Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- individual adventure modules! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed to plug in to your game.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Blue" data-source="post: 9883979" data-attributes="member: 20564">I see the basics of it, but I don't like it very much.  Basically because the roles don't make sense.  GM as cook and players as consumers is a really old-school way of thinking about it.  The GM does not have a meal without the players, they cannot be "the cook".I'm not sure how to solve it.  It's not a commercial kitchen with everyone following the executive chef.  It's not a pot-luck where everyone coordinate but brings their own thing.Hmm, maybe if we take it back a step.  The GM is the ingredients.  What is at hand to cook with.  If all you have is some stale saltine crackers and half a jar of of chives, the resulting dish isn't going to be much no matter the skill of the chefs.And that analogy puts the players as a bunch of people hanging out together in the kitchen chatting and preparing food.  Alice, Bob, and Charlie are riffing back and forth on an entree with Danielle acting as soux chef, with Edvard making a dessert that everyone will enjoy while checking that everyone is okay with peanuts.  And everyone having as much fun talking as cooking.But even that isn't right, because it captures the GM creating the context and situation that the players create the story in, but it doesn't reflect how the GM enables and reigns in the players, how they move onto the next course or challenge, how they improv a dessert when it turns out that the cake was dropped.Eh, I think the analogy hides more than it illuminates because it takes the GM's large and important role but then consumes how the players are the ones that give it shape and direction and movement.</blockquote>

Verification