A small proposal for a GM philosophy
Jun 8, 2017 20:33:55 GMT -8
Post by Forresst on Jun 8, 2017 20:33:55 GMT -8
*ahem* Hlo,
So, there's been a lot of grouching about this v that around town lately. There's even been a fair amount of people rocking back on their heels and asking themselves "how did we get here?" to go with it. I don't know how we got here. I don't like it. So I'm going to offer an option for people to consider that might help us all get out of it. Please consider this quote from an excellent GM from a pretty well-received D&D4 AP:
I've seen a lot of us talk about what we're doing or trying to achieve while we're gaming. Most of us tend to be the type that are trying to advance a story. A few of us tend more toward the mindset of trying to adjudicate a game. Some of us prefer a fusion, some others tend to switch back and forth. These goals influence what we think is the most important thing at the time. The people who prioritise a story are more likely to fudge a die roll (NO FIGHTING ABOUT FUDGING) to make something interesting happen. The people who prioritise a game rule are more likely to let a character fail or die because of a randomised outcome (STILL NO FIGHTING ABOUT FUDGING). That's fine! There's nothing inherently good or bad about any of that.
Here's my take on it: When I run a game, I'm not necessarily telling a story. I'm not necessarily enforcing rules. When I run a game, I'm hosting a tiny, very structured party and my players are all my guests. My goal, and usually the goal of my players, is to have a fun time over the course of a few hours on a given day. Once that's established, everything else becomes a means rather than an end. So if my players like the random event weirdness? I become super rules judge. My players really just want to see where this thing they're doing will go? I become Fudgy McGee, Master of the Hidden Sparkle. My players want to get drunk, kill ogres, and roll around in coins like Scrooge McDuck? Well, ok, no problem, take my tea for a minute I'm gonna draw up an ogre bank to rob.
This doesn't change much if you already have a game going. But it certainly does seem to make the stakes way lower when I start considering if that second crit in a row might make the party tank into a meatloaf or if it's worth just telling them all the bad guys fell in a pond so the fight can be over and they can get back to selling their hilarious hallucinogenic space kopi luwak to casinos.
My method isn't perfect. It takes a lot of crowd-reading. It takes a lot of flexibility of thought. But it makes my players happy and we have good times with good games. So give it a try if you want to. If you don't, it's ok
So, there's been a lot of grouching about this v that around town lately. There's even been a fair amount of people rocking back on their heels and asking themselves "how did we get here?" to go with it. I don't know how we got here. I don't like it. So I'm going to offer an option for people to consider that might help us all get out of it. Please consider this quote from an excellent GM from a pretty well-received D&D4 AP:
Every game master and every game group is its own little microcosm of the larger game. No two game tables will be the same or even necessarily similar, even if they're playing the same edition of the same system in the same setting with the same canned characters from the back of the same book. So the faster you realize your game is the only game like it, the better off you'll be.
-Rodrigo Lopez, Major Spoilers
-Rodrigo Lopez, Major Spoilers
I've seen a lot of us talk about what we're doing or trying to achieve while we're gaming. Most of us tend to be the type that are trying to advance a story. A few of us tend more toward the mindset of trying to adjudicate a game. Some of us prefer a fusion, some others tend to switch back and forth. These goals influence what we think is the most important thing at the time. The people who prioritise a story are more likely to fudge a die roll (NO FIGHTING ABOUT FUDGING) to make something interesting happen. The people who prioritise a game rule are more likely to let a character fail or die because of a randomised outcome (STILL NO FIGHTING ABOUT FUDGING). That's fine! There's nothing inherently good or bad about any of that.
Here's my take on it: When I run a game, I'm not necessarily telling a story. I'm not necessarily enforcing rules. When I run a game, I'm hosting a tiny, very structured party and my players are all my guests. My goal, and usually the goal of my players, is to have a fun time over the course of a few hours on a given day. Once that's established, everything else becomes a means rather than an end. So if my players like the random event weirdness? I become super rules judge. My players really just want to see where this thing they're doing will go? I become Fudgy McGee, Master of the Hidden Sparkle. My players want to get drunk, kill ogres, and roll around in coins like Scrooge McDuck? Well, ok, no problem, take my tea for a minute I'm gonna draw up an ogre bank to rob.
This doesn't change much if you already have a game going. But it certainly does seem to make the stakes way lower when I start considering if that second crit in a row might make the party tank into a meatloaf or if it's worth just telling them all the bad guys fell in a pond so the fight can be over and they can get back to selling their hilarious hallucinogenic space kopi luwak to casinos.
My method isn't perfect. It takes a lot of crowd-reading. It takes a lot of flexibility of thought. But it makes my players happy and we have good times with good games. So give it a try if you want to. If you don't, it's ok