Search results

I suppose I can see that but if a game or a playstyle is one I don't much enjoy I don't feel qualified to make GM-side decisions regarding it. Possibly I'm having a harder time than most at getting out of my own head about this.

Why would anyone want to run a game they didn't or wouldn't much enjoy playing? Among other things I don't think I'd have a sense of how to do so. EDIT: That is not a rhetorical question. I understand there are people who do run games they don't or wouldn't much like as players and I am...

I do not do anything as a GM which I would abhor a GM doing if I were playing. I run games I'd love to play in.

Indeed. It's the difference between considering a character trait as a mostly-consequence-free descriptor or as a disadvantage to be worked around or as a story-engine to be leaned into. Someone who prefers one of those but is playing a game that is written for another is likely to have or be a...

This seems like a good description of the idea. It seems to capture the problem I've seen and had with this type of play which is that if you as a player want to play an honorable character you might not want that to be under threat from the game. That's really more a matter of taste than good/bad.

If your problem is that the people who like "Story Now" games like Apocalypse World and Burning Wheel and Blades in the Dark like them so uncritically that you can't understand what they're telling you then ask me. I didn't much like them in play but that's not about failing to understand them...

I agree. They might not prep between sessions anything like as much as the GM but that's not close to the same thing as "passive."

Thanks for the examples. I haven't run Blades in the Dark and didn't enjoy play enough to really feel drawn to doing so.

If there's an established setting I can get a more-conventional game happening roughly from scratch in under an hour if the players are on the ball and willing and know the setting. Between sessions my prep varies from about five minutes to about an hour depending on the game and situations and...

A quibble with apologies. My experience of play in games like Dungeon World and Blades in the Dark is nowhere near as extensive as yours but it certainly felt to me as though the GM was choosing what elements to engage especially when the opportunities arose to make Hard Moves. Much less in the...

Or everyone will put in about the same amount of work making about the same amount of game stuff and the GM will at least in principle have more bandwidth available to run the game and make appropriate and engaging decisions. That's been closer to my experience.

I am approximately 100% certain the OP does not "show up casually." It's not my preferred style but running a game like Blades in the Dark or Apocalypse World requires a lot of engagement from the GM. GMing those games isn't from that I can tell particularly prep-intensive but neither is play...

I have had players give me thousands of words of backstory. My own tend toward about 500 these days. If no one gives me backstories I can go around the table asking each player like six questions and I'm good. And I don't just show up casually. While I might not put hours into a given session...

Seems as though this is something of a false dichotomy. There's no reason a GM cannot prep a setting in which situations arise that directly engage the characters' backstories and motivations and whatnot. The players can provide elements the GM can grab and the GM can determine what those...

I have found that you can have the players make the characters before deciding on goals and that works at least as well. These days the only interference among my gaming friends and acquaintances is if there's either some premise we're trying to stick to or if a given GM has something they...

Honestly it is neither a mystery nor a recreational impossibility. If you want the story of the game to be about the PCs then you make the game about the PCs. You can choose one of the myriad games that purport to have that as their explicit intent or you can run a more-conventional game to be...

A good friend of mine talks about starting campaigns by getting the PCs together and instigating like heck. Then once things are going he starts weaving in things the players have given him as interests whether in the optional backstories or in conversations or whatever. Later he makes sure they...

Outside of some probably-rare instances the player may change their character's beliefs as they see fit but the GM has say over the precise in-game timing of the change.

PC backstories are usually optional. I've seen the occasional player get carried away but nothing horrific. The groups I'm with usually write setting information down and it's up to the players how much they want to engage with it.

Yes. Everyone at the table needs to ask questions and use the answers.