All the questionnaires are in! Each of the club GMs contacted have provided information about their games, how they moderate them, deal with problems, and so forth. The information submitted ranges from simple facts about specific games to expositions about gameworlds, mythoi, and character classes.

I am quite encouraged by the response to this column, and think we may have another forum for the discussion of games and gaming. In the next few issues we'll hear from all those who have responded. So, sit back and enjoy! The GMs have spoken....

GAME SYSTEM: AD&D
NUMBER OF PLAYERS: 6 currently, but I have used this fantasy world since junior high school.
NUMBER OF PCs: Over 12, but countless PCs have graduated to NPCs.
CLASSES/TYPES OF PCs: Virtually all.

GAME SETTING: I describe my self-designed gameworld of "Lharna" as a bronze age, monotheistic, realism-oriented, enlightened man type of world with a strong emphasis on story and character development. Less briefly, I mean that in the "start area" is analogous to classic Greek/high Roman culture. Lharna has the same god(s) as Earth and the exact same pantheon of religions. By "enlightened man" I mean that the natives (for the most part) are not like our savage medieval ancestors. For example, some people claim that a female samuria or negro cavalier is not possible because the "establishment" would have never allowed it. This is not true of Lharna. For realism, there still is prejudice and even racial hatred, but PCs and many NPCs are not ignorant medieval brutes. For my definition of "realismoriented" I have a simple test: if I were watching an action in a movie and everyone in the audience would say, "no way, this is too far out," then it cannot be so. I like action/adventure movies, and except as a source of laughs, few people enjoy Bgrade action movies. Most important and above all are story and character development, and I expect (demand) players to carry their share of the load here.

NAME OF SCENARIO. There are only two current "scenarios'. But I run several players/parties through the same campaign. I cannot share my personal titles with you, for they give away information to potential and/or current players. I run PBMers through the same plot and save the text to disk. When another player playing a different position but the same scenario has the same encounter, I just amend and update the text. This can make my game run like an "Endless Quest" book, except players are not limited to the choices given. As players complete sections of the campaign, I elicit their comments/criticisms so I can improve the game for the next player.

DATE CAME BEGAN: The campaign started in 1977. Senior PBMers have about four years' experience.

GAME SYNOPSIS TO DATE: Because of the style of my play, I can't divulge the "story" to date. I will say that is is an epic of immense proportions that retains a human element. The weave of the epic is very subtle; it is only after some time that players will realize how the parts interlock. At the start players will have about three, seemingly unrelated, adventures. Each of these has its own storyline, goal, and characters. Suddenly it will become apparent how these interlock and how the players have become (unwilling) pawns in a great struggle. It is up to them to solve the problems, shirk their duties, or fail miserably.

PLAYER PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED/ SOLUTIONS FOUND: I haven't had any problems with "troublemakers," etc., but I would like a chance to anonymously air a gripe. My replies are often 3 to 10 (or more) pages long. I can't stand writing all this info, providing clues, storyline, characters, etc. and then receive back a player response like:

1. Check bodies
2. Go south
3. Kill more orcs

When this happens I try to work with a player and try to milk out a response. If it becomes apparent that we are not on the same wavelength, I kill him/her off or I must, ashamedly admit, "orphan" him/her. (When a GM drops a PBM without and notice or reason, this is called "orphaning").

OTHER COMMENTS: With a new player, I like to involve him/her in a scenario that will "explain to the player how I play." This means that the opening scenario should give the player a chance to interact with the gameworld that will let him know that there is a world around him (his PC). I should also introduce at least one villain. A villain is not someone who you kill or triumph over (at least not for a while). A common mistake that I used to make was to develop an interesting villain, and then have the characters conquer. You must teach the players to hate the villain.

Most of the time I like to keep PCs poor. Most fantasy/comic/sci-fi/adventure heroes are not rich. Most have a hard time playing their bills. I also don't like to use gold as a motivator, for even in real life the fun of wealth wears out quicker than you might think.

If you don't use gold as a motivator, what can you use to motivate players into action? Nobody wants to risk their butt for nothing. I think that identifying and employing motivators is the most important element of good GMing. There are many possibilities more interesting than gold: just a few are revenge, sex (OK, maybe this one isn't as good in a game), pity, piety, friendship, glory, family, duty, and honor. As a junior DM, I knew that this was true, but I had no idea how to employ these factors.

Revenge is a great motivator, but one that works best when the offense is personal. For example, Joe the Fighter and Sally the Cleric enter Shitzville and the locals tell them about the goblins that have raided the town. Joe and Sally set out for revenge, right? Wrong! Joe and Sally are setting out for glory and gold. They could care less about the dead villagers and their losses. The treasure that they claim is really blood money.

But if goblin bandits stopped Joe and Sally on the way to Shitzville and robbed them of some very hard-earned treasure and equipment, that would be different! Then the PCs are in the same boat as the villagers, and there is a real loss to be avenged. What are the rewards for this revenge quest? Well, Sally and Joe recoup their losses, plus they get any treasure that doesn't rightfully belong to the villagers.

Wait a minute! Give treasure back to the villagers? Treasure that Sally and Joe risked their skins for? From shared misery comes a sense of fellowship; from fellowship comes friendship. Now Sally and Joe have friends in the villagers, and if they need a favor, Sally and Joe can expect one and vice versa.

Love (and even sex) are powerful motivators in real life, but this is rarely the case in RPGs. Why? If the gameworld is unrealistic, what's the point in developing real characters? I remember, as a novice player at the age of 13, 1 felt that charisma was an unimportant stat, reasoning that it doesn't help in any combat situation, doesn't help use most magic or Miracles (clerical magic), however now I would have no problem slapping my "18" on the Charisma ability rather than Strength. What do you want to be? A leader of men and a heart-stopper to the ladies, or a dull brute that bashes through each obstacle he encounters? Negotiating obstacles is much more fun than rolling dice. When PCs and their setting become realistic, then it seems logical for PCs to fall in love.

Of course, this shows that a good game is a partnership, definitely not a dictatorship. It is the GM's responsibility to provide interesting and challenging encounters, while it is the player's job to develop his PC and interact with the world around him. Players should never try to create PCs that are "killing machines," but should try to create interesting people that we want to know more about.

One other thing I feel very strongly about is the philosophical background of an RPG. Every player should be aware that role-playing is a powerful psychological tool. It can be used to strengthen or change character. However, when we are ignorant of the power of role- playing we take the risk of damaging ourselves. That is one reason why a campaign's psychology is very important. Another is the reality/ fun factor. But before I go into this, I must briefly describe the philosophical background used in most campaigns.

Mythology (real or made up) provides the polytheistic backdrop for most gameworlds. In AD&D, good and evil are equal powers, locked forever in combat. Both of these statements are philosophically immature concepts and flawed.

Polytheism is generally a primitive religious base because it is really just monotheism or atheism in disguise. If there are many gods of varying stature, with many chiefs like Zeus and Odin, then there must be an equal number of evil gods. If there are many families of gods, then what we mean by "god" is not a supreme being or all-powerful being, but rather a very powerful being or immortal person. If this is so, then these gods are really just like humans, only they are much more powerful. If this is so, then above these gods there must either be a real, god, or no god. Besides, you and I don't believe in gods. Why would a character with an 18 Wisdom or and 18 Intelligence believe such hogwash?

The other faulty leg of the AD&D philosophical base is the stature of good and evil. If good and evil are equal, then there must be a higher standard above good and evil to measure them. This would make neutrality the highest alignment of the universe. However, good can stand alone, and evil cannot (I'll not bore you with the justification for this), just as light can exist without shadow, but shadow cannot exist without light. Good must be stronger than evil, because evil can cheat to win, but evil still loses!

But what does it matter if we role-play in a world that has an omnipotent neutral, omnipotent evil, or no god (omnipotent neutral in disguise)? When God is not good, there is much more reason to be evil than to be good. Who wants to play a paladin when an evil warrior has every advantage? The evil warrior swaggers into the saloon, collars a bystander, and kills him. Like a "terminator," he walks over to an NPC and demands information. He promises to seek vengeance on anyone who attempts to identify him. He has tools like intimidation, unprovoked violence, lying, and stealing at his disposal. In a world where good and evil are "equal," good must surely outnumber evil.

If it is advantageous to be evil, players are often drawn to evil PCs. When the game has a laughable.pantheism of gods, then on one really questions the morality of actions. Most often we end up playing PCs that call themselves good but are really neutral. Neutral PCs are perhaps more selfish than evil PCs.

Back to the bit about role-playing as a tool for changing character. If you pretend to be a leader, sooner or later you will be. If you pretend you are "cool," sooner or later you will be. If you pretend to be godless, neutral, or selfish, sooner or later you will be. So why not use role- playing games to build character?

If we are to have a philosophy of monotheist good, why not use the world's religions? The fantasy world has the same laws of physics as Earth, and has many of the same laws of the animal kingdom as well. Why not use the world's religions? It certainly changes the flavor of the paladin and the cleric; it makes them more realistic. It forces players to change the way that they view their moral choices. Drama is about moral choices not action. A collection of stunts and a movie with action are only differentiated by the moral choices of the characters in the story.

If you would like to contribute to this column -- to suggest additional information ' which the GM could provide, other questions to be answered, or anything else you'd like to see in this column, please write to me, Jil Conway, "GMs Report" editor, at the address listed in the membership directory.

To receive a CM Questionnaire, please send a SASE to me. You may answer any or all of the questions, provide "just the facts," or elaborate on your particular game, players, etc. The amount of information you provide is up to you, and you may also indicated whether or not you currently have any openings for players in your game(s).