Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2012 2:56:03 GMT -8
Artistic movements often had a manifesto. IMHO Happy Jack's could do the same, so GM's can sign up to it and display copies at their affiliated games (with the HJ logo and URL). Could that work?
What would be on this manifesto? How about the following for starters?
As a GM. always answer "Yes, and" to players rather than "No".
There is no wrong kind of fun.
As GMs don't force plot hooks on players, and as players think why your character would take a plot hook.
Don't metagame.
Your character may not know everything that you do and should act accordingly.
Losing in character can be as much fun as winning.
Further suggestions welcome!
Thanks, Lindsay Jackson
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Mar 13, 2012 18:57:15 GMT -8
I started writing something like this, and I've been looking for it since you've posted this. I FINALLY found it. These's were "Laws of GMing" to include in the GM side of a GM screen.
1. The players are not your opponents, so don't try to beat them. Instead, try to challenge them.
2. Combat is there to advance the story, and the story should drive combat.
3. The players control their PCs, and you control everything else. Never take control of the one thing your players control.
4. Absolutely any scene in which the PCs participate can, and likely will, have an unexpected outcome. . 5. When in doubt, say "yes," and deal with the consequences.
6. You know everything. The players don't. Never assume your clues are easy, and never assume your players realize there are clues.
7. Game rules are there to resolve conflict, not to slow down the game.
|
|
|
Post by kaitoujuliet on Mar 15, 2012 17:44:08 GMT -8
Another one I hear a lot from you guys is... 7.5 "Your character's backstory is there to allow the GM to create story around your character," with perhaps a corollary of .. 7.6 "If bad things happen to your character because of something in the backstory, this is awesome and you should embrace it." (And I guess if you don't find that fun, then ... you're out of luck? )
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Mar 16, 2012 6:44:32 GMT -8
8. Fun trumps all else
9. There is no single way to have fun
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Mar 16, 2012 11:19:33 GMT -8
8. Fun trumps all else 9. There is no single way to have fun At the table, JiB, I think you and I enjoy the same definition of fun but I cannot really say that what is fun for the group that broke away from the main expat group is *not* fun. From what I detail in my post on another thread it is un-fun from my perspective and expectations. They may disagree that fun trumps all else but, to them, that is precisely where they get their enjoyment; their fun. I'm too left handed to link my reference for others here but you know my reference. I wrote a similar gaming contract as this manifesto on our Wiki page, after the break up, to avoid later problems from miscommunicated expectations.
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Mar 16, 2012 11:29:00 GMT -8
Absolutely no disagreement with that premise. Different groups of people have different ideas of what it means to have fun. Arrogant as I am I'm not arrogant enough to say that my idea of fun is the only one. The problem is when the definition of what is fun differs within a group. That's when things get uncomfortable.
JiB
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2012 14:46:02 GMT -8
This has been on the back of mine:
"Shoot for being merely boring and logical, don't be clever."
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Mar 16, 2012 14:58:03 GMT -8
Explain please.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2012 8:26:37 GMT -8
Sorry. In other words, it's a reminder and inspiration to me to bring my prep but not to muddy the water too much in the game by being overly clever with it. I want to strive for merely an average game and let the fun grow out of just that instead of my own lame cunning.
|
|
|
Post by kaitoujuliet on Mar 17, 2012 9:13:57 GMT -8
I just ran across this article: community.wizards.com/themormegil/blog/2012/02/09/on_narrativism_vs_simulationism,_and_the_consequences_for_dd_next It seems to me that the Happy Jacks crew, in general, pretty firmly fit the profile of narrativists as described in that article. I'll quote the most relevant part below just in case the link goes down or something: (I snipped a bit about game balance and Vancian spellcasting, as I don't know the HJ crowd's opinions on those topics.)
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Mar 19, 2012 7:09:05 GMT -8
I just ran across this article: community.wizards.com/themormegil/blog/2012/02/09/on_narrativism_vs_simulationism,_and_the_consequences_for_dd_next It seems to me that the Happy Jacks crew, in general, pretty firmly fit the profile of narrativists as described in that article. I'll quote the most relevant part below just in case the link goes down or something: (I snipped a bit about game balance and Vancian spellcasting, as I don't know the HJ crowd's opinions on those topics.) I would say that is fairly accurate at least for me. I can't really make assertions for the others though my experiences gaming with them would also bear that out. JiB
|
|
|
Post by Briarstomp on Mar 20, 2012 16:42:53 GMT -8
Sorry. In other words, it's a reminder and inspiration to me to bring my prep but not to muddy the water too much in the game by being overly clever with it. I want to strive for merely an average game and let the fun grow out of just that instead of my own lame cunning. The few times my game has crashed and burned have been where the perfection of how all the plot hooks and background information fit together, hit me like an epiphany. I'm trying to work on building solid foundations and follow where my players want to drive the car/boat/ship/caravan.
|
|