Search results

It doesn't help an established running game. You know, the one already in a created world? It might help prior to starting a game, like the way Dresden Files presents the option. But, once a game is running and has an established world, further world-building by all participants doesn't...

Now there is a great example of gate-keeping!

He specifically requested ideas for a running 5e game. That some versions of FATE use collaborative world-building is pretty useless in that context. Buffing inspiration may be a worthwhile endeavour for many reasons, but it isn't going to provide a multi-hour per session outlet for every...

As discussed up thread though, some people feel taint follows the purchase. After all, whomever buys it dared to commerce with and enrich the tainted party.

Sure! I've seen a group of people become interested in playing, get together, and work out the logistics. I've also seen (and been in) groups that had exactly the same enthusiasm get together and then sputter out and go on to separate activities. The difference? No one wanted to GM. It's...

One aspiring DM decided to run a group through the Slaver series when it was first released. The ghouls at the beginning of the module ate us all (twice). We were using the surprise rules in the DMG as written (parties who get surprise get 1 segment of surprise for the difference of the dice...

Bah, less than a decade! It still has remnants of flesh unlike some of the lumbering monsters of late.

The worst time I have is when running variations of the same basic engine (different editions of Hero, or D&D 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.X, for examples). The similarities are enough that I will cross-wire mechanics/jargon.

It makes them important to know if you like attending parties!

I have run dozens of systems. Most were run to test drive the system and see how it performs in actual play. I have a stable of about 10 I tend to fall back to for any single campaign (1e, Hero, Unisystem, Dungeonworld, Aftermath, Ars Magica, Pendragon, BESM, FATE) and I choose a system that...

Everything gets easier with practice, but I don't expect it to get much better. I started running non-D&D games within a year of starting Holmes Basic. It's not like I only know a single trick. Processing people is hard for me. Not hard in the sense I can't do it, more hard in the sense I...

Oh wow, that reminds me of some GMs that thought they were really so good at the improv juggling until I sat down and pointed out the absolutely massive plot holes, refrigerator moments, and inconsistencies that had crept in like 4 sessions! I tend to keep very close track on things as I am...

I tend to disagree. I think it mostly matters what you are good at processing. As I pointed out above, I have a much harder time running Dungeonworld and FATE than 1e or Champions simply because I find maintaining constant pressure and scene framing without forcing much more taxing than...

Just make sure you don't get the first edition. When @pemerton and @Manbearcat were originally talking about how great the game was, I couldn't figure out how this (fairly poor) D&D heartbreaker game was worth the time. Let's just say... it changed radically.

I think we just have different definitions of hard. If multiple people have expressed an interest in doing X rather than Y because Y is harder for them then I'm happy to call Y hard. If Y can be tamed over time with experience, great! That doesn't make it not-hard. Many people consider...

Pretty much. I won't run comedy or horror so if a group of players approaches me to run Teenagers from Outer Space again, they're out of luck. Similarly, I won't play CoC, so if a group is forming and someone says they'll run CoC,, I'm out. Ultimately, the table is formed of a GM and those...

The incompleteness theorem doesn't do that though. It states, roughly, a system will have truths that the system itself cannot prove to be true and one of those truths is whether the system is actually mathematically consistent. It gives no indication what other truths will be outside the realm...

I tend to agree, GMs are more important because if you want to put a new table together, one of the first questions needs to be "Who's running?" thus the first person you need to recruit is a GM. If you put together a group of players none of which want to GM then you still don't have a table.

It's hard enough I've seen GMs step down from the role to play in essentially the same style of game because they couldn't maintain their current situation whether that's because of physical infirmary, emotional turmoil, or overwork. They stepped down to player because it was easier than...

… which is still more than is required of players. As is the amount of scene framing and adjudication the actual session will require. I am amused by some of the arguments that seem to be "See! It doesn't require more than player! I only do this and this and this using learned techniques...