Gamemasters in Wargames

[Jemima Fawr]

I wasn't aware that umpires/GMs ever went away.

[Charlie_]

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!

[Freddy]

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.

[Easy E]

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. 

[Freddy]

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.

[CapnJim]

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....   

[Elbows]

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

I think more along the lines of "hosting" a game...but I don't think that always qualifies as actually GM'ing the game.

[jon_1066]

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.

[eilif]

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.   

[Aethelflaeda was framed]

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!

[Dentatus]

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.

[Dean]

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.

[eilif]

engagement, empathy, spontaneity, and improvisation

That could be the motto for good GMing!