Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6202210" data-attributes="member: 42582">I started GMing for my university group in 1990. The five of us in that group met as players in a 2nd ed AD&amp;D game, but after two or three sessions sacked our GM for railroading and reconvened under my GMing. The game was Rolemaster. The players were D&amp;D players, raised on 1st ed AD&amp;D, plus one had a bit of RM experience. (I had played one session, loved it, and bought the books and taught myself the rules so I could GM it.)So for us, the idea that GM force could be pretty toxic was well established.The next year, I recruited a couple of further players for the group were also seeking refuge from excessive GM force in a 2nd ed campaign.The idea of &quot;GM as god&quot; was never one that I got from the AD&amp;D books I'd read. (I never learned about the 2nd ed text until I visited the Forge over a decade later - I used to play 2nd ed but relied on my 1st ed rules knowledge plus general familiarity with AD&amp;D practices.) And it was certainly widely enough doubted that I was able to build one of the longest-running uni groups out of refugees who wanted a different sort of play experience.This isn't contesting your experience, of course. Nor your claim - which I agree with - that 1989 didn't just turn up unheralded with a brand-new set of GMing advice. I'm really just reiterating the point that playstyles were diverse back then, too, and in all my exposure to D&amp;D - rulebooks, magazines, messageboards, usenet etc - I've never seen any generally shared assumption that the GM is god. Playstyles have always been diverse.I ignored the part that I assumed to be a legacy intended for some other playstyle. The game advertised itself as &quot;back to the dungeon&quot;, and I took this seriously, and so ran it more-or-less in the spirit of classic D&amp;D (I ran Castle Amber for around 6 or 7 6th level PCs) - which is not based around &quot;DM as god&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6202210, member: 42582"] I started GMing for my university group in 1990. The five of us in that group met as players in a 2nd ed AD&D game, but after two or three sessions sacked our GM for railroading and reconvened under my GMing. The game was Rolemaster. The players were D&D players, raised on 1st ed AD&D, plus one had a bit of RM experience. (I had played one session, loved it, and bought the books and taught myself the rules so I could GM it.) So for us, the idea that GM force could be pretty toxic was well established. The next year, I recruited a couple of further players for the group were also seeking refuge from excessive GM force in a 2nd ed campaign. The idea of "GM as god" was never one that I got from the AD&D books I'd read. (I never learned about the 2nd ed text until I visited the Forge over a decade later - I used to play 2nd ed but relied on my 1st ed rules knowledge plus general familiarity with AD&D practices.) And it was certainly widely enough doubted that I was able to build one of the longest-running uni groups out of refugees who wanted a different sort of play experience. This isn't contesting your experience, of course. Nor your claim - which I agree with - that 1989 didn't just turn up unheralded with a brand-new set of GMing advice. I'm really just reiterating the point that playstyles were diverse back then, too, and in all my exposure to D&D - rulebooks, magazines, messageboards, usenet etc - I've never seen any generally shared assumption that the GM is god. Playstyles have always been diverse. I ignored the part that I assumed to be a legacy intended for some other playstyle. The game advertised itself as "back to the dungeon", and I took this seriously, and so ran it more-or-less in the spirit of classic D&D (I ran Castle Amber for around 6 or 7 6th level PCs) - which is not based around "DM as god". [/QUOTE]

Verification