[Reaver]

So after talking to a few people here, as well as my gaming group, I had an interesting thought/question about the role of the GM in a game and exactly what he is responsible for. I am interested in hearing your guys opinions on this subject, and below I will outline what I think a GMs role in the game is.

FIRST:

It's the GMs role to make sure all the characters "mesh" well into a group. Now, I don't mean to say that the group has "X" roles filled (like a Sammy, a face, a mage, and a hacker/rigger), I mean that all players characters are "on the same level" at play start. While we all have differing views on what is a playable character and what is "unplayable", I try to follow these guidelines when directing my players to make characters.

A: Concept it out first. is the character an Orc with a hatred of elves (cuz dem pointy earz be too purdy!) and a love of automatic rifles? Is the character a bookwormish mage, forced into the shadows cause of an oppressive Corp breathing down their neck to "sign a contract"? It's the concept that starts the flow of the creation process for me. It helps to focus your choices and narrow down the randomness of the creation of the character.

B: Back story, back story back story! this gives you a flavor for the character. Even before you start assigning stats and skills, weapons and equipment, it's good to know where the character is coming from. Was she military trained with a spotless record until she observed her CO breaking the law and fled to the shadows to avoid being the "fall girl"? Was the he raised in a privileged household, having money and power to play with until daddy crossed the wrong person and it all disappeared? What are the Character's hobbies? What does the character do in his free time? Is he all work and no play? Or All Play and as little Work as possible? Why does she run the shadows? What does he hope to accomplish in their life?

     I try to get my players to be as detailed as possible (more on/for this later) as it helps to define the character they are building/playing and helps to ground them in the process. ("Well, my character is an Ex-military Sniper who got dishonorably discharged because he started popping everything/anything he could.... So I guess I should specialize in long arms (sniper rifles)... infiltration skill would be reasonable to get so I could get to a sniper position and remain hidden until I shoot.... Military protocol, military tactics, and Anatomy make good knowledge skills..." etc, etc, etc)

C: Assign attributes REASONABLY I don't really let my players get away with a "dump" stat. I find the idea a little bit silly for the most part. Sure some players come up with "wonder" excuses to have strength of 1 for their hacker... ("He’s a shut in, he never leaves his chair and spends all his time surfing the 'trix. So he never gets any exercise!") As a rule of thumb, I usually say all attributes have to be a MINIMUM of 2. My reasoning for this is 2 fold. First, most players are reasonably intelligent people, this makes it very hard for them (as a whole) play someone with a stat of 1 in things like Logic or Intuition or even Willpower. Before I instituted this "rule of 2" for attributes, I often found players making unreasonable "plays" with their dump stat attribute. This put me into the position of either overruling their decisions with "GM Fiat:" (Player: "I tell the police interrogator to go stick his 20 question where the sun don't shine!" Me: "um, you have a willpower of 1 dude; you are in a stressful situation, being grilled by a trained cop... Willpower is the main stat for mental fortitude and decisiveness... you crack under the interrogation. It takes time, but you crack.") Or giving them a "free ride" and minimizing their choice to "cripple their character" in such a fashion to the detriment of the other players' choices who did not use a dump stat.

D: Realism wanted, Paper bags need not apply! We have all seen these characters... they can do only 1 thing and 1 thing only. That might be shoot a gun, or cast a spell, or sleaze the 'trix. Usually these characters to so invested in other factors that they have only 1 to 3 skills (mind you these are usually rated 5 to 6!) and fall under some attribute that is enormously inflated with Cyber ware, carefully chosen Adept power points, or genetic tinkering. They can shoot the wings off a fly at 1000 meters, blindfolded, with a pistol, between their legs, with the gun in their off hand... but ask them to talk to the bouncer to get into the club and they look at you as if you asked them to calculate Pi to a hundred places. Sure being REALLY good in a skill can make a good concept, but NO ONE is a one dimensional object! We all have a host of skills in a large variety of disciplines. As a general rule (yes, there ARE exceptions... but boy are they small!!!) characters should have at least 3 knowledge skills and at least 6 active skills. Sure they may be only ranked 1 to3, but they at least show that the player LIVES in the world and is not a drooling potato until the need arises that the party needs his dice pool of 33 to bake a chocolate cake... no matter how yummy that cake would be!
       As a GM, I think it is our obligation to help the players craft their characters along the way. Approve skills, genetic perks/negatives, point out flaws in their logic, and make judgment calls on what they can and can not "do" during creation. (As to fit with their back story, concept and overall team.) Some players in the past have ABSOLUTLY insisted they have a character in a certain fashion or built a certain way... and these are usually the same people who sit their reading a magazine until there singularly focus character has a chance to do something in their narrow field of skills (usually combat) and then blink, surprised when it is over in a matter of a few die rolls. They are usually the first ones to complain that the "game isn't fun" or "it's boring". And sure, some aspects of it could be for SOME PLAYERS, at certain times (more so for the uber specialized, 3 skill characters) but if 5 out of 6 players are having fun... where does the problem really lay??

[Reaver]

SECOND

The next role of the GM is to facilitate play. The GM is the storyteller, the rules lawyer, the mediator, and the glue that hold everything together! It's a big job, and hard one to do well. The only thing that makes you better at it is constant playing. No one is born as a great GM. It takes work and effort to be able to weave all the roles into a single enjoyable fashion/story/adventure. Below is a list of important roles that a GM may be called on to fill in a game, to run a game, as well as my thoughts on them.

Glue for the party so, your players have come up with their characters, and you coached them through the character creation... But none of them wanted to play a Face, or a Rigger, or a Hacker, or a purple people eater. As the GM you KNOW they will need this archetype to get anywhere in the game. So now you have a couple of choices.
      * Force a player to play one of the archetypes, against his wishes. I personally hate this option simply cause the players spent so much time thinking about the character they WANT to play...to force them to play anything else is kind of cruel. It's a ROLE playing game! Players should be able (within reason and rules) to play what they want! The idea is to have fun with your friends and enjoy each others company. Hard to do that if you are forced to play an archetype you hate. 
      * Allow a player or several players to play more than 1 character at a time. Again, this is not my preferred solution as the player generally only sees the characters as bits of paper and not as a true "character" (mind you, that is how some players prefer to see their characters... meh, different strokes and all that) When a player has to split their attention, it usually ends up that both characters become some sort of strange Siamese twin... joined in thought and form yet separate in body. It takes a truly gifted player to be able to bring 2 characters to life at the same time with separate personalities and thoughts. I have seen this happen only a handful of memorable times in 20 years of gaming.
      * Play the archetype as an NPC. This is usually what I end up doing myself. I follow strict guidelines when I do this to avoid some pitfalls (more on this later). The NPC has to be effective with his archetype, has to be believable and realistic, even memorable. But should never, Ever, EVER out strip the players. Yea the NPC Face can talk you out of the shoes you are wearing (and you will thank him for taking them!) but when it comes to other aspects of the game (combat, matrix, rigging) they should be barely capable! You have to give the players their time to shine, not out shine them! (Again, more later)
      * "Sugar Daddy calling." this is my moniker for a rare form of NPC.... usually for those full on Combat groups. They have a "Sugar Daddy" that supplies them with runs and background info so they don't have to worry about this part of the game. Think: Charlie from Charlie's Angels. He is an anonymous NPC that gives the players jobs and rewards them for a job well done. Again, this type of NPC needs a personality and "character" to work. It is doable, but can be challenging. I personally find it hard to keep the missions fresh with this type of NPC. After all, how many buildings can the players blow up, or Execs can they kidnap/maim/murder/blackmail, how many gangers can they squeeze into an oil drum before it starts to feel old??

Once Upon A Time.... as the GM it's your job to tell a story. But, (here's the kicker) YOU are not the "Hero"! but neither are you the "Villain"!. You are the "annoying" narrator. The main focus of your story is the player characters. Through their actions (or inactions) the world they live in changes. Sometimes subtly, sometimes with an "Earth shattering KA-BOOM!" In the story, it’s the players who decide what will happen, how it will happen, and to whom. As the GM, it is your job to craft the story in such a way that the player’s actions have meaning... that they are part of the world they live in. Their choices MATTER. Yes, sometimes you have to lead them by the nose; sometimes you have to drop kick them upside the head... The story you create could be simple, or complex. It could be a linear run, or a maze of twists and turns. But there are some pitfalls that you should avoid....

SAVE OR DIE!!! Player's choices matter. They are the protagonists in the story. Without them, there is no story! No story? No game. No game? You wasted how much money on books??? A good story is planned out for 1000 and 1 possible outcomes, and also as room for the 1002, 1003, 1004 outcomes your players will give you. No matter how well you plan something out, no matter how "obvious" you make something, players will go a different route. You could have your players in a room with only 2 doors... a red one and a blue one... they will punch a hole in the ceiling. Or in a wall. Or in the Floor. It's what players do! They seem to never go the way you want them to, no matter how bright and shiny the ARO is, no matter how much candy you promise is at the end of it! Be prepared for it to happen. And above all DO NOT PUNISH THEM FOR IT! these are great moments in Gaming! These are the moments that separate the weak GMs from the good! Neither should a choice in a game come down to a singular event that rests on a single roll of the dice. These "save or die" moments are frustrating to players. You are taking all their hard work and play out of their hands and leaving it all up to chance. Yes, chance (the die roll) is a huge part in any game.... but there should ALWAYS be some way to recover from a fumble (exceptions apply! see below!)

Betty-Sue is not Your Lover for those who don't know, a "Betty-Sue" is when a writer "writes" himself into the script. In RPGs they are usually NPCs of uber level power. And are usually set against the PCs. Or they are "forced" into the party and outshine the other PCs in glaring fashion (So Bob, you took a shot with your assault cannon and rolled 16 dice, not bad. Betty Sue's turn now... her total skill with her slingshot is 91... She hits the boss mob in the eye, around the corner and kills him dead.") In the RPG there is NO ROOM for Betty-Sues!   The player characters are the focus of the story (remember!??!). Sure you can have NPCs. Sure you can have GREAT NPCs! but they should never rise above the level of a group of players... unless they are going to be a re-occurring villain. However, if they are going to be a re-occurring villain, they should be so in a believable way. There is nothing believable about a villain that guns down all they players, then tea-bags them till the Auto-doc squad arrives while writing "YOU SUCK" on their foreheads with a black felt marker. This just breeds animosity (towards you, and your game!) If the villain "has to win" let him do so by the skin of his teeth! The players should be left with a sense of bitter disappointment... that "if only I had done just ONE MORE box of damage" feeling. Not that "we were totally outclassed from the start" feeling. And never, EVER that "There was absolutely no way to win" feeling.

Cheater, Cheater!! one of the Best things about being a GM is.... YOU GET TO CHEAT! Yes I said it. And I will say it again! YOU GET TO CHEAT!!! If you are GMing and you are NOT cheating... what's wrong with you?!??!? Ok, let’s be clear here. When you cheat, it should be ALWAYS to the story, AND the player's advantage! Flub dice rolls, modify damage (down if to PCs, UP if to NPCs) Do what you have to do to tell a compelling story and keep the players involved. Sometimes that means a mook misses on his attack even though he rolled 10 successes (a mook with 10 successes?!?!? More on this later!) If you are killing off reasonably played characters left, right, and center... it's time to re-evaluate somethings... and this is the easiest way to go about it. Is John's adept almost dead cause of a couple of bad rolls? Time to have his target miss a few times to even the score. There are a lot of roles that the GM has to fill... being honest is not one of them... just don't be blatant about it... and don't cheat the players out of a victory less there is NO OTHER WAY to move the story along (and, I'm sorry but, if there is no other way then cheating, you didn't set up your story very well!)

Fair as Fair can be? After espousing cheating... I'm going to go on about being fair??? Yes I am. I am talking about being fair to the PCs... In everything. Sure you have to cheat (sometimes!) to keep the game flowing. But if the players figure out your amazingly complex, brilliant story in 2 seconds flat... congrats, they earned it. Learn from it and move on. Did they just blow a hole through your "Betty-Sue" because they thought his named sucked? Well aside from breaking the above listed rule (thus, in my mind, EARNING the killing of this NPC) well, I guess he's dead. Pull up your big boy/girl pants and move on. On the other hand. Some players get it into their heads to do amazingly, stupid, suicidal things, like flipping the bird to Lofwyer in his office. Or randomly walking down Wall Street with an Auto cannon on their back. Or peeing on the fence they KNOW is electrified... You, as the GM are under NO obligation to save their sorry silly little butts! They flip off Lofwyer? He eats them. End of story. They pee of the electrified fence? They get zapped.
      Also keep in mind there is only ONE set of rules! And they apply to everyone! The same rules you apply to Bob, count for John, as they do for Ted, and they most certainly count for your NPCs! There can be no double standard for rules. They must apply across the board, evenly and fairly to all. (Unless of course, you cheat! but then it BETTER be in your players favor!)

I AM the LAW!!! nothing grinds a game to halt faster then a rules lawyer arguing Vs the GM. As the GM you are expected to know the rules... but guess what? There is a FRICKING LOT of rules! Read, then re-read, then read again every book before you put it into play. Make sure you have at least a passing understanding of the rules before you start playing. And if you don't know something... WING IT!!! That 20 minutes it takes to look something up is 20 minutes no one is having fun! There always seems to be a single player who knows more then you do about some facet of the mechanic of the game. Use this to your advantage, but don't trust his interpretation... Players have a nasty habit of "remembering" things to our best advantage. If he knows the book and approximate page the rule can be found on... look it up, read the rule, make a judgment call and move on. Later, after the game has ended, revisit the rule and see if you made the right call. Sometimes you will, sometimes you will mess it up horribly! If you do mess up, admit to it, fix the error if you can, apologies for the mistake and move forward. At my table I have strict "2 minute" rule. If we can't find the rule in 2 minutes, I make a call and move forward. I have been wrong LOTS of times, I admit that easily! Usually before the next game starts I revisit the questionable rule and my call and explain that I made a mistake and try to fix that mistake... Sometimes that can't be done... but, meh, what can you do? Move on.

You Mean I Don't Make the Rules? House rules. <Shudder> boy oh Boy do I have a love/hate thing with house rules! If you look that this "War and Peace" sized post it's clear that I have more then a few house rules of my own  But, how do I say this with out sounding like an ass? Sometimes house rules ruin a game. The rules in the books are there for a reason. They form a backbone to the mechanics of how the entire system works. They are the engine in your car that makes it go. Some seem silly, some strange, some seem to make no sense at all. Before you decide to make a house rule that contradicts or changes a rule in the books... take the time to THINK VERY CAREFULLY   (you notice the bold, underline??) sometimes the smallest change to a single rule can have a huge unbalancing effect on the game as a whole.. Usually in the direct oppose path that you wanted! Over the last 20 years, I have house ruled, changed, pared up, scaled down just about every rule you can think of in a half dozen game systems... and 95% of those changes came back to bite me in the ass later on in play I'm not going to tell you to not house rule... heck it's your game! Play however you want! As long as you and your players are having fun, that's all that really matters right? All I am going to say is, Consider every possible angle before you change something in the name of "game balance". Because the chances are great, your changes are going to lead to another sort of imbalance somewhere else. Another two words to look out for are "Overpowered" and "Nerfed". Generally speaking when someone says something is "Overpowered", what they REALLY mean is "that is more powerful than what I like to play" and is usually a sign that they are also misapplying the RAW/RAI. (And usually caused by a house rule made because some GM/Player doesn't like/believe in another rule somewhere else). "Nerfing" is usually a demand that comes up when people take an abstract view of something (usually an archetype) and extrapolate a "power curve" to a specified point. And in doing so, they usually lose sight of what it actually takes to get to that point. The road the players have to travel is filled with pitfalls, death, uncertainty and remorse. I can't tell you how many players over the years have shown me their "Power Progression Curve for the Most Masterful Dealer of Doom and Destruction that ever walked the Earth!" Not one. Not ONE EVER has ended up as they laid out their master plan. Even more fell by the road side, dead by their own choices or by random luck of the dice that I couldn't bluff/lie/cheat them past. That is the true nature of an RPG... big dreams bitter loses sweet victories. Don't sweat it if a player comes to you and says "you gotta nerf those Blue Eared Jacklelopes! That 500 Karma they will take over the world!" 500 karma is a long ways away... and you never know when an anvil is going to fall out of the sky on said Jacklelope! And resist your own thoughts of "OMFG!!! Orange lemur shape changers are UBER once they get to 300 karma" cause you know what? That's a long ways away too, and chances are by the time everyone else is at 300 karma, that orange Lemur is merely "really good" at 'XYZ' but probably below average at 'ABC'. There is no true balance to the force in RPGs... There is only choices... some are made for the long term; some are made for the short term... live with them all instead of wasting your time pulling out your hair trying to balance the unbalancable.

That's not a Knife... THIS is a KNIFE!!! Combat... wonderful, glorious combat! The bread and butte of instant gratification and the source of humor the RPG world over! (admit it... at least ONCE combat has lead to something EPIC happening that caused they entire group to break down in a fit  of giggles!) This is a part of Shadowrun that is so truly hard to judge how to do "right". I have spent hours and hours and hours coming up with "battles" for my players. All to do the famous TPK on a lowly squad of mooks... or had the "Supreme Nasty of Nasties" turn out to be an over filled balloon that popped the moment a PC said "Boo!". I think this is because there is such a wide disparity in the combat abilities of a group from character to character, game to game, that it is impossible to say "at 15 karma, THIS is the perfect encounter for my group". I have come up with some guidelines (NO! Not house rules... G-U-I-D-E-L-I-N-E-S) to help me plan encounters. Remember all that time I told you to invest in your player's character creation?? Here’s where it pays off.
         I divide all my encounters into 3 categories. "Mook”,"Advanced", "Boss"
         From there, there is 3 power levels (yes, they are called 1, 2, and...... 3!!!)
*** "Mook" these are the average peons of SR. they are the ganger, the basic security guard. They are the ones that die... usually quickly ... usually without thought. There are 3 types of mooks... just as there are 3 basic types of threat... Physical, Magical, and Matrix. (drones are physical, Spirits are magical) they have a dice pool of 1/2 the AVG of the party that will be fighting them... meaning if all the characters have a gun skill (and thus could be fighting physical threats), then the mooks have an average gun skill 1/2 the avg dice pool of the party. If only ONE player will be fighting a mook (like in the matrix) then they have 1/2 for the dice that the matrix player has. Equipment is on par for what they are... meaning ganagers have crap to good weapons (depending on the gang) Secuirty has security weapons and armor.... and so on and so on.

*** "Advanced" these are those hardy, fulfilling, meat and potatoes encounters that players go "that was good... too much salt... but still good!" Average dice pools of 3/4 to full on average of the player characters. Equipment is a little better... as is their use of tactics. These are the SWAT forces, emergency response security, and anything else that should be a challenge.

*** "Boss" These are the guys that players take their time to plan out what they are doing, how they are going to do it... and groan when it blows up in their face. I don't use many "Boss" level battles because they have a habit of killing player’s dead... D   E   D!!! DEAD!!! Dice pools of 1 to 1.5 the party average. Great gear, great tactics (planned out ahead... to be fair to the players if they come up with a winning strategy!)

Power levels reflect 2 things... magical/cyber gear... and numbers. They are abstract with no hard fast rules... but fall along a 75%, 100% and 125% value of the players. Meaning, at Mook Level 1, the mooks numbers and equipment is 75% that of the party's value. Mook level 2 is 100% of the party’s numbers and value. And so on and so on.  This gets REALLY dicey however at, say, Boss level 3. Yea...this of level encounter has lead to TPKs... But then again it should (this is like the players pee in Lofwyr's coffee... expect harsh, brutal judgment)

************


Wow! Have I typed out a lot here! I think I am going to leave it at this, as I am sure you all have a fair to good understanding of how I run things by now,. And my reasoning behind why I do things in a certain way. Like I said WAAAAY at the top, I would love to hear what your take is on the role and responsibilities of a GM. Please share with the rest of us! Help us all grow in your ability to host great games!

(Later on, I will talk about I design a story for my players... probably in another post!)

[ArkangelWinter]

Fun for Everyone,
Make sure there's something for every player to do to participate, every session  even if it's made up on the fly. If it's an all talky politicking session with no guns blazing, give the sammy a good barfight or let the hacker get pinged by a Star drone. My guys' last run took plave entirely from their VTOL Vietnam-style, and the Sword Adept found himself useless, so I hit them with several air spirits. His Assensing let him pick out the most dangerous target for their turrets, and he got to go sword-to-sword with a boarding spirit just so he could feel like he helped.

Flavor
Players develop reputations that set the game's tone, but its up to you to realize that. If a group has a rep for blowing shit sky-high, roll out the A-Team plot lines if that's what they really want to do. If tbey're highly professional Ocean Eleven operatives, having the world and employers treat them like it sets the tone for that kind of game.

[The Dark Warden]

An impressive piece of work Reaver. i don't think I can add much except maybe:

Find your Prep Style and use it

Everyone is different when it comes to prepping for a session,  some GMs use flowcharts, others lists and maps (and on the note of maps, always have a scratch pad with you, even a sketch map is better than nothing if the players go off the reservation), and some just keep everything in their head  and brainstorm but however you do it, you should be ready for the most obvious paths for your players take and at least have a vague feeling for the non-obvious ones as well (and then be aware that it's NuYen to doughnuts that they'll do something you haven't planned for regardless of how detailed your plans... it's a superpower common to all players to home in on the one path you didn't expect).

Keep the Faith.... and the Focus!

Ok... so I like Bon Jovi... sue me  ... but it's important to keep the players focused, yes there will beout of character chat, joking around, people wandering off for drinks and food and so forth and that in and of itself isn't a problem but when it starts going on a little too long.... that's when you need to step in as a GM and just nudge things back on track, of course if you keep  to Arkangel's rule about making sure everyone has something to do that will help, but it's tough to make sure everyone is always doing something so the players will end up with periods where they aren't doing anything and that's when attention can drift.

[Mantis]

I'll second that. Well done Reaver. You've written up almost exactly how I've come to run my games. The whole bit on cheating in the players favour is particularly important. I've finally got a chance to play after GMing for 25 years (and in 2 different games no less). In the SR game, my GM has taken my advice on running the game and has made much progress on GMing from where he started. When he has felt the need to fudge the dice, it has always been in the players favour.
The other game (L5R, if anyone cares) has a new GM who is making all the mistakes you point out and isn't really willing to listen to advice. The cheating against the PCs is particularly annoying and leaves feeling like spectators to our PCs story .
I find the biggest difficulty in making a transition from GM to player is that I'm that rules lawyer guy, simply because I have GMed so long and I really do know the rules that well. The advantage though, is that I always keep the GM idea of reading and knowing the actual rule as opposed to the player interpreted part rule that only benefits the player at that time. The other players have gotten annoyed on occasion when I remind the GM of something he forgot that makes an NPC just that much harder yet strangely don't seem to mind when it goes the other way. 
They should sticky your write up for new GMs.

[All4BigGuns]

I disagree on a couple of points. The two that placed concept and background entirely above the stat block of the character. I feel that the basic concept should come together as the attributes, skills and what-not do. As to background, perhaps one or two sentences at first, and let the rest come along as play progresses. It might work the other way for some, but, in my opinion, expecting both in full detail before any stats are assigned is asking too much and bogs things down.

As to the point of GM "cheating", it does have it's place, but one must be exceptionally careful. Get caught and the players will be looking at every good roll you have as cheating to slaughter them.

When it comes to the "I am the law" or "Rule Zero", this is, in my opinion, the most abused line by GMs.*  If a rule comes into question during the game and an argument begins, sure make a quick ruling, but if it turns out you're wrong (and you will be at some point), then be prepared to hand out some extra karma (and no I'm not talking 1 or 2 here) as an apology for ruling incorrectly--do NOT do the opposite and dock karma if you're wrong.

*: The bad ones abuse this to ensure that their "power" is not questioned by the "insignificant" players.

[The Dark Warden]

When it comes to the "I am the law" or "Rule Zero", this is, in my opinion, the most abused line by GMs.*  If a rule comes into question during the game and an argument begins, sure make a quick ruling, but if it turns out you're wrong (and you will be at some point), then be prepared to hand out some extra karma (and no I'm not talking 1 or 2 here) as an apology for ruling incorrectly--do NOT do the opposite and dock karma if you're wrong.

This I disagree with, not that Rule 0 is easily abused: it is of course, but giving karma for making a call that contradicts the rules... I think that's over the top a bit unless your call got somebody killed or similar. I've always worked on the agreement with my players that they can make arguements to me as to how they think the ruling should go, then I will make a final call to last for that game session or untill somebody finds the rule in the book at which point I'll either say "That's how we'll do it from now on" (which I do 99% of the time) or if we've been using a wrong rule for a long time but it's working well for the group or the book rule offends the logic of the players (not so much of an isssue with shadowrun I've found but some other systems can get... bizarre... at times) we might come to an agreement to house rule it to how we have been playing but if I handed out karma everytime I had to make a judgement call on a rule the levelling curve would go straight out the window, especially when I play with newer people (quite common for me) since I don't have another person knowledgable about the rules to bounce ideas off.

The rest of what you say is definitely valid though.

[All4BigGuns]

When it comes to the "I am the law" or "Rule Zero", this is, in my opinion, the most abused line by GMs.*  If a rule comes into question during the game and an argument begins, sure make a quick ruling, but if it turns out you're wrong (and you will be at some point), then be prepared to hand out some extra karma (and no I'm not talking 1 or 2 here) as an apology for ruling incorrectly--do NOT do the opposite and dock karma if you're wrong.

This I disagree with, not that Rule 0 is easily abused: it is of course, but giving karma for making a call that contradicts the rules... I think that's over the top a bit unless your call got somebody killed or similar. I've always worked on the agreement with my players that they can make arguements to me as to how they think the ruling should go, then I will make a final call to last for that game session or untill somebody finds the rule in the book at which point I'll either say "That's how we'll do it from now on" (which I do 99% of the time) or if we've been using a wrong rule for a long time but it's working well for the group or the book rule offends the logic of the players (not so much of an isssue with shadowrun I've found but some other systems can get... bizarre... at times) we might come to an agreement to house rule it to how we have been playing but if I handed out karma everytime I had to make a judgement call on a rule the levelling curve would go straight out the window, especially when I play with newer people (quite common for me) since I don't have another person knowledgable about the rules to bounce ideas off.

The rest of what you say is definitely valid though.

The way I look at it, the incorrect ruling (especially if an argument was about to start over the rule) is likely to have been bad to Very Bad for the PCs, and something should be given by way of apology. I used karma as a quick and easy example since 4 or 5 karma won't be enough to really raise anything but the lowest of skills.

[The Dark Warden]

I take your point and I see where you're coming from, maybe I've been exposed to rules lawyers once too often (when you have players who will argue that mages are not actually one of the more powerful archetypes anda re in fact borderline uderpowered you start realising that someone somewhere will argue anything regardless of logic or basis in reality). I still don't think I'd hand out karma with either of my groups (in one because of rules lawyer/powergaming types which would result in handing out karma being a dangerous precedent for the game) and in the other because 90% of the rules arguments we have are because the older players (including myself) play about 6 or seven different systems and nobody can ever keep entirely straight which rule belongs to which system and the rest are newbies who may be entirely new to the whle concept of roleplaying and consequently have their own set of problems with the rules, but then with both groups I've always tried to establish a precedent that I will rule in their favour as much as I'll rule against them when a rule is uncertain so it all balances out (I've actually had players arguing for a rules interpretation that would hose their character to me before... it's a somewhat surreal experience but I do appreciate it when players are honest about what they think the rules are).

[All4BigGuns]

I take your point and I see where you're coming from, maybe I've been exposed to rules lawyers once too often (when you have players who will argue that mages are not actually one of the more powerful archetypes anda re in fact borderline uderpowered you start realising that someone somewhere will argue anything regardless of logic or basis in reality). I still don't think I'd hand out karma with either of my groups (in one because of rules lawyer/powergaming types which would result in handing out karma being a dangerous precedent for the game) and in the other because 90% of the rules arguments we have are because the older players (including myself) play about 6 or seven different systems and nobody can ever keep entirely straight which rule belongs to which system and the rest are newbies who may be entirely new to the whle concept of roleplaying and consequently have their own set of problems with the rules, but then with both groups I've always tried to establish a precedent that I will rule in their favour as much as I'll rule against them when a rule is uncertain so it all balances out (I've actually had players arguing for a rules interpretation that would hose their character to me before... it's a somewhat surreal experience but I do appreciate it when players are honest about what they think the rules are).

I can see your point on not doing it too, and with people who go too far to that extreme, I probably would find something else to give. On what you said about mages, well, I can see both sides there too, as if one doesn't know how to play a mage (be it in earlier D&Ds or SR) they can be underpowered.

[The Dark Warden]

Trust me, this guy knew how to play a mage and he was one of the best powergamers I know (If I had to get a character built for some sort of Arena Tourney, he'd be the guy I'd go to), he just wouldn't admit that his favourite toy was pushing the balance of the game out of whack relative to the rest of the party, but that's a convo for another time since I don't think Reaver will thank us for dragging his nice guide into a complaintfest about things that can go wrong with players... so shall we agree that rewarding players for a bad call is a definite maybe, to be strongly considered by the GM depending on group?

[Scarecrow71]

Find your Prep Style and use it

Everyone is different when it comes to prepping for a session,  some GMs use flowcharts, others lists and maps (and on the note of maps, always have a scratch pad with you, even a sketch map is better than nothing if the players go off the reservation), and some just keep everything in their head  and brainstorm but however you do it, you should be ready for the most obvious paths for your players take and at least have a vague feeling for the non-obvious ones as well (and then be aware that it's NuYen to doughnuts that they'll do something you haven't planned for regardless of how detailed your plans... it's a superpower common to all players to home in on the one path you didn't expect).

To add to this:
 
Be Prepared
Being a GM means you have to do a lot of reading and writing and prepping for the game, but what I'm talking about here goes well beyond the normal "They are going to go here or here or here, so I have to have some stuff ready".  What I'm talking about is making sure you not only know what the scenes are for the current gaming session, but to at least have an idea of what scenes are a session or two down the road.  If you are using pre-written adventures, that means to read the whole thing prior to starting scene 1 so you know where the adventure flows.  If you are using one of your own design, then you should have written at least 5-7 scenes beyond what the players are going to do in the current session so you know where they are going.
 
It just, basically, means that you need to have more information ready for the game than the players can get to in 2 gaming sessions.  Doing this will help you make transitions from the end of one run to the beginning of the next one, and doing so seamlessly so the players don't get a sense that the runs are disjointed and not related to one another in the grand scheme of things.

[Kat9]

So after talking to a few people here, as well as my gaming group, I had an interesting thought/question about the role of the GM in a game and exactly what he is responsible for. I am interested in hearing your guys opinions on this subject, and below I will outline what I think a GMs role in the game is.

If you ever run an online campaign, please save a spot for me.

[shrike]

I'd like to add also that the GM is an arbiter of player disputes, both in and out of game if it they occur at the gaming table. While it is everyone's responsibility to promote a fun and 'safe' playing environment, it is the GM's (duty seems like to strong a word) job to enforce it.

[lurkeroutthere]

It's the GMs role to make sure all the characters "mesh" well into a group. Now, I don't mean to say that the group has "X" roles filled (like a Sammy, a face, a mage, and a hacker/rigger), I mean that all players characters are "on the same level" at play start. While we all have differing views on what is a playable character and what is "unplayable", I try to follow these guidelines when directing my players to make characters.

No, it's really not. You can't argue for player agency and players being the center of the story later and then insist that the GM should control the character makes. Sure some veto power should be used, but it should be used sparingly. Got a guy wanting to play a ghoul in a Docwagon campaign? You gotta give him the bad news. But otherwise making sure the team rounds out the bases isn't your problem, sure you can suggest they might have a shrotfall but otherwise your forcing folks to play things they don't want. Likewise it's not my job to make sure that because someone's playing an elf someone else doesn't take Prejudiced: Elves.

 Likewise I seldom make people conform to certain skill requirements or even try and fight dumpstating. If people can afford to dumpstat regularly then a better fix is to start looking at why they are able to avoid using their intelligence stat or their strength stat and start to do something about that.

Honestly GM's come about some combination of the following ways:

1) No one else wants to do it.

2) One person likes GMing

3) People are unsatisfied with the current situation in the group.

So while looking at things through that lens here is my advice:
1) Prep: There are people who run off the cuff very well. I am better then most but still not all that good. Even the best off the cuff storyteller would be improved by some amount of prep.
2) Set the tone: For the group, for the game world, for everything. You have to draw the world in their minds eye and you have to set the tone for how people interact at the table. Want to be respected? Show people respect. Likewise it's not really fair to the players if they make pink mohawk characters and your running a trench coat world and then jsut kill them over and over again.
3) Overturn the rules anytime you feel like it, but try and be consistent in your purpose. Are you trying to make things more fun? More realistic? Just more playable? Pick the goal that your going for and make sure your players understand that's what informs your decisions. Likewise don't be afraid to reverse yourself if your new rule is causing a problem. Also get player input early and often.
4) Encourage your players not to game the system and reciprocate accordingly.
5) Reward creativity
6) Build a story that allows the players time to shine and do cool things, but don't hand them anything they don't earn. Anything they don't earn they won't value.
7) As a corrolary to the above, don't ever let the players be the only thing moving the story. For example always know what happens with the run if the runners don't take the job.
Cheat sparingly and cheat openly but always with a purpose. Sometimes responding to outrage and annoyance with a poker face and a "There are reasons" is enough to quell even the most shrill protests.
9) Get your players (and yourself) out of an us vs GM mindset. Establish a report
10) Recall that you are GMing to have fun, and that you are (hopefully) putting a fair amount of effort into doing it. That point alone is ultimately where all your authority stems from. If players can't respect that someone should find another game.

I think everything else is pretty much a style issue. That's not to say Reaver's advice is invalid, just that it seems to mostly fit their game group, whereas what works for my group might not work for theirs and the reverse also being true.