Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9817801" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I don't see how it has no impact on your chosen rubric. To whit:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Railroading: Running systems which actively oppose railroading would directly help a GM see how railroading causes problems, while not railroading can be done without harming the cohesion and groundedness of the setting.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Adversarial: Systems which forbid the GM from making rolls could help with this, as could systems which have strong GM-facing rules, so that the GM is aware of what they're doing. I admit, this is a "could" rather than "would", but it still would be very very likely to help, and my lived experience is that it has in fact helped some GMs I've known realize what they're doing wrong.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Inconsistent/unfair adjudication: As above, a system which lives and dies on actually following its rules as they are written will make very clear very quickly that capricious GMing is bad. This is very much a D&D-specific problem because of its culture-of-play, and systems that lack that culture-of-play will make this clear.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Ignoring agency and backstories: There are systems--plural--which are litearlly driven by player agency and character backstory. PbtA games are great examples there, doubly so because they're intentionally easy to pick up and play.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Hogging spotlight/playing favorites: Again, very much something baked into the design of D&D. Playing systems which do not do "spotlight balance" (a concept I personally despise) would help a lot here. It isn't a magic bullet if the GM is simply an @$$#*+&, but for accidental spotlight-hogging/favorite-playing, running other systems is exceedingly likely to reveal the error.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">No improv/non-adapting: This is...literally directly helped by doing systems you aren't familiar with because you will need to improvise at least some of the time...?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Poor pacing/preparation: Running a system you do not know well forces you to think more carefully about what you are doing. This is, again, going to directly contribute to thinking about this sort of thing, and thus developing those skills more.</li> </ul>Neglecting consent or player comfort, consciously capricious/mean-spirited adjudication, and toxic or belittling behavior are not GMing skill failures. They are moral failures long before any consideration of GMing came into the picture. Someone who practices such behavior cannot learn to be better through any amount of running the game--neither depth nor breadth will help. "There are problems that breadth of experience can't fix" Yes, and...? I never said otherwise. More importantly, since depth of experience with a single system won't fix this either, by your logic it doesn't matter how much experience you have of any kind. You can be the world's best GM without ever having run a single game in your life--and you can be the world's worst GM despite having 50 years of experience running your game of choice.So if your argument purports to show that breadth is irrelevant, it also shows depth is too. If your argument isn't showing that breadth is irrelevant, then what is it saying?Given I wasn't judging that...?I'd still say that writing more means you're a better writer. You definitely won't be better at absolutely every form of writing, but that's trivially obvious.Like I don't understand what your objection is here. I have never said that writing multiple genres makes you a genius at all of them. I've simply said that you will be a better writer overall, at whatever you do choose to write, by exposing yourself to a variety of literary sources, and by becoming good at writing more than one style of prose.</blockquote>

Verification