Tell me what your eyes are doing

Play
1

When you GM, specifically.

Are you reviewing your own notes? (Which parts?)
Rereading a module’s hard copy?
Double-checking system rules and procedures?
Scanning a GM screen? (Handmade?)
Monitoring your player’s expressions?

How much of your attention is divided between each?

If I watched over your shoulder mid-game, what behaviors would I witness? Pedantry welcome.

My purpose behind this question (spoilered since I’d rather it not color your initial self-descriptions):

Much hoopla has been made over the pragmatics of module layout, and I want to know how much a decade of set design development has impacted our play.

7 Likes
2

All over the place really. Reading/ writing notes for sure. Consulting the module if I am using one. Or my maps and keyed rooms if it’s a dungeon I made.

Looking at each player as they’re speaking.

I’m a stand up and walk around GM. So I’m not looking at any one thing for long.

2 Likes
3

Interesting question! I outsource as much as I can to my players (eg mapping, tracking damage,etc), so that I can be free to interact with players directly as I slip in and out of role play, make eye contact, stay on top of where the energy is heading etc. my eyes mostly dart down in front of me to check ACs in combat, check monster attacks, etc. out of combat I usually have the module in front of me, where I used a highlighter or scribbled in the margins with general modifications or important npcs. I tend to run more detailed things on the fly, so often I only read the room details for the first time at the table, thus greatly benefiting from good use of bold text etc. currently running stonehell, which works great for this. Previously I ran i6 Ravenloft, which was a pain because of long descriptions and painful map. I tend to not reference rules at the table other than checking a spell here or there or a magic item. Also rolling a simple d6 oracle a lot to answer questions such as “does the tree catch fire?” Etc. so I’d say: primarily players faces, then essential statistics, then dice rolls, then module

1 Like
4

I spend most of my time looking at my players, trying to figure out what they’re latching onto in the descriptions I’m making. My eyes occasionally dart to my notes or the spotify web player (which is probably a few minutes from whatever sting I’m hoping to sync up my narration to).

With the exception of a few modules, I tend to be glancing down at a note card with bullet points for that particular scene or room—game depending. I make a little checklist of things and tic them whenever I incorporate them or players uncover them.

2 Likes
5

I am typically looking mostly at my players and trying to determine where the energy of the table is. I tend to put a lot of energy into corralling their momentum and keeping the session going. I delegate most of the recordkeeping (except for monster hit points, basically) to them.

I would say that I am typically bouncing between the module (or my notes if that’s what we’re running off of) and my players, probably 7:3 ratio between the players and module.

3 Likes
6

For me, roleplaying games are all about conversation, so I try to spend most of my time engaging directly with the players. In combat I am looking down at my notes more just to write details, but I try to keep the conversation flowing when looking down.

When checking the room key for a module or reviewing notes, I try to skim and present as I go. If I have to stop and look up a rule or carefully read an entire room description, conversation tends to falter and that’s when the game starts to falter IMO. As a result, I do better when I write notes about everything in the module, like rewriting room descriptions or scenes, because writing it down kind of embeds it in my brain in a way that simply reading before the session doesn’t. However, it’s time consuming, so I’m trying to get better at being able to digest a module beforehand and then rely on the module notes themselves.

3 Likes
7

I try to spend as much time interacting with players as possible, either in listening or speaking.

I like a module/system that does not rob me of that time flipping around, or searching through blocks of text, or making things up myself, but makes things very easy to find.

1 Like
8

I’ve never paid close attention to how long I spend looking at any one thing, so I can only guess at how long any one thing gets viewed. I can run down the things I do tend to look at/review in the general order I think I view them.

When PCs enter a new space, I review:
what their first sensory impressions will be
what the important interactive bits are in the space

Then I’m looking to the players as I provide the current situation and what their characters can see, hear, smell, and so on. I’m tring to get a sense of what they’re getting from it.

As the PCs then move around and interact, I review what’s in the direction they might be thinking of going to next so I can drop info a PC might notice regarding that direction (e.g., a PC nearing a door into a small room next door that was only used for storage).

I only check out what’s on my GM screen when I need to reference the specifics of a procedure that’s on there.

I only refer to monster blocks from notes/books when I have to use them.

Thinking about it, I reckon I spend at least half of my time monitoring the players to gauge what further info they might need to sort out what the PCs want to do. I’m their source of info on the world, so I need to work to provide them with what they might need the moment it becomes useful or necessary.

This isn’t a detailed look at what I do, of course, just the generalities that come to mind most readily. Reading other answers tells me it’s pretty much a general GMing thing–balance interaction with players and reference to play materials at every turn.

1 Like
9

Would it be fair to characterize your use case for modules mid-game as less “running from the page” and more “quick-reference encyclopedia”?

A last resort, when memory and handwritten notes fail?

1 Like
10

I dont think I should have to write my own notes for most modules, assuming system compatibility.

My process is typically: read the module through entirely, maybe highlight things that I think are cool but not obvious enough, then bring it to the table.

Depending on how the module is written, I may reference it more or less often.

2 Likes
11

I would love to record my actions and see exactly what I do, but I feel like, I spend almost 50% of my time looking at the module, vaguely reading it/scanning it.

I tend to use player discussion as a time to look over whatever written stuff I have, read ahead, make notes, adjustments, etc. “let me know when you decide which door to go through!”.

I like to save intense eye contact for being in character and zooming in on a player for spotlight time.

2 Likes
12

I like staying as engaged as possible with players. I think that’s why I try to hold the game and the module in my head and reference books only when necessary.

1 Like
13

I mostly play online without cameras. My eyes are on my module/notes, the chat, and Foundry.

I enjoy modules that I run from the page. I tend to be annoyed if I have to take notes or summarize a module to successfully run it.

14

Context: at the moment I play video-free in a voice channel. It has a weird effect on where my focus is as there are no social pressures to indicate who or what I’m paying attention to.

Are you reviewing your own notes? (Which parts?)

Not until after the session. I’m keeping notes as I go and (3%) jotting an anticipated name / encounter / set of dialogues down on the page for reference, which I’ll sort of ‘ouija style’ use, if PCs head towards what I expect.

Rereading a module’s hard copy?

Tough because ‘module’ is a set of finalized tables I’ve made after sessions. Really for me, as someone else suggested, this is happening in moments of ‘deep downtime’ or maybe even ‘player’ rather than ‘character’ time. If I’m reviewing hard copy, I’m almost tempted to call for a pee break. (1%)

Double-checking system rules and procedures?

0%. If my mind doesn’t have a reasonable fairness assessor at this point in my gaming career…

I will turn back in session debriefs with players to discuss how something was ruled vs how we would rule it in the future. This is playstyle though. If everyone is narratively invested then the difference between a tough house rule vs a soft house rule metes out in the quality of the session. If it felt fair. I haven’t had a player who preferred bickering over rules to ‘being under the water’ so to speak though, so perhaps others who are stressed by this circumstance will prove better response.

Scanning a GM screen? (Handmade?)

Yeah, probably 10%. GM screen for me is less about memory / rules / conversions and more about future actionables: what ingredients are in the pockets. Thief is heavily invested in setting snares. Quick couple rolls against Beast encounter chart drums up 2 gibbons. Players elect to head back into the swamp. Encounter roll on a 1d6 gets me ‘harpy flies overhead’. Handmade here, because I can live more freely in things I’ve already imagined in more peaceful times.

Monitoring your player’s expressions?

Most folks responding to your question are saying the same thing. The less moving parts in front of me, the better chance there is that my ability to inject narration or reaction is appropriate, timely, surprising; the less of the real goods I miss. Granted you’re talking module design here which is something I do, rather than consume, more often then not, but I think I can inhabit the experience and appreciate examining how I do so.

/

I’m not sure how this helps or what task you’re trying to accomplish. In reaction to the (your?) blogpost you cited which sort of ‘reduces’ a few circumstances, I’ll mirror you for the sake of conversation.

My players are overland right now. They were headed north to visit one player’s adopted family at a farm collect, following a well-rutted road to a Y. They opted to go off course following a massive aqueduct into unknown terrain, which meant I was free to invent a ‘room’. I chose to run them into this location:

The Aperture

Steep cliffs hall a barren valley at whose center is a crumbling, circular archway lathed in mind-breaking elder sigils and cryptic reliefs. Inside the circle, illusions phase in and out, an everchanging display of different places in time.

Deeper: This site has drawn a permanent sect of ritual inquisitors and apostate monks, both groups obsessively studying the aperture’s mysteries and how it may be controlled. Their camps dot the landscape alongside those of repentant pilgrims, the desperate, the cursed, the blighted, and the injured who have come to seek divine intervention.

None of these groups knows that this is a Well-spring Gate to the Underneath. The aperture is the key to “lock-in” one of many Underneath locations.

In the cooler evening hours, canyon trails to the camps becomes a hunting ground for desert bandits who prey on those traversing the area, launching surprise attacks to seize what meager valuables and supplies the pilgrims have.

I roll a mountain encounter off my screen. Rolls net me: faction encounter / ‘What’s Due’ / d4+1 breakermen on patrol. I roll two quick treasures and two quick curios from pre-existing faction tables. I drop into scene after verifying I have their decision right with the following:

4 breakermen, 7, 9, 12, 1
folding silt sea sextant, a small dull dagger, diviner’s window, direct speak papers

and I keep the landmark text above open as I narrate, eyes skimming. My narration picks up on archway, camps, valley and probably dot.

I end up getting a sort of halfway descent to a stop from the characters, and am given a fair bit of time as players start asking questions and beginning to sense out their own opposition to entering deeper and investigating. They’re spooked, and still ‘far’ from the archway.

Honestly, they spent as much time discussing the bits I shared with each other than you’d imagine. I could’ve spent more time reading fluid text and familiarizing myself with the landmark rather than concerning myself with parsing condensed, symbolic shards. Could be my group, but I often find they only turn to me at very beginning of scene to clarify poorly outlined details, and when they’ve run dry of chatter. And when they’ve run dry of chatter, then I’m just looking for when my 1hp breakermen is going to point his wasted finger from a campsite and shout YOU at one of them.

I am finding, generally, that reading modules, I actually prefer well-flavored text with healthy story notes that can become atmospheric for me. If it’s going to be a stat block, I make my own quick shorthands. Realistically I’d rather be in a scene that breathes and is awkwardly shaped compared to what the writer intended, rather than a scene I got exactly right down to the value of the rug.

But as ever: all style of play right?

I think a follow-up question to ask yourself / myself would be what the average time a group spends in any given room. Because I suspect, even in an empty room, there’s more time than us game designers think, and we imagine that we need to be in and out for our reader/DMs’ sake, but in truth could just provide good supporting details that make a DM feel comfortable stretching time and continuing to reveal the goods that all given moments have.

Enough pedantry.

3 Likes
15

I use a large, hardback notebook to develop ideas and keep game notes. When I reference materials it’s this notebook. I can walk around the table and GM from any location when using it. If I need dice I borrow the player’s and roll in the open 99%.

From most to least, my attention feels divided like this: engaging with players (>60%), reviewing my session notes (<30%), I check the hard copy for stuff not in my notes and the system rules to clear up doubts (~ whatever’s left, if at all).

Over my shoulder you’d see me doing a lot of management at a meta level. I’m cracking jokes and reigning in jokes that derail us, managing the spotlight, checking in on players that have gone silent, and verifying consensus.

In-game I’m responding to characters as NPCs and scanning my notes to decide what information to drop with that NPC. I’m also rolling for encounters, describing the scenario, running the play loop and rolling dice when needed or asking players to roll for me.

Okay, now I’m reading the spoiler.

EDIT after reading the spoiler and checking the chatter.

I love condensing modules to my notes. It started with Sly Flourish’s Lazy GM and have evolved it into my “style” of organization. I know where things are and, as mentioned above, helps it stick to my brain. I use this to personalize a module, either to fit what we’re doing or add a little panache of my own. I’ve adapted a couple modules to our game and these notes make that happen on my terms and in a way that suits our table.

As a reflection of module design philosophy, I prefer design that is expressive of the content, makes its point and gets out of the way. Both MÖRK Borg and WotC fail for opposite reasons. I love the Borgs though, :exploding_head: every time I poke at them.

1 Like
16

You know, my first thought was: looking at my players. But then I realized that’s only when I play in person.
Most of the time I play online. Usually just voice.
So I don’t look at my players.
I’ve got Owlbear rodeo open, so I’m monitoring how they’re moving their tokens on the map, and that I setup the dynamic lighting right. That’s also where dice rolls happen. So it’s always up.

I’ve got Discord open because that’s our voice and chat system. So I’ll check that for dumb gifs players post in response to something that just happened.

I’ve got a PDF, or several, open of whatever materials I need. So that would be stuff like the hex crawl map, the hex crawl key, the key to the adventure they’re in. Any bestiary stuff for new monsters that I’ve never used before. And I ping around those through out the game, trying to stay ahead of the players so I don’t slow it down. Sometimes I even open GIMP to make a token for a new creature or monster, while my players are talking. So

It’s one reason why I don’t go longer than 3 hours online. I feel like I’m constantly switching between tabs and monitors - I’m exhausted afterwards. In person I feel like I don’t need to pay attention to nearly so much. I can just riff with the players at the table and could go all day.

3 Likes
17

I’m always intrigued by the camera / no camera thing. I like having my camera on and seeing others. It helps me feel less distanced and less guarded. Maybe it’s teacher trauma. I taught during COVID and it really helped connect. But maybe I’m weird. LOL

18

Here’s an embarrassing confession about having the camera on:

When I have my camera on, I can’t stop looking at my own face. When I talk to my friends I talk directly to the camera. When they’re talking to me, I’ll look at them. When they’re talking to each other… I look at myself.

I’m an actor(which you’d think would explain this by way of narcissism) but I’ve never enjoyed looking at myself on screen. But when I’m on Zoom calls and the like, my eye just gravitates there. I’m totally listening to everything and am engaged through my ears. But my eyes are stuck on me.

I think I’m just terribly self-conscious about how I look. So playing online might be even more exhausting with a camera on than off for me.

3 Likes
19

Edit: Hey, just noticed, Welcome to the forum!

LOL you know, I hear ya. At first yea, I did (uh, do) that too.

For me it’s a weird fascination with the sense that I’m the “other” I’m looking at. It’s voyeuristic. I guess I just embodied narcissism. :rofl::mirror:

After a while it faded and I still do it some… so I just accept it. You can also turn it off in discord (I think skype too), so others see you but you don’t. I keep it on bc in my previous life I was a photographer. I obsess with framing, exposure and lighting.

1 Like