The Problem with Social Skills

There are many problems with translating social encounters into roleplaying game rules. Among the most commonly discussed is whether a player should roleplay the scene or just roll the dice; this article is not about that debate. The problem presented here is that of diversification. Quite simply, there are too many social skills.

Variety is Not Always the Spice of Life

In games such as GURPS or Shadowrun, every action is covered by a skill. If you want to run, you roll your running skill; if you want to attack something, you roll your weapon skill; and if you want to talk at something, you roll your social skill. Or you would, if there weren't a wide variety of social skills for every situation.

Let's say you want to talk your way past a guard. How do you accomplish this? You can puff yourself up, make threatening gestures, and try to scare him into fleeing his post and leaving you free to stroll casually past; that would be Intimidation. You can bat your eyelashes, run your tongue along your upper lip, and try to make sure the blood is flowing away from the “remember not to let people past” part of his brain; this would be Seduction. You can begin jabbering, throwing in big words, and try to convince him to let you past before his brain catches up with your mouth; that would be Fast Talk. You can Bluff, Persuade, Con, Impersonate, Perform, Negotiate, or a variety of others.

Some games go even further. In Burning Wheel, for instance, if you want to convince someone to help you, that's Persuasion. If you want to convince that person to give you money, that's Begging, instead. If you're trying to convince multiple people at once, that's Oratory. Unless you're in a formalized setting, in which case you'd use Rhetoric. Except when that formalized setting is religious, in which case you'd need the Suasion skill.

Are you using blackmail to help you persuade the person? Because that requires the Extortion skill. If you're using threats, that's Intimidation, but the moment you make good on those threats you need the Torture skill. There's even a skill for telling the truth! Is it any wonder the game has almost two dozen social skills?

So What's the Problem?

In our above example, where you need to convince a guard to let you pass, the problem isn't readily apparent. What if, instead, you were attending a formal event when suddenly, gasp, you find yourself face-to-face with the evil Duke Malfaisant! You need to convince him to let your kidnapped cousin go, but he's surrounded by his guards and, further, there are countless witnesses watching, eagerly awaiting your humiliation. You can't use Intimidation, likely won't be able to Bluff, and probably shouldn't try Seduction. As your options dwindle, the chances that you've put resources into the correct skill decrease along with them. Did you take Etiquette, or Negotiation? If not, you might just be out of luck.

Now, let's say you're in the slums of Cityville meeting with a drug lord in an effort to convince him to leave Cityville for greener pastures. Etiquette won't do you any good this time. After trying Intimidation, and inevitably failing, you try to convince his second-in-command to betray him. He's more scared of the boss than of you, so you'll need to try something else entirely. Seduction? Well, now his wife is irate and you need to placate her, possibly with Fast Talk.

Compare all of this to combat. Are you trained in the Sword skill? That'll cover you in just about any situation: it's amazing how useful a pointy bit of metal is when trying to kill things. You might also need a ranged weapon, such as Archery. Now you can handle 99% of all combat scenarios for the low, low price of two skills.

In games like D&D this isn't a problem, as it is assumed that every character will be equally good at combat, and the variation comes in what's happening when things aren't trying to murder-kill you. But in a game where some characters specialize in talking while others specialize in fighting, the inherent imbalance begins to show through. If you're playing a social character in Burning Wheel, you'll need half a dozen social skills, taking up the vast majority of your limited resources; the fighter just takes Appropriate Weapon, likely at a much higher rating, and still has plenty of skill points to throw around.

You're Right! What do I do?

The bad news is, this is a problem of game design. There is very little a GM or player at the table can do to ameliorate it. The good news is, very little doesn't mean “nothing”.

If this imbalance doesn't bother you, you can just ignore it. As long as everyone at the table is having fun, you're playing the game correctly. Maybe you don't ever roll social skills, maybe nobody is playing a social character, or maybe the person playing the party's Face doesn't mind having a different social skill for every day of the week. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

If the player with the talkative character is frequently frustrated by her comparative ineffectiveness, measures must be taken. Here are three possible solutions to the problem, each with its own advantages and disadvantages.

The Walking Armory

The first possible solution is to design your campaign in such a way that the fighter types can't get away with having just one or two weapon skills. It's up to you whether you do this by throwing in enemies with specific resistances (the skeleton's resistance to cutting weapons, for example), by situations requiring more concealable weapons intermixed with situations which require the big guns, or any other way you can imagine. It brings the fighter type up to the same level as the social type in terms of how many skills are required to be good at her job.

The advantage is that it's relatively easy to execute; you can even do so in the middle of a campaign. However, there are two big problems with this approach.

The first is that it increases the complexity of the game. Combat is already typically the most rules-heavy portion of a roleplaying game, and requiring the players to determine which weapon to use at any given time just adds to that. It can also bog down character creation, requiring a mental checklist to ensure that every possible circumstance is accounted for with an appropriate weapon. And if you introduce the change after character creation, expect a lot of complaints about how it's not fair to require so many new skills without warning.

The second problem is that, unlike social skills, each weapon skill comes attached to a physical representation: a weapon. While it's easy to carry around a variety of social skills in your head, it's not so easy to tow around a greatsword, longbow, warhammer, sling, spear, knife and bullwhip. Even if you're not using encumbrance rules, it really strains the verisimilitude of the game.

Ten Points in the Talking Skill

The second solution goes in the opposite direction. Rather than increasing the variety of weapon skills required to be a fighter, you can reduce the number of social skills required to be effective at talking to things.

This is the approach taken by most games. Savage Worlds has just four social skills: Intimidation, Persuasion, Streetwise, and Taunt. FATE has Deceive, Empathy, Provoke, and Rapport. Few, if any, actually go to the extreme of reducing the number of social skills to just one or two; it just wouldn't be satisfying to have a “Talking” skill that covers everything.

The advantage is that it simplifies things, making it easier on the players and GM both. It's also easy to implement after the game has already started: simply reduce the number of skills and refund the player however many skill points were spent on skills which no longer exist.

The problem is that it's hard to go far enough to truly balance the disparity. You can still get away with taking just one combat skill, but there are multiple social skills that may be required. This solution simply closes the gap.

Furthermore, it may be disappointing to limit social skills. If seduction, bluffing, fast-talking, bribery, and more are all covered by one Persuasion skill, it gets harder to differentiate one character from another.

When All You Have is a Hammer...

The third simple solution is to keep the variety of social skills but allow each one to be applied to almost any situation. This is the easiest solution of all, because it doesn't require a change of rules or in how the GM prepares for each session. It allows each social character to feel very different, while still retaining their effectiveness at what they do.

The problem is that it strains believability. Will a character really be able to always Seduce or Intimidate his way out of any situation? If using this approach, yes he will, provided he rolls high enough.

What about consequences? If the GM penalizes you for using one social skill instead of another, you're right back to needing to spend points on multiple skills to be effective; if she doesn't introduce consequences, your choice to use Intimidation instead of the nicer Persuasion doesn't really matter in the end.

Advanced Talking

There are other potential solutions, such as introducing ways (and requirements) for other skills to apply in combat, or changing the way social mechanics work entirely. These would require rolling up your sleeves and getting into the very guts of your game system of choice. At the end of the day, there is no easy way to fix this problem.

Unless you can think of one.

Declassified: Alchemist

This article will cover my personal design of the Alchemist class for use in 5^th edition D&D. The design may be found here. It is based on the Pathfinder version of the class, which can be found here.

WHAT IS AN ALCHEMIST?

Before we begin, we must know what makes a character an Alchemist. I identify four major class features: extracts, discoveries, bombs and mutagens. In addition, some minor class features are poison use and creation of potions. In order for the class to feel like an Alchemist, it must at least cover these major features.

An Alchemist's extracts function in a manner similar to potions; what this means is that their magic comes from the mixture of ingredients more so than from the Alchemist himself, and each extract takes up physical space on the character's person. I believe this fits better with the Warlock's style of spellcasting than with the Wizard's: any time the character can spend a few minutes mixing ingredients (such as during a short rest), he should be able to create a new extract. In addition, the Warlock's limit of, at most, four spell slots at any time fits with the physical space an extract requires.

In addition, the Warlock class brings with it Eldritch Invocations, a perfect analogue for an Alchemist's discoveries. Both features allow a character to select from a list of new abilities at predetermined levels. Both are a set of abilities which alter, enhance, or add to the character's class features.

Furthermore, the Warlock's invocations have a sub-theme around the cantrip eldritch blast, while many of the Alchemist's discoveries center around his bombs. This brings us to the third major feature of the Alchemist. Yet the eldritch blast cantrip does not fit the concept of throwing a bomb. Fortunately, there is another cantrip that is much closer: acid splash. We will be adapting the acid splash cantrip to suit our needs.

Finally, we have the Alchemist's mutagens. I have decided that this is different enough from the rest of the class features that it is best covered with a class archetype, similar to how the Ranger's animal companion is handled.

We have a foundation on which to build. Now we cover the choices in more detail.

HIT POINTS AND PROFICIENCIES

This is the simplest part of the class design. The Pathfinder Alchemist has a d8 hit die, so ours will as well. Simple weapons and light armor is just as easy to translate. I include a proficiency in revolvers as gunpowder is the result of a chemical mixture; if your setting does not have firearms, this proficiency is easy enough to eliminate. In addition, you can substitute the revolver in the starting equipment with a light crossbow.

With a base of only 4 skill points per level, it is not a skill-heavy class, so we give it two skill proficiencies. The list of options is more or less a direct translation of the Pathfinder class skills, with the Craft skill covered by proficiency in Alchemist's Supplies (for obvious reasons). The exception is Deception; the assumption is that the Alchemist represented here dabbles in the darker side of alchemy, potentially breaking laws, and thus might need some ability to hide his activities. If this is not the case in your setting, remove Deception from the list or replace it with something more appropriate.

EXTRACTS AND ACID FLASKS

It does not make sense for an Alchemist to have access to standard cantrips as he does not truly cast spells. Instead, we give the Alchemist two slightly altered cantrips: acid splash and light.

Acid Splash covers the Alchemist bombs class feature, and mirrors the Warlock's focus on the eldritch invocation cantrip. The acid splash cantrip needs some tweaking, however, to fit the theme. It becomes an acid flask, a quick and volatile concoction that splashes acid on anything or anyone that earns the Alchemist's ire. We limit the character to a number of acid flasks equal to his Intelligence modifier for thematic purposes, as well as to ease into the Discoveries which will affect the creation of acid flasks (covered later).

Light is added to give the Alchemist a little more variety in cantrips. It is themed as a philter with phosphorescent liquid that can be activated at will. In addition, several Discoveries will alter the effectiveness of this feature.

The Warlock class memorizes its spells. However, alchemical formulae are very complicated, so we give our Alchemist a formula book to contain his known extracts. This is based on the Wizard's spellbook. Extracts also must be prepared in advance, for thematic reasons. However, the other rules follow the Warlock's spellcasting rules. The number of extract slots is small and is refreshed whenever the Alchemist spends a short rest concocting new ones. As the Alchemist advances in level, his ability to mix extracts increases across the board, so all extracts function at the same slot level, which maxes out at five.

Finally, we decide Intelligence is the spellcasting ability. This is in keeping with the Pathfinder version as well as thematically appropriate.

SWIFT AND ADVANCED ALCHEMY

Feats in D&D 5^th edition are substantially different from how they were in 3.5 and Pathfinder, so giving the Alchemist the Brew Potion feat is not going to work. Instead, we cover the Alchemist's advanced knowledge of potions and alchemy with a choice of three styles: curative potions, poisons, or transmutation.

This fills in for the Warlock's Pact Boon feature. It also covers several parts of the Pathfinder Alchemist. It covers the creation of potions (though limited to health potions) and the use of poisons. In addition, it introduces the concept that Alchemist's may dabble in transmutation (the classical “lead to gold” motivation from historical alchemists), which will show up again in several Discoveries.

Finally, we grant our Alchemist the limited ability to create higher-level extracts, even as the Warlock's Mystic Arcanum allows it to cast higher-level spells. This rounds out the base class features, so we now move on to the Disciplines.

DISCIPLINE OF MUTATION, NECROMANCY, AND VIVISECTION

Here we introduce the Alchemist's mutagen feature as an option, as well as two other potential paths. The three choices of Discipline are drawn from fictional representations of alchemists (or similar character types): Jekyll and Hyde give us Mutation, Frankenstein gives us Necromancy, and Dr. Moreau gives us Vivisection.

Mutation, obviously, focuses on mutagens. This feature is based on the Barbarian rage feature as the effects are similar: you get bigger, stronger, and meaner. Several other features round it out by enhancing ability in combat: another attack per round, extra weapon proficiencies, and finally an increase to two physical attributes.

Necromancy is based on the school from the Wizard class, with some extra mojo. In keeping with the classical Frankenstein, this Discipline finishes out by allowing the character to create his very own flesh golem.

Vivisection is the most different from anything else in the core rules. It turns the character into a build-your-own-monster, with a variety of twisted surgeries that grant new or enhanced abilities when selected. If you choose this path, you'll probably find it increasingly difficult to interact with people without them running away screaming their heads off.

ALCHEMICAL DISCOVERIES

Finally, we come to the list of Alchemical Discoveries. These come in three main categories: Bombs, New Spells, and Weird Stuff.

If your favorite part of the Pathfinder Alchemist was their bombs, these are the discoveries to focus on. The category includes the variety of discoveries that enhance or alter your acid flask ability. Some change its damage type (adding an extra effect along with the new damage). Some make your acid flasks more effective. A few blend with the next category by turning your acid flask into an entirely new effect, such as the Smoke Bomb line. The choice of which bomb to create is made when you're mixing your acid flasks after a short rest.

New Spells grant the Alchemist access to a variety of spells that don't quite fit as extracts. These typically are useable only once per long rest, unless they're small enough effects to warrant at-will use. Almost all of them are based directly on discoveries from the Pathfinder version of the Alchemist. Several require the creation of a special acid flask, or alter your philter of light to create the new effect.

Finally, there are the discoveries that are just plain weird. Again, most are drawn directly from Pathfinder, such as “Bottled Ooze”. These are the fun, wacky options that make a character stand out. It includes the line that focuses on the Transmuter's Stone, based on the historical idea of the Philosopher's Stone.

The description ends with the list of spells appropriate to be themed as extracts. It wraps up with a new spell from Pathfinder, as a bonus.

THE ALCHEMIST DECLASSIFIED

So that is the Alchemist Class. It hasn't been play-tested, so some options may be over- or under-powered. It may require minor tweaking, particularly some of the Discoveries, but enough of it is based on an existing class that it should be fairly balanced.

What do you think? What would you change? What class should I do next? Let me know in the comments.

It's Okay To Say No

Many gamers advocate the creed “Say 'yes, and...' ”. This means, when you're running a game and a player wants his character to do something, you should always allow it. It is a good rule of thumb, as it empowers the players and builds a more interesting story.

However, as with many rules of thumb, it is not hard and fast. Here are three circumstances where it is okay for the you, as the GM, to say “No”.

THE ACTION IS IMPOSSIBLE

GM: “The mobster steps through the front door of the speakeasy carrying a tommy gun. He locks eyes on you, takes aim, and begins to unload. What do you do?”

Player: “I catch the bullets and throw them back at him.”

In the above example, the GM should look at that player and say “No, you can't.” The declared action shatters verisimilitude; unless that is the style of game everyone has agreed to play, such declarations should be disallowed.

It's not always quite so obvious, though. Sometimes the impossibility of an action is not a matter of violating the laws of physics, but instead is the result of the setting or the story. As another example:

GM: “The gleaming steel and glass of the corporate headquarters towers above you. The front entrance, usually open to the public, stands closed and locked; somehow, they have been tipped off that you were coming. What do you do?”

Player: “I hack into the building's network. I'm looking for the subroutine which controls the doors.”

If you have established that this corporation uses a wired network for security purposes, or the default assumption for the setting is that corporations use wired networks, the player will not be able to access it from outside. The declared action is clearly impossible and you should tell the player “No”.

Things get less clear if this security feature is not an established part of the setting. Is it fair to block your player's attempt to move forward? It depends.

If you had decided beforehand that the corporation uses a wired connection, then it is reasonable to mention this fact to the player when he declares his action. In the game, his character spends a moment looking for a way to carry out his intended course before discovering its impossibility, and play moves on. Reality is full of moments where someone, acting on imperfect information, attempts something that cannot succeed: the classic example of someone pushing on a door when they should have pulled.

If you're deciding on the spot that the corporation uses a wired connection, so the hacking attempt will fail, then you should instead let the action work. As GM, it is your job to establish obstacles for the players to overcome, not to dictate how they overcome those obstacles. If the players find a valid way to circumvent an obstacle, their plan is fair game. Let them try it and, if they succeed, there's always the next obstacle.

THE ACTION WILL DETRACT FROM THE FUN OF THE GROUP

I will demonstrate this point with a story from my personal experience.

The very first game I ran was a one-shot of Shadowrun. Of the six players, one was playing a social character, the group's Face. The party came up with a plan to infiltrate their target, a corporate building, by disguising themselves as employees, with the Face going in as the CEO. After getting past the front desk, they came across a patrolling drone, controlled remotely by a corporate rigger, which tried to stop them. The rigger, who also controlled all of the building's cameras, knew that the CEO was elsewhere so this group must be impostors.

The Face declared that he was going to talk the drone down, to convince its controller that he was the real CEO and that the other one was the impostor. As he had optimized his character, he rolled impossibly well so I let the action succeed. The party avoided the combat and managed to use the ensuing confusion to finish their mission and escape.

Of the six players, only the Face got to do much of anything that game. The other players, whose characters were built for combat, didn't find a single fight. They were, understandably, bored. Yet, if I had just declared that no amount of convincing would cause security to believe that their CEO was an impostor, every player at the table could have gotten involved in the game and had a good time.

Tabletop roleplaying is a group activity. One of the jobs of the GM is to make sure that every player at the table is enjoying him- or herself. If one player is performing actions that will spoil the fun for everyone else, even if those actions are valid within the context of the game, the GM has the authority to say “No”.

It is important, however, that you not completely lock one player out of the game. If, in the above example, I had declared that the Face could never convince anyone that the party was not a threat, then everyone else would probably have enjoyed several combats, but the player in control of the Face would never have gotten to have fun. The trick is to find the right balance, which is different for every group.

Of course, if one player is only ever able to have fun at the expense of the other players, there is a bigger problem at work and the group needs to sit down and have a discussion. But that is a different topic altogether.

THE GM IS NOT COMFORTABLE IMPROVISING

GM: “The shadows coalesce out of the mist, revealing a small town. A young man comes running up to you, tears in his eyes, and begs for your help. 'Orcs! They're razing everything!' ”

Player: “I shove him aside. Let them deal with their own problems. I bet they can't afford to pay us a reward, anyway.”

GM: “But all of my preparation is for this town...”

Some game masters come to the table with nary a note card of preparation. They craft the world, the story, and the characters on the fly, building around whatever actions the players take. Other GMs bring notes, but are equally capable of setting those notes aside when events in the game render them obsolete.

Yet not every GM is comfortable coming up with ideas on the spot. Whether they're running a pre-written adventure, or running from their own notes, they strive to bring to the table everything needed for a fun game.

Improvising is a skill worth having, and the best way to learn it is through practice; however, it's best to start small. Especially for someone who is new to GMing, it is difficult to improvise entire scenes and encounters from nothing. If the players try something that is going to completely circumvent everything you have planned, and you don't feel comfortable making up something new on the spot, you have two options.

The first is to cut the session short. If you have already played for a few hours, this is a good option; you can spend the time before your next session adapting your notes to the new circumstances in the game. However, if the session is just starting, you probably want to avoid ending it.

The second option is to tell the players “No”. Explain the circumstances to them, apologize, and ask them to play along with your planned adventure. The point of a game is to have fun and if given a choice between not playing at all or agreeing to play along, most players will choose the latter.

Remember, the GM is a part of the game and you should be able to enjoy yourself too. If being forced to set aside your notes and attempt to run the game from scratch will ruin your fun, you have the right to ask the players not to make you do so.

IN CLOSING

While you should typically try to be inclusive in your games, allowing the players to play in whatever manner they wish, there are circumstances where doing so will cause more harm than good. Whenever a given action will detract from the game's theme or tone, detract from the fun of the other players, or detract from your own fun as the GM, it is valid to deny that action.

Say “yes, and...” whenever you can, but retain the option to say “No” if you have to.

Types of GMs

Many people have written about the types of players in tabletop roleplaying games. This is obviously useful, as it allows a GM to customize his game to engage each player at the table. But far fewer people have discussed the types of game masters that run games. Whether this is because there's only one GM for every three to six players, or because it's less obviously useful to categorize GMs, I'm not certain. What I am certain of is that it bears discussing.

Why should you categorize GMs? There are several advantages. First, it allows you to attract players who will appreciate the style of game you run. Second, having a deeper understanding of the parts of GMing you most enjoy can go a long way in keeping you from losing interest in your game. Finally, it can guide the style of campaigns you run towards something more appropriate to your interests.

So, without further ado, I present the five types of GMs.

THE WORLDBUILDER

If you sit down to create a general outline of your setting and several hours later find yourself deep into Wikipedia articles about climate and agriculture so that you can create an appropriate menu for a tavern in a city on the other side of the continent, you might be a Worldbuilder.

To such a GM, creating a setting to share with your friends is the best part of running games. Some strive for maximum verisimilitude, others wish to create breathtaking vistas, still others want to make sure there is always something over the next horizon for would-be explorers to find.

This style of GMing is best suited for running exploration-heavy sandbox-style campaigns, ranging from the ever-popular “world tour” style all the way down to a campaign set in a single living, breathing city. As the GM focuses most of her attention on the setting, it is often up to the players to make whatever plot they can.

The risk a Worldbuilder GM faces is that her campaign may seem directionless. If she sets up several points of interest and places equal emphasis on each, the players may not have any idea where to begin. Many players become frustrated in this situation, and some groups may even become mired in arguments over where they should go next. The easiest way to mitigate this problem is to pick one part of the setting and build a strong plot thread around it, so that an uncertain group has an obvious starting point.

A subcategory of the Worldbuilder GM is the Superfan. This is the type of GM who knows a published setting inside and out, and wants to share it with her friends so that they can be as excited about it as she is. Though she is not creating her own setting, her interest is still mostly focused on the setting; therefore, I classify such GMs as Worldbuilders.

THE ADVERSARY

The Adversary is the sort of GM who enjoys pitting himself against his players in a battle of wits. It's not that he wants to win; he simply wants his players to earn their victories. Any players who are not at the top of their game will find themselves rolling up new characters.

To such a GM, fully understanding the rules of the game is of the highest importance. While some Adversary GMs revel in throwing impossible challenges at the players and watching them fail, a good Adversary knows how to build a fair – though challenging – encounter. An Adversary's ultimate goal is to get his players to come up with creative solutions, especially ones that he didn't even consider.

This style of GMing is best suited for running combat-heavy games, including the dungeon crawl. The GM will often build the game around a variety of traps and monsters, rewarding success with exp and treasure, while failure brings character death or possibly capture.

An Adversary GM must always keep in mind that he is not actually the enemy of the players; after all, if the GM truly wants to win, it's as simple as saying “rocks fall, everyone dies”. It is important to remember that the player characters are the heroes of the story; the GM should be rooting for their success, even while he does everything in his power to make them work for it.

THE PLAYWRIGHT

A Playwright GM loves to populate her world with memorable characters. The players aren't likely to come across “a guard”, but “Gerard Smoke, third son of the Earl of Rushwood”. Each character is given a motivation, relationships... in general a life beyond the PCs' interactions with them. Even when having to make up a character on the fly, a Playwright tries to breathe some life into him.

In a Playwright's game, the story is guided by the motivations of the individuals or organizations living in the world. The villains have plans and carry them out in the background, adapting to whatever setbacks the player characters throw their way. Even relatively unimportant characters have a story to tell.

This style of GMing is best suited for games full of politics and intrigue, games where multiple groups work against each other in a series of shifting alliances. There may be no clear villain, as each side's beliefs hold merit. The GM knows each character well enough that the players can choose to side with any of them.

The greatest risk a Playwright faces is that she will fall in love with her characters. She may forget that the player characters are the heroes of the story, and place too much importance on the NPCs. The ultimate expression of this danger is the “GMPC”, a character who joins the party and outshines every player character. It is simple enough to avoid this: make sure to keep the player characters at the center of the story.

THE STORYTELLER

The Storyteller GM focuses on the plot of his game, viewing it as a sequence of events leading up to a climactic conclusion. He often has a rough idea of the ending in mind before he even begins the campaign. The story could be a simple, relatively linear one or a branching narrative full of choices; either way, the purpose of the campaign is to tell a tale.

A Storyteller GM sees it as his job to guide the emergent narrative of the game. He manages things such as pace and theme and controls the flow of information essential to the plot. When the players stray, he adapts his narrative to follow them.

Obviously, a Storyteller GM runs games with a strong focus on story. This encompasses a wide variety, from the mystery campaign to epic fantasy, from cosmic horror to comedy. The common thread is that a Storyteller's campaigns tend to have a definite beginning, middle and end.

The risk a Storyteller faces is one of the most commonly discussed topics in roleplaying: a Storyteller has to be careful not to run afoul of railroading. Quite simply, the Storyteller GM has to always remember that player choices should affect the path the story takes. If the story progresses in the same way regardless of player input, it is best told in a medium other than tabletop roleplaying.

THE CHOREOGRAPHER

Two warriors cross blades atop the city's rooftops while lightning flashes all around them. A wizard holds a growing ball of eldritch flame above his head, staring down an entire army. The king stands before his most trusted advisors when the illusion fades, revealing him to be an impostor. These scenes are the highlight of the game for a Choreographer.

A Choreographer GM designs her game around a few choice scenes, with every moment in between geared towards building suspense. Whether the scene is a large set-piece encounter, a big reveal, or any other awesome moment the GM can dream up, the motto is “go big or go home”. The Choreographer is also the most likely to use props to bring the game to life.

A Choreographer has much in common with a Storyteller: both focus on what is happening, rather than who is doing it or where it's taking place. However, a Choreographer is more likely to run an episodic game, with each session being a self-contained story built around one big moment, or with the campaign consisting of several miniature story arcs loosely strung together.

Though, as with the Storyteller, she is at risk of railroading, the style of the Choreographer carries an additional risk. In an effort to make the scene as awesome as possible, a Choreographer might over-complicate things by adding too many details for the players to keep track of. Such a GM should be mindful of the rule of three: no more than three major details for any encounter, whether that be groups of enemies, environmental hazards, a countdown, or whatever else.

SO WHAT STYLE ARE YOU?

These categories are not set in stone. Most people likely fit into two or more categories. Indeed, it is a rare campaign that does not require at least a little consideration of all five styles. Nonetheless, by understanding what drives you to take up the mantle of GM, you can hopefully learn to run games that are more enjoyable for you and your players both.

After all, somebody's got to do it.