Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 7722014" data-attributes="member: 85870">[MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION], thanks for the words, I'm trying to think of another way of using the metaphor of directing a theater production (of which I've acted in two dozen over my lifetime) . . . . Think of it like the difference between just reading the script of a play, and actually attending a live performance of that play. That thing that happens when you as an audience member pay your money and go sit in a theater for 2+ hours has only the most superficial of resemblances to the thing that happens when you sit at home and read the script. It's an entirely different construct---it has been constructed, put together, by those involved, with an overarching vision to the whole thing provided by the play's director. The GM's role is much the same. There's an entire swatch of creative energy, vision, perspective, etc., that gets put into a play performance by the director, and in my opinion GM's should see their role as being much the same. While the actors in the play also contribute a great deal---they add their characterizations, voice, body movement, etc.---it is the director's vision that is the key. Granted, the metaphor gets a bit murky when you start talking about player control over the setting. Because in an RPG, it wouldn't be anything out of hand for a player (i.e., an actor in the play) to suggest mid-performance (i.e., mid-session) that they want to suddenly change the set to be a boat, or insist that a new character should be added to the script. And that's the power of creativity we all love in RPGs!  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />But the heart of this idea is that it's the director's job to bring in the disparate elements and create the cohesive whole that will eventually become the live performance. The sets, the decorations, the lighting, the costuming, style choices, etc., all fall on the shoulders of the director. Yes, the actors, stage managers, costumers, etc., all have input to the process, but ultimately it's the director's final say. And ultimately, if a show falls flat, it's the director's fault, because they were the ones in charge of casting, making the set design decisions, etc. GM-ing is much the same way. It's the GM's job to bring together the rules, the chosen setting, the understood genre tropes and conventions, the players' varying outlooks/attitudes, their educational knowledge and experience, and run a game that everyone enjoys.  A good GM has to be willing to shoulder that responsibility, and also shoulder the responsibility of knowing that if the group isn't having fun, it really is their fault and no one else's. Because if the group isn't having fun, it's because of decisions the GM made, or if he or she didn't make them outright, tacitly agreed to.Being a stage director takes a lot of disparate skills. It takes an eye for drama, for spacing and positioning, for color and artistry. It takes a knowledge of the material and its contexts. It takes an ability to get people to buy in to your vision. I think being a GM requires many similar traits, if not applied in exactly the same ways. In this, I think the goal of most good directors is to please their audience and participants alike----as should be the goal of a good GM. On a side note: I think there needs to be a distinction made between "experienced" GMs and "skilled" GMs. It's a general truth that greater experience leads to greater skill, but this isn't always the case. We all have heard stories (or participated in them) of "experienced" GMs who had been doing it for years who were still unskilled. And for me, part of that must mean that simply "doing GM-ing" doesn't build skill, or prepping for sessions/campaigns doesn't necessarily build skill if the preparation isn't done from the right perspective and intent. I read your point earlier that more prep time should naturally equate to greater success in GM-ing. That may often be the case, but not necessarily so. Rather, I'd say that greater skill in GM-ing leads to greater success. Skilled GMs may find they need to spend less time in prep, because they've already honed skills that allow them to do that, whereas unskilled GMs haven't developed their abilities yet to allow them to perform well without high amounts prep. My point is (I think) that skilled GMs don't arise, regardless of how much "prep time" they put in, until they recognize the larger vision of what their role actually entails. Until they recognize that they are responsible for building a creative construct in which others will participate and enjoy, they are unlikely to develop the necessary skills regardless of how much "prep" they do. Spending prep time without an understanding of how your prep time is going to serve the larger "performance" in which your group will engage I find to be largely fruitless.</blockquote>

Verification