To Be a Good Chief, You Must First Be An Indian

Let me tell you the story of two gamers currently in crisis: Tom and Derek. Tom and Derek have both reached the point in their lives where they have lost their love for gaming. They still want to game, occasionally, the problem is, no one wants to game with them. Furthermore, they assume that the fault lies in the gaming community, not them, despite the fact that other guys have to turn players away from their tables when they run scenarios. 

Tom is an old friend from the club I joined when I was still a fresh-faced lad. Tom is fifteen years older than me, which means he is old enough to be declared a monument. Tom has always been a peculiar sort of gamer. I recently told you about my friend Jack, who is the womanizer of rule systems. Tom is Jack's opposite. He has two games in his repertoire: Age of Sails naval and Franco-Prussian. That is it. He is the encyclopedia of these periods, and if I ever have a question regarding Napoleon III's army, I ask Tom.

In theory, the more you know about a particular historical period, the more enthusiastic you will will be about building a force or running a game for that period. Most gamers understand that when playing a historical wargame, you are not simulating, turn by turn, an actual 1:1 scale battle. What would be the point when everyone at the table already knows the outcome? An ideal historical wargame gives you the flavor of the period, an accurate depiction of the strength and weaknesses of each ship or unit on the table, but it also introduces an element of luck, granting you the possibility (however slight), of pulling off a few feats outside the constraints of historical reality. 

The ideal wargame should also be accomplished in no more than five hours. Why? Because I want a damn conclusion! I've always hated setting up a big battle and only playing 2-3 hours of game time, speculating on who might have won and then picking up and going home. We won't even go into the attention span of some of the newer gamers.

But Tom believes that a good rule set should have a highly detailed chart for each ship or unit in the game; otherwise, the rule set is simplistic and ahistorical. He does not just want a game that gives you a feel for the period; he wants a game that explores all the minutiae of warfare, as true to a recreation of all the elements of battle as possible. While this may be commendable in theory, it does not make for interesting game play, especially if your opponent is not decisive, has a hard time catching onto new rule sets or only has 4 hours to play. We're not in collage any more Tom! We have lives! Ahem sorry. 

Did I also mention that he writes his own rules for both periods, and they are the only rules he will play in his periods. Asking him to play a faster set of rules that is quicker to learn and does not require a lot of charts is asking him to compromise. He does not compromise. Tom pops by the game store every once in while with his minis to see if anyone is willing to play a pick-up game. He is always surprised and disappointed when he gets very few takers. I see him less and less each year. His health is not declining, just his love for the hobby.

Another gamer in crisis is my friend Derek. Derek is younger than me, and, unlike Tom, his gaming interests are varied. He will play historical, sci-fi, fantasy, and board games. His true love though is role-playing. D&D was his gateway into gaming, so he will always carry a torch for the game. 

Derek has no problems being the DM. In fact, he enjoys the storytelling aspect of role-playing. To Derek's credit, he provides miniatures for his games, giving the theater of the mind a little dimension. He comes prepared with pre-generated character sheets for those who don't want to go through the rigmarole of rolling up new characters. He even brings a little mood music from fantasy films and video games to play softly in the background. It takes work, commitment, and enthusiasm to be a DM, and I applaud Derek's willingness to do it. 

In my experience, you will always find people willing to play an rpg, but very few people willing to run one. So with this rule being pretty tried and true, then why is Derek finding it hard to get a group together to play in his campaigns? The answer is quiet simple, he is not a good DM. Unlike army-scale miniature wargaming, role-playing is all about a player building a connection with his or her character(s). It's a journey, and since it is more contained in scope than say, using the King of War rule set to recreate the Siege of Gondor, its appeal lies in building your character up, through a series of adventures, into a seasoned warrior, spell caster, rogue, or healer. In essence, you watch him go from boy to man. 

At its best, role-playing is the most immersive form of gaming out there, and a good DM has you anticipating your next adventure. A bad DM will leave you with the feeling that his role-playing sessions are a waste of time. You leave the table with no enthusiasm for the few characters that survive the mission, and you could really care less what the next adventure brings. This is how you will feel after a game hosted by Derek. Trust me on this.

Derek's main sin as a DM, a little too eager to kill off the players and their faithful henchmen. He tries to lure you into sudden death and tries to encourage you to make stupid decisions, you can see the gleam in his eye. And when you don't fall for his tricks, preferring to take the smart route by running away and/or hiding, well he almost pouts. Now, I and some of the Old Guard are use to Derek and know how to walk the knife's edge. Heck, I use to not even name my characters till they reached 3^rd level. Of course we use to play Traveller were your character could die as you rolled him up. But now Derek is having trouble recruiting some of the younger gamers, who raised on these online games don't really understand the concept of a player dying. They are use to putting a lot of endless hours into their roles/stats and really don't 'appreciate' being killed off. I won't go into what I think of that but needless to say Derek's style does not sit well with them at all. I suggested starting the kids at 5-6^th level and easing up on them a bit for the first session. (shocking, coming form me) But Derek insists on 1^st level otherwise what is the point he says. 'Getting new players' I suggest. 'Never' grumbles Derek.

Despite the socially-awkward stereotypes about gaming, this is ultimately a communal, social hobby. When you are running a game for others, your responsibility as GM or DM is to make sure that your players are learning the rules, getting a flavor for your setting, and ultimately having fun.

In essence, Tom and Derek have spent too much time being chiefs, and not enough time being Indians. As consummate chiefs, they have neither the inclination nor the humility to listen to their players' input, lest their own grand vision for a game be compromised. And yet, their tribe is dwindling in numbers, and they can''t figure out why.

It does not matter if you spent all week preparing a scenario if no one shows up to play it. So if you are suffering from the same malaise as Tom and Derek and find that no one is showing up to your games, ask yourself this question, “Did your players have fun the last time you ran a game?” If your answer is “I don't know. I did not think to ask,” you are doing it wrong.