Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 7656659" data-attributes="member: 6696971">This variance is GMing agenda, principles and joys is no small thing.  It wouldn't make me unhappy in the least to see the conversation dovetail into a conversation about the divergence on this very issue from one GM to a next and its attendant effect on play.As people who read my posts are probably well aware, I come down squarely on the  [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] side of the issue.  I've never enjoyed pre-game world-building or the intricacies and nuance of setting development.  To be honest, its probably fair to say that I rather loathe it.  Alternatively, I've steeped myself in the lore of FR and Planescape because perhaps 20 - 30 players that I GMed for in 2e and 3e wanted me to run games in those settings.  But I hated it.  Every minute of it, from the learning of it to the binding application of it in play, and how it seemed to create within those players (who wanted it) a sense that they just wanted to be passive surveyors of their beloved setting...entertained by my bringing to life the goings-ons and whirly-gigs within my personal iteration of their favorite canon.Over the course of these 30 years of GMing, I've found that I like very specific things about GMing:1 - Ruminating upon and then devising the most interesting and open-ended ways to hook into the dramatic premises that emerge (either at the PC build stage or in the early stages of play) in each player's character.2 - Executing consistently on driving play toward the conflicts that the players are interested in and letting their actions and the resolution mechanics dictate where things go.3 - Prepping extremely low (but that prep having lots of thematic potency and utility), improvising hard, and being proud of and surprised by the results of play.4 - Observing and using the subtle cues my players give me and exploiting my low prep in order to get to know my NPCs during play and then watch the world manifest and grow as we build it and add to it.5 - Knowing precisely how, when, and when not to use the almighty GM advantages, "the offscreen" and "the metagame."6 - Understanding dramatic momentum, how to build it, how to let the conflict snowball, and then let it climax.7 - Challenging my players themselves, challenging myself in the process, and never subordinating their protagonism or player agency by suspending or overturning the outcomes of their action declarations + the resolution mechanics.I guess those are the top 7.  Writing an extensive meta-plot/adventure, world-building and setting design aren't even on the list.  Personally, when I consider the meta-plots/adventures I've run and the "steeped in canon" worlds/settings that I've run, I find it liberating for myself personally (from a mental overhead standpoint) and liberating from a play perspective to be rid of them both.   This is because there is no need for any heavy-handed GMing or GM force (no over-leveraging of the off-screen, no fudging, no sneaky suspension/abridgement of the action resolution mechanics) and I can just abide by some simple principles, a clear agenda, observe the rules and I can then play to find out what happens just like the players.Interestingly enough, I also dislike being involved too heavily in the translation and adjudication of vague or over-complex resolution mechanics!  My guess is that certain folks reading this post are likely thinking "...dude....you hate GMing!"</blockquote>

Verification