Players Have a “Job,” Too

And it isn’t showing up with the Cheetos

Being a game master is often a lot of work — we’ve got systems to learn and understand, worlds to build, characters to inhabit those worlds to create, and a group of players to try and keep invested. A GM is often part project manager, part creative director, part movie producer, and part HR manager. Because of these responsibilities (and more that I’m sure I missed), anything a GM can share with their group, they should. Unfortunately for us, that can be difficult.

The game master is often the lynchpin of a group of gamers; they present new games to play, and as the de-facto orchestrator of everything, they tend to absorb all of the “hard” work involved. That’s fine, it is our role in the group, after all. But I’m here to tell you some of the stuff a GM takes on is decidedly not their job, and players absolutely have important responsibilities they should be taking care of — aside of showing up and rolling some dice. So in an effort to bring some relief to my GM colleagues out there, here’s a short list of burdens your players can help shoulder.

There’s no “GM” in “Fun”

Real talk: it’s not a GM’s job to make sure everyone is having fun.

Queue the unpopular opinion puffin meme.

Here you go.

Look, I get it — you’ve gotten your group to buy into the game you’re running, and the whole point of gaming is to have a good time. When things are on, it’s great, and part of getting to “on” is making sure everyone is enjoying themselves. So when one of your group members isn’t having fun, you feel some responsibility. After all, you’re running the game.

This is an easy trap to fall into, and I’ve done it a lot myself. Recently I learned a player of mine decided to stop playing because he wasn’t enjoying himself, but he never communicated that to anyone else in the group. My first instinct was to internalize his dissatisfaction: “What could I have done differently?” But that’s not fair to me — he’s a person, and he hadn’t communicated with the group as a whole, which means none of us could have known what was up.

Gaming is collaborative, which means everyone is responsible for success. You can’t make someone have fun, any more than you can make them do anything. Your players have agency, and it’s up to them to exercise it. They agreed to play the game, right? Well, part of that buy-in means helping keep things fun. It’s an implicit contract between each member within the group.

Now, that’s not to say everyone is an island unto themselves — again, we’re talking about collaboration here. So while it isn’t any one person’s job to make sure other people are having fun, you should all be concerned about the group having a good time. If someone isn’t having fun, talk about it. Figure out what it is that isn’t clicking for them, and resolve it. Just remember — and this is key — it isn’t your job to make sure that person is enjoying themselves. If someone agrees to play a game they aren’t interested in, that’s on them. If the plot goes in a direction they aren’t happy with, and they don’t speak up about it, that’s on them, too. What I’m saying here is talk amongst your group and communicate. Make sure everyone is on the same page, and speak up when things start to go wrong; but don’t make it your job as a GM to ensure fun is being had.

In my case, there wasn’t much I could have done. The player in question didn’t want to change systems, but when the group decided to do just that, he hadn’t spoken up about it.

Know Your Role

It generally goes without saying that the game master often knows the system being played better than their group members. If a GM brings a game to the table, they’ve usually either played it before, or researched it enough to get interested. When play actually begins, the GM has to know how the game works to run it, so that also gives them a one-up on the group, unless other members of the group are also familiar. That’s good — the GM should know the rules, but the players need to be familiar with them, too.

I don’t mean the players should know all of the rules of course (if they do, great), but they need to commit to learning how to play their character; what their role is, how to engage the mechanics of the system, how they get rewarded, etc. As the game gets started the GM will probably be the primary source for the rules, but they shouldn’t be the only person with a grasp of the system, particularly once the game really gets going.

Often, this knowledge sharing will happen naturally over the course of play, especially for rules-light games like Apocalypse World or Fate. The systems are simple, and the rules are laid out right there on the character sheets, so players will usually pick things up fairly quickly. More complex games like Dungeons & Dragons, however, are a different story. In those games, the way the systems interact and intersect is often complex, and in those instances especially it is on the players to know how to play their characters. You, the game master, already have a lot to keep track of at any given moment, and the less you have to worry about the exact mechanics of a Greater Restoration spell, or how an Action Surge works, the better.

If your wizard can’t keep track of how all of their spells work, or your star-fighter pilot regularly forgets how to use a maneuver, that’s on them, and your group needs to take ownership of their individual responsibilities. Again, games are collaborative, which means when you as a group decided to play one, you all agreed to take on the responsibilities of the game. The GM might know exactly how Magic Missile works, but the player who wanted to play the wizard needs to know it, too, which leads me to my final point…

Take the Training Wheels Off

It isn’t a GM’s job to make sure a player is playing “optimally,” at least after the group is familiar and comfortable with the game. If you’re ten sessions in, and the aforementioned wizard keeps casting Turn Undead on creatures which are clearly not undead, you shouldn’t feel the need to offer advice — that’s why they have a party to help them, after all. I’m not saying that the GM needs to be rude or mean, but I do think that a game master needs to be a little aloof in these instances.

For many narrative games, this isn’t really an issue — failure is often more interesting or fun than success, after all. In more tactical games like D&D, there are built-in mechanics which spell out a bad choice. If a wizard tries to use Turn Undead on an orc barbarian, they’ll probably understand their mistake when they get an axe to the head for their trouble.

And again, when you’re first starting out with a new game, or players which are new to the game, tossing out some advice is a good idea — you aren’t against the players, after all. Collaboration, remember?

Telling a new player “hey, that orc isn’t Undead, so maybe Charm Person is a better option” is great; the player learns something and might start asking questions when they aren’t sure of an action or outcome. Eventually, however, that player should have enough system mastery to know how to play their character, or at least to ask their fellows for help.