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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="happyelf" data-source="post: 3054685" data-attributes="member: 40394">I thin in a good group, the players help the GM in a lot of ways. My preferred style calls for players to be proactive, and I think overly passive or reactive players put a lot more strain on the GM. Even if the group is mainly directed by the GM, the players should still bring energy and enthusiasm to the table. The Gm should not be left as the sole actor at the table who amps the group up, gives it motion, and tells the story. All these exertions should be shared. The Gm can't haul the game along by themself- the other players have to lend a hand.As for rulings and bad players, the group should recognise that the GM needs the group's support. There are a lot fo situations thta many GM's handle, that lie outside the province of normal GMing- the sorts of these are resolving player conflicts and drama. When it comes to resolving conflicts and other 'dirty work', Some groups prefer to be more democratic, others prefer for the GM to take the lead. But either way the group can't simply leave it up to the GM to do all the grunt work- even if they place authority in his hands, they have to be willing to back up his decisions. The worst case scenario is a group stuck somewhere in between- they exepct the GM to solve the problem, but they won't back them up- or they refuse to talk about the issue, but still expect the GM to run the game with the problem hanging over the grou[s head.It's too easy for players in a difficult situation to dump the mess in the GM's lap, and let them make the hard choices (and maybe lose friends out of it). That's the kind of player behaviour that can really make the GM a choice, even moreso than whatever argument or conlfict caused the problem in the first place.</blockquote>

Verification