"GM: Helpful Resource or Annoying Busybody?" Topic

Another flivver of curiosity to be pondered (or ignored)…

In cases where an unfamiliar game is being played (though I guess it doesn't really have to be unfamiliar…?), how much help/assistance should the judge provide before he/she crosses the line and starts to interfere with the players playing the game?

This assumes a decent reference card/cheet sheet is available to players, and that a pre-game overview/lesson was presented as well as a fair amount of guidance in the first couple times something comes up so that the gist of the thing is demonstrated (eg: here's how you wheel/turn, here's how combat is handled, etc…).

After that, if a player appears to forget the consequences of an action (eg: If you do that you'll get stuck or lose a turn or whatever) or seems to ignore an option (eg: You know you are allowed to reload the cannon?) should the GM just let him/her hang out to dry and suffer the results?

As a player, I don't like to see an opponent get spanked because they messed up/forgot a rule, but on the other hand: if they make a move that leaves their flank open to a good wallop because maybe they forgot my unit over there by the woods can wheel and reach them, well..c'est la guerre!

As a ref (who's also usually the game's creator), I worry whether the rules are understandable --though the fact that 3 of the 4 players seem to get it makes the special effort to educate the one who's lost (and doesn't seem to grasp the concept that horses can, at times, gallop…) not at all fair to the other three. Still, I'd like the game to be judged in its best light (especially if they devote their valuable/limited con-time to it), and having players walk away from the experience with a bad taste in their mouths because the rules were misused seems like a lose-lose result for all involved.

I suppose a facet to consider is: How much does the player bring to the table as far as the performance of the forces is concerned? ie: How much do the troops know (and are responsible for -like formation changes, loading/aiming, etc…) and how much is the player supposed to know/decide? Special consideration given to someone who presents themselves as a newbie to the genre is assumed to be okay --but should the judge lean in and point out to a player that there is sky above into which the airplane can climb?…or just let the chips fall where they may?

I realize this is a big, open-ended can o' worms kind of subject…but then isn't that what the internet is for on Mondays?

I try to just make suggestions that are purely rule based. So say something like: "This unit can turn 90 degrees, reform, move or launch it's tactical nuclear missiles."

Or something like that.

Strategy I try to leave up to the players. It does depend a bit on whether the players are evenly matched as far as familiarity with the rules is concerned. If I have a tournament player with 90 some 1st place trophies on one hand and someone that hasn't played the game before on the other, then the newbie gets a little more coaching but still just about the rules.

It can be a tough balance. If some unusual situation is going to come up due to weirdness in the rules then I do try to point that out ahead of time.

Generally when running a game I feel that it is the GM's responsibility (with new players and particularly at convention games) to make sure he understands the intent of the player and then to help them accomplish that goal within the bounds of the rules. When I run something and there are newbies playing I always start out by saying something like "tell me what you are trying to do and I will help you do it".

Ed G.

"tell me what you are trying to do and I will help you do it".

Agreed. I think a player only needs to supply the "what I want to do" part, and then the game will supply the way that gets done. A good game, I guess, is one in which the route to one's desired action is intuitive/simple-to-understand and not filled with a series of seemingly odd/unrelated activities (eg: "so…to gain a firing position on that fellow over there I need to draw a blue chit and then roll greater than the day of the month using the square root of my age -rounded down- for the number of dice and my opponent's hair-color-coded die-type --black is 4-sided, brown 6-sided…).

In our Rogue Trader games (yes we play, yes we like it, no I'm not lying!) the referee is more like a third player… running the environment, manning out of control robots and alien critters, playing the frightened hostages, etc.
The few times we've had folks who were unfamiliar with the game we pretty much all pitched in to make sure their mistakes were 'cause of their plans and not because of misunderstanding the rules.
Most folks don't want to win because the other guy didn't understand how the game works.

I usually GM my Crossfire games. They involve a number of house rules and I hate it when a player does something stupid and I will usually remind him that: Hey your squad can take cover (ground hug) in the open; you know if you sacrifice that platoon commander, that Russian platoon won't be able to move any more; remember if your tanks are too close together and the enemy kills one, he gets a completely free shot, no roll to hit required, at a close neighbour; etc, etc

Some of my friends get very upset with me for this sort of thing, especially when I tell the other side about something the other is banking on the other guys to forget so they can throttle them for the mistake. But I don't like to see people get whacked for forgetting something a soldier in the field might do automatically.
--
Tim

Tim – I'm pretty much in your camp…just worried about exerting too heavy a hand: both from the interference standpoint as well as the time-use, ie: giving each player their options and/or pointing out what they've forgotten all the time really drags the game, IMO.

I'm not surprised some of your friends get upset, Ditto Bird. I'd be infuriated by your well-meaning attempts to run my army. I see that you're trying to make sure a player is aware of all the options, but this approach doesn't allow a player to learn from their mistakes and become a better strategist. Let me choose my course of action and help me complete it within the rules of the game, for better or worse.