Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 7722008" data-attributes="member: 85870">GM-ing is hard. Correction: GM-ing well is hard. If being a good GM could be directly correlated to "prep," then most of us would have good GMs all the time. And based on what I read here and elsewhere, good GMs are the exception, not the norm. I was asked by a friend to join their 5e campaign recently, in addition to my primary group. It's a group where the GM is running "Curse of Strahd" literally straight by the book. To the point that he will actually read the description text boxes. This is a 45-ish year old, working professional male. His baseline "preparation" was to read through the adventure path several times, take copious notes, and have a bunch of 3x5 index cards for reference. Yet in spite of his prep, the actual gameplay is lifeless, dead, and hollow. So why is that, if he's put in an "acceptable" amount of prep time? The issue is that prepping to GM isn't helpful if it isn't done with the right perspective. Real prep isn't simply spending time delving into the system, or reviewing/creating encounters and stats. I've said it before, but being a good GM is more akin to being the director of a play---the difference is that the script isn't written beforehand. But just because the script isn't written beforehand doesn't mean the same principles of directing a play apply. As a GM you are still responsible for the overall construct of the action, drama, and thematic/genre sensibilities that will exist within your "play". And the word "construct" is entirely key here---it is something that must be intentionally built. The choice to "prep" without intentionally trying to design a specific kind of construct is still a choice to design a construct; it'll just be one without any real guiding direction or vision (and will invariably suck).It's the difference between a group of actors standing in place on stage, holding scripts in hand and reading to the audience, and that same group of actors being in costume, moving around on stage (using blocking), and having real props and sets. And to be clear, "the rules" are only a single aspect of the construct. They can often be a foundational aspect, but they are only one aspect. The group's written and unwritten social contract is part of that construct. The sources and inspirations you draw from, and how widely versed you are within those sources---whether they be factual/historical, fictional, scientific, artistic---are part of that construct. A GM who fails to understand this concept---that the group experience is one that must be built, and you as the GM are largely responsible for the giving that construct its basic form---is never going to be good GM, regardless of how much "prep time" they spend.The reason it's hard to be a first-time GM---or an "any time" GM, for that matter---is for this reason. Now granted, you can "shortcut" the process of building the construct a bit when you know the rules really well, and have a broad base of knowledge and inspiration, and have a solid, functioning group contract. But just because you can take shortcuts in building the construct doesn't mean it needn't be built at all. Someone complaining, "Why can't they just create a system that's easier to GM without all the prep?" is someone who hasn't understood this concept yet. Yes, system makes a difference, but you're still responsible for the entirety of the construct. Barring unusual circumstances, I'd much rather play with a GM who groks this concept and preps for an hour a month, as opposed to a GM who preps 25 hours a month but hasn't a clue about how to build the construct.</blockquote>

Verification