difficult, therefore games had to cater to two player at most. Games designed for more than two players fell out of favor commercially in the industry because it was a limiting factor to getting a game. The Game Master became a liability to getting a game in.
4. Competitive Gaming
Of course, many of these factors were also linked to the rise of the competitive scene in wargame, as games moved away from being a form or learning/recreation and into more of an arena of skill/sport over time. Here again, the Game Master was a liability as the role could inject uncertainty into outcomes that were anathema to the Competitive ideology. Certainty, known outcomes, and set statistical probabilities were essential for a competitive scene to function between two random strangers.
Even a casual reader can see how these factors have all intermingled and grown in such a way, that the Game Master became a liability to the growth of the miniature wargaming hobby rather than a benefit.
These are the cultural factors around wargaming that have moved us away from Game Masters. However, these cultural factors could change in the future. Indeed the sub-culture of Convention games proves that GMs are still a cultural factor in that space, even if they are not in the larger wargaming world.
-
Here is what I say in the article:
These are the cultural factors around wargaming that have moved us away from Game Masters. However, these cultural factors could change in the future. Indeed the sub-culture of Convention games proves that GMs are still a cultural factor in that space, even if they are not in the larger wargaming world.
Like that, but if you go deeper you realize that all four come from the same root: wargaming is not for a tight-knit small group any more but for a broader audience. This boom was caused by the internet where you can find every niche stuff, starting it is not limited by the lack of like minded individuals in close proximity. This is however a paradox situation as unlike the "hobby" part, actually playing the game needs the physical presence of other players, which you either have or not have- an entire group of them is a lucky situation, but not the norm.
As all expanding subcultures, wargaming is spawning its own sub-subcultures. These can sometimes go into the retro direction (think of the popularity of Oldhammer style) so I agree that GM gaming could have its renaissance: simply reborn as a sub-subculture within basically what is its own twisted and bloated self.
-
I can only speak from my own experience, but around me (Great Lakes area in the US) GMs are alive and well. Then conventions I go to all have GMs in the participation games (which are most of the games, outside of tournaments). Even in my own weekly gaming group, we use GMs.
Some of the games I run, I just GM. Others, I play in as the "bad guys" (and civilians, if there are any), and have the other players play the "good guys". In any event, when I host a game, either at a convention, or with my weekly group, I try to develop scenarios that present tactical challenges to the players. And they are not always balanced....
-
I think perhaps we're blurring the lines of what I see as a GM.
Obviously I "GM" my demo games at conventions and stuff, but I don't consider that to be part of the proper game...that's just a dude showing other dudes how to play a game they haven't played.
Locally, occasionally we have three guys and only two are going to play, so the third guy does some trivial GM'ing...but it's rare to have one of us say to the others "Hey guys, I designed a cool scenario that I want to run and GM for you guys". It's more a matter of convenience of simply having a third person near the table.
So when I think GM's, I don't think demo'ing games at conventions...and I'm iffy on a third person who's on hand to simply make a few unbiased decisions :D
I think more along the lines of "hosting" a game...but I don't think that always qualifies as actually GM'ing the game.
-
The Umpire as part of a game has never gone away but likewise competitive one on one games with no umpire have also been a feature for many many years in wargaming. These things wax and wane with fashion and culture but both have been there for 50+ years.
The reason WH:RT and WHFB had a games master is that RPGs were all the rage when they were written in the 1980s and it was a commercial as well as cultural decision to include them. ie the culture of the design studio but also Bryan Ansell eyeing those RPG $$.
There has been tournament gaming with tight rules like DBA for decades as well.
I do think the best gaming experience is where a scenario (or campaign) allows the players to operate in an intelligence vacuum. That there are unknowns for them to discover as the game progresses. An umpire simply makes that much easier to do.
-
Gamemasters can be a superb addition.
When I'm running a game at a Con, I'm not just teaching the rules. I'm adding scenario surprises, bringing in additional units and players, providing secret objectives, etc. This is not done by rigidly following some pre generated rubric. These are largely my decisions made (sometimes invented on the spur of the moment) the in service of the narrative and flow of the game with an eye towards maximizing the enjoyment of the players.
There is nothing wrong with a competitive game or a great scenario played without a GM, but I really feel having one gives a game experience that can't be replicated without a GM.
-
Gamemasters can be a superb addition.
When I'm running a game at a Con, I'm not just teaching the rules. I'm adding scenario surprises, bringing in additional units and players, providing secret objectives, etc. This is not done by rigidly following some pre generated rubric. These are largely my decisions made (sometimes invented on the spur of the moment) the in service of the narrative and flow of the game with an eye towards maximizing the enjoyment of the players.
There is nothing wrong with a competitive game or a great scenario played without a GM, but I really feel having one gives a game experience that can't be replicated without a GM.
This!
-
Gamemasters can be a superb addition.
When I'm running a game at a Con, I'm not just teaching the rules. I'm adding scenario surprises, bringing in additional units and players, providing secret objectives, etc. This is not done by rigidly following some pre generated rubric. These are largely my decisions made (sometimes invented on the spur of the moment) the in service of the narrative and flow of the game with an eye towards maximizing the enjoyment of the players.
There is nothing wrong with a competitive game or a great scenario played without a GM, but I really feel having one gives a game experience that can't be replicated without a GM.
Yes. Very much this.
You can't codify the engagement, empathy, spontaneity, and improvisation a good GM brings to the table.
-
I’ll echo other comments here, for me, a Games Master implies someone who brings something more to the table than just telling the players how to play.
That’s not what the GM in an RPG does, so it shouldn’t be like that on a tabletop either.
In a wargame therefore, the GM runs a scenario, including some background “colour”, adds unexpected events, deals with the “fog-of-war”, and generally goes beyond what it says in the rules.
So yes that’s a lot like what someone running a demo game at a convention does, but not what an umpire at a competition does.
Solo/co-op TTGs obviously aim to bring that experience without the need for a real person, but can also be further enhanced by the use of one.
All that said, I doubt there are that many less GMs running games, just more people playing them without the benefit (to my mind) of having one.
-
engagement, empathy, spontaneity, and improvisation
That could be the motto for good GMing!