Imperfect GM

I suppose I can't get away with just saying: it all depends!

Since that answer isn't going to cut it, I'm going to attempt to muddle through this potentially controversial question. I guess the underlying question here is whether a player should roleplay someone of a different ethnicity? The answer to that is unequivocally "yes" because this is the essence of roleplaying, pretending to be someone else. Yet there are some caveats.

First and foremost, I want to reiterate a point I made in Imperfect GM #2 - shortcuts are what get us into trouble. You decide that your character is snobbish and to demonstrate this you use an outrageous French accent. This is exceptionally lazy; it's a shortcut so not only is it poor roleplaying it's likely to offend or at least annoy someone at the table. If you avoid shortcuts and take roleplaying seriously you are very unlikely to offend someone. You should be striving to roleplay a character, not a caricature.

So what about accents specifically? I don't do accents at the table, because I'm dreadful at them and for everyone's benefit I avoid them. Bad accents are pretty distracting. Now that said, I've played with people who are rather good at them and when they are merely part of the portrayal they can be quite potent. Once again, the distinction is character versus caricature. There are so many tricks you can do with your voice and mannerisms besides going to a recognizable dialect or accent. Experiment with a different rhythm of speech, taking more pauses or speaking more quickly. Give your character a catch phrase. And remember to use your body, not just your voice: your character may have a distinctive slouch or way of smiling or hand gesture.

There's always a twist and this one involves GMs. As a GM it is your job to empower your players and provide an environment where they feel free to experiment and push their abilities. Sometimes this means a player will attempt an ill-conceived portrayal of a character that is verging into dangerous stereotype territory. What do you do then? If the player is clearly crossing a line then a polite chiding is likely in order, yet when it's borderline or just bad roleplaying you should leave it alone. From my experience players will realize they have erred and will make corrections; GMs are there to ensure a safe empowered space but they aren't the roleplaying police.

Now obviously all of the above depends upon the group and the RPG being played. Some games can be quite farcical. If everyone is on the same page then all is good, yet I do believe that you'll stay away from trouble if you always strive to roleplay a character and not a caricature.

Game postmortem and introspection: How do I get past both ego and imposter syndrome to take a realistic look at what went well in a game and what needs improvement? - Dan

Video your game and watch the video once you've had a chance to decompress from the session. Our minds are really imperfect when it comes to accurately recalling events, whereas video doesn't lie. Another option is to have someone else whose feedback you trust observe the game; I've had my wife keep on eye on a game I'm running to give me feedback afterwards. What you should be looking for in either case are the same things you should be trying to observe during the game:

Are your players understanding? Are they making sense of descriptions and the narrative?

Are your players engaged? Are they listening not just to you but to one another?

Are your players thinking? Are they doing more than just reacting to events - are they actively trying to shape the story?

You could consider these three tiers.

The first is foundational - the players understand what's going on and are muddling through the game. Problems at this level are due to unclear communication by the GM, this includes any confusion about the rules. When understanding is secured then the group can advance up the other tiers.

The second is success - the players are interacting with the story and setting. If you can accomplish this you have done a great job as a GM. Problems at this level, demonstrated by boredom and inattention, are usually due to weak NPCs and poor framing of the story.

The third is success plus - the players are immersed and engaged with the setting, which is the ultimate goal of any GM yet is very difficult to attain. When your group hits this tier you have gone well beyond success. Problems at this level are resolved by empowering your players and allowing them to act upon with that empowerment. GMs can set everything up perfectly and if the players don't pick up the gauntlet you won't get to this tier.

The second tier is where you want to be regularly with occasional forays into the third tier when your players step up their game. I want to stress that getting to the third tier is a cooperative effort; GMs shouldn't beat themselves up if they don't consistently get there - they can't control whether this happens or not.

That's all for this installment of Imperfect GM and comments are always welcomed!