Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="KidSnide" data-source="post: 5603437" data-attributes="member: 54710">Like so many aspects of GMing, this type of advice depends a lot on the campaign.&nbsp; Personally, I don't really believe that neutral GMs exist.&nbsp; (It's the philosophy of Legal Realism and Critical Legal Studies as applied to role-playing games.)&nbsp; A GM can be fair (and should be fair), but deciding what exists in the world inherently influences the player experience.&nbsp; Unlabeled deathtraps will feel harsh and unfair, even if adjudicated fairly.&nbsp; Unguarded piles of gold result in the opposite experience.If you're creating a world, you can't avoid putting your thumb on the scale.&nbsp; It's just part of the job.&nbsp; I prefer GMs that are actively involved in guiding the campaign.&nbsp; I'd rather a GM concentrate on their most interesting material and make sure that the PCs don't have to waste time trying to find it.&nbsp; Likewise, I like a GM have &quot;what would be fun for the game&quot; influence what NPCs decide to do.&nbsp; Other people, prefer a GM who creates many options and let's the players choose which direction to go.&nbsp; Those are both valid design philosophies.Chris Perkins makes the observation (correct, IMO) that highs and lows are a major part of the D&amp;D experience and - just as importantly - games are more fun if the players have moments of despair and exultation.&nbsp; The steady march of progress is nice for real life, but makes for an uninteresting game.&nbsp; As such, GMs should design their games with that in mind.How you do that depends on the type of game you're running.&nbsp; A GM that is actively involved in helping decide what the PCs do should plan a course that involves opportunities for extraordinary success and real risks of substantial setbacks.&nbsp; A more sandboxy game should likewise have these opportunities.&nbsp; I think most people would agree.&nbsp; The key point is that the game will be more fun if they happen.&nbsp; That means the opportunities for extraordinary success have to be easy enough to find and accomplish that - in a normal game - the PCs actually achieve some extraordinary successes.&nbsp; Likewise, the opportunities for setbacks need to be dangerous enough and hard enough to avoid that the PCs probably can't escape them all.&nbsp; Regardless of the game, PCs need to have enough agency that the players perceive extraordinary success as an accomplishment and a setback as the result of their own choices (and maybe the dice too).&nbsp; However, GMs should also to adjust the scenario so this type of enjoyable variation takes place.-KS</blockquote>

[QUOTE="KidSnide, post: 5603437, member: 54710"] Like so many aspects of GMing, this type of advice depends a lot on the campaign. Personally, I don't really believe that neutral GMs exist. (It's the philosophy of Legal Realism and Critical Legal Studies as applied to role-playing games.) A GM can be fair (and should be fair), but deciding what exists in the world inherently influences the player experience. Unlabeled deathtraps will feel harsh and unfair, even if adjudicated fairly. Unguarded piles of gold result in the opposite experience. If you're creating a world, you can't avoid putting your thumb on the scale. It's just part of the job. I prefer GMs that are actively involved in guiding the campaign. I'd rather a GM concentrate on their most interesting material and make sure that the PCs don't have to waste time trying to find it. Likewise, I like a GM have "what would be fun for the game" influence what NPCs decide to do. Other people, prefer a GM who creates many options and let's the players choose which direction to go. Those are both valid design philosophies. Chris Perkins makes the observation (correct, IMO) that highs and lows are a major part of the D&D experience and - just as importantly - games are more fun if the players have moments of despair and exultation. The steady march of progress is nice for real life, but makes for an uninteresting game. As such, GMs should design their games with that in mind. How you do that depends on the type of game you're running. A GM that is actively involved in helping decide what the PCs do should plan a course that involves opportunities for extraordinary success and real risks of substantial setbacks. A more sandboxy game should likewise have these opportunities. I think most people would agree. The key point is that the game will be more fun if they happen. That means the opportunities for extraordinary success have to be easy enough to find and accomplish that - in a normal game - the PCs actually achieve some extraordinary successes. Likewise, the opportunities for setbacks need to be dangerous enough and hard enough to avoid that the PCs probably can't escape them all. Regardless of the game, PCs need to have enough agency that the players perceive extraordinary success as an accomplishment and a setback as the result of their own choices (and maybe the dice too). However, GMs should also to adjust the scenario so this type of enjoyable variation takes place. -KS [/QUOTE]

Verification