Gaming Soft and Hard

Welcome to the fourth installment of I.M.O. After covering my version of gaming styles I am going on to discuss various methods of game mastering. To prove to you that I actually spent an experience point or five (depending on what system I am living in, although my life seems to mimic a mix of UA and Kult, just kidding) on my Writing: Columns endurance-based skill I will actually explain what the “big” idea is this time: In this series I will attempt to detail the various styles of game mastering as I see them. In the best possible outcome (from my perspective of course) this will allow game masters to better identify the direction they are taking their own games and the ramifications that result from their choices. But, I would be more than satisfied if this series turns out to be simply thought provoking.

I will start my foray (series not column wise) by attempting to tackle what IMO is the most severe distinction between game masters, their hardness. With this I mean their tendency to enforce die rolls and rules and to see the game as just that. Not only will I seek to hardness, I will also describe the effects, IMO, that the various degrees of hardness have on the game. I will finish that part of the column off by saying a thing or two about switching hardness. In the very end I will loose a few words about what IMHO is one of the greatest abominations in gaming “teaching the players a lesson”. Before I begin in earnest I do wish to note that I see all styles of gaming as interesting and fun. I have a bias toward the fluffy soft side of things and I do apologize to all hard game masters should this bias come to light in the text below.

To convey what I mean when I say “hardness” of a game master I will give two examples. One is of a rock hard and the other of a fluffy soft game master. Both master the same situation: The players after months of play finally come face to face with the dark overlord" and his minions. One of the players’ characters actually has been hunting this very villain for all her life. She seeks vengeance for his murder of her family. I will start by describing how my hypothetical rock hard game master would handle the situation:

This game master would run the situation basically like a tactical combat game. He would take care to enforce all of the rules of the game and he would never fudge a single die roll. If this means that he kills a few characters that’s fine. If the character seeking revenge dies first struck down by a stray critical hit, well that’s tough luck. What is more this game master would put all his energy into playing the player’s enemies to their full potential, especially as far as the rules are concerned. The overlord and his minions will use fancy special attacks, employ their magick to its full potential and throw whatever obscure methods of mayhem the game master knows at the characters (and players). The overlord might purposefully avoid that character seeking revenge if the GM thinks that would give him a better chance of survival, greatly enhancing the chance that another character could kill the overlord. Should the vengeful character manage to kill the overlord the GM will simply let him die (or if there are such things as dying blows he will of course let the overlord do just that). He will not go for long speeches or curses. In fact if the rules state that a character suffers penalties if he speaks during combat the GM will enforce these rules to the hilt. Even if the vengeance seeking character is making his grand speech before engaging the overlord in combat.

The fluffy soft game master would, obviously handle the situation completely differently. He would run the situation for its dramatic story telling value. He will let the rules slip often when he thinks this would enhance the intensity of the situation and he is very likely to fudge dice rolls, especially to ensure the character’s survival. The overlord and his minions are far more likely to taunt the characters and to intimidate them with displays of prowess than to actually be a serious threat to their lives. The GM will ensure that the vengeance seeking character will confront the overlord after all the minions have fallen. Before they fight he will insist on having them give dramatic speeches that might last far longer than the entire previous combat. In the end the vengeance seeker will kill the overlord (although the game master might, with the consent of the character's player, have the overlord kill the character as he dies, even if the rules make no provisions for such events).

As you can see the game masters I call “hard” are primarily interested in the playing a game. Basically they see any sort of roleplaying game as a limitless board game with character identification elements. Often they also put a great deal of emphasis on realism in the context of the setting. Although sometimes they even attempt to force real world realism on fantasy settings (by applying the laws of physics on spells). Character failure (and often death) is rather common in games run by hard game masters. Their gamist approach implies that they set victory conditions for the players (often mere survival) and make it difficult for the players to achieve these.

“Soft” game masters on the other hand see roleplaying as a form of interactive storytelling. They see the rules as mere guidelines to arbitrate random situations. Often however they will completely ignore the rules if they believe that doing so will enhance the story. Realism is always ignored in favor of story and drama. They virtually always allow players to survive and succeed. Inner conflicts, plots twists and interesting stories are the primary motivators.

IMO it is rather obvious that these different styles of game mastering influence how the players play the game. Below I will describe into which directions I believe players are pushed by the two styles of game mastering and the problems that can thus arise. Players of hard game masters will tend to see the game as just that. Playing in character will usually be far less important than succeeding in the goals of game. These players will be especially reluctant to roleplay in combat and other potentially lethal situations, instead fully concentrating on surviving. Most of these players would never spare an arch nemesis if they could murder him, for example. Also players of hard game masters, and this is IMHO one serious problem with this style of mastering, will virtually always create characters that have the best chance of succeeding. This does not necessarily mean min-maxing or raw power gaming. In fact most hard game masters and their players I know despise this type of behavior as unsporting. But if the game master runs a combat intense game you will virtually never find a character unsuited for combat. If the game master often demands perception checks characters will tend to have a high perception skill level. If the game master often brings the characters in situation where they will loose their equipment characters who rely on their gear will be rare and so on. Skills or attitudes that do not find common usage or are outright incompatible to the game master's focus will virtually never be encountered. Due to the gamist approach of hard GMs they will rarely change the focus of their game to accommodate other types of characters. Be aware that all of this can, IMO, be true for all game focuses, from research to intrigue to hack-fest.

The player characters of soft game masters OTOH tend to be rather extreme. Extreme backgrounds, extreme personalities and extreme diversification are commonly the norm, not the exception. This can be quite problematic if there is little or no party cohesion, everybody will want to be in the limelight, with the limelight being pointed at a very obscure and surreal part of psychology or geography indeed. And will have the character sheet to justify their wish. Also excessive weirdness can destroy suspense of disbelief easily and has the potential to deteriorate into downright silliness. Finally the unpredictability and diversity of characters can give the game master a massive headache. Coming up with adventures to suit such characters can be an epic task, doing so every week downright impossible. Which might be for naught anyway as such characters often are far more interested in themselves than coping with any external problems, a.k.a. adventures. Finally soft GMs are, in my experience, very liable to changing the focus of their game to accommodate the wishes of their players. This can be both a blessing and a great problem. It is a problem if the game master shifts focus too often or if he ends up mastering a focus he has no desire to master.

Despite the problems associated with the two extremes of GM hardness neither style is, IMO, inherently superior. What is important, again IMHO of course, is that both the players and the GM agree on what style they are playing and wish to play, thus avoiding confusion and frustration (as any player interested in character portrayal who ended up with a rock hard GM and as any player seeking to actually play a game with a soft GM will certainly tell you). This is IMO especially important should the GM seek to change the style of his gaming. Otherwise serious problems are, IMO, bound to arise as players find all their expectations suddenly betrayed. IMHO in game surprises are good, Meta game surprises, such as rule changes and sudden changes of style, are very bad.

And now for some personal rants. Be warned all of this is even more IMHO than the rest of this column. Some game masters have the annoying tendency of changing the way that they play the game “to teach players a lesson”. Suddenly characters must talk to the monsters, not slaughter them, even though the latter option was the norm for an entire year of play. From one moment to the next the players must act quickly not spend time on careful research. Out of the blue, characters are supposed to retreat from an encounter, even though they never had to before. This is IMHO terribly, terribly annoying. The game master basically punishes the players for following his version of reality. Worst of all he often does so (in my experience) by claiming “that it's realistic that way” and that players “should have expected it all along”. To top it all off I have heard GMs justify this decision by saying that they want to “teach the players a lesson”. This might be fine if the game master were actually preparing the players for a real life dungeon crawl with monsters and riddles. But as long as everybody comes to the table for some entertainment I frankly do not see how the GM would have any reason or right “to teach the players a lesson”.

But not to worry, I will not end this column with words of hate ;-). Instead, I will do something I should have done in the first column. I will thank my dear friend Angelika Weinheimer for proofreading every column and adding valuable suggestions (she actually allowed me to attach her name to this column. Brave or foolhardy? You choose.)