Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Campbell" data-source="post: 6121452" data-attributes="member: 16586">I think we tend to exaggerate the extent to which GMs have a more complete view of play than other players. They might have a better understanding of setting (particularly in home-brewed play), but we tend to place a clairvoyance that in my experience running games is somewhat unrealistic. We might have an agenda and ideas about what might happen, but we have a woefully incomplete idea of what goes through our players heads as well as their concept of the material we are presenting.Speaking personally, I prepare on a session by session basis. I use the established setting to try to put pressure on players to make interesting decisions, but I have a relatively light agenda. When play is proceeding on a solid clip and players are engaged, my job is easy. I do minimal prep with an emphasis on ensuring the initial moments of play drive towards an exciting narrative, but am otherwise hands off. Setting and situation creation decisions are made with an eye towards play and can often occur in the middle of the session.I've tried GMing in a traditional way, but it just did not work for me. I've got a talent for drama, characterization, and mythology, but I make for a poor reality simulation device. I think when we by default demand that GMs must have some preternatural understanding of setting, pace, our players agendas, etc. we're not really being honest with new GMs or ourselves really. The expectations are set too high and we place ourselves on a pedastool above our players that can be harmful to group dynamics.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Campbell, post: 6121452, member: 16586"] I think we tend to exaggerate the extent to which GMs have a more complete view of play than other players. They might have a better understanding of setting (particularly in home-brewed play), but we tend to place a clairvoyance that in my experience running games is somewhat unrealistic. We might have an agenda and ideas about what might happen, but we have a woefully incomplete idea of what goes through our players heads as well as their concept of the material we are presenting. Speaking personally, I prepare on a session by session basis. I use the established setting to try to put pressure on players to make interesting decisions, but I have a relatively light agenda. When play is proceeding on a solid clip and players are engaged, my job is easy. I do minimal prep with an emphasis on ensuring the initial moments of play drive towards an exciting narrative, but am otherwise hands off. Setting and situation creation decisions are made with an eye towards play and can often occur in the middle of the session. I've tried GMing in a traditional way, but it just did not work for me. I've got a talent for drama, characterization, and mythology, but I make for a poor reality simulation device. I think when we by default demand that GMs must have some preternatural understanding of setting, pace, our players agendas, etc. we're not really being honest with new GMs or ourselves really. The expectations are set too high and we place ourselves on a pedastool above our players that can be harmful to group dynamics. [/QUOTE]

Verification