Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5046522" data-attributes="member: 22779">While, on the other hand, I think this is absolutely backwards.&nbsp; IMO (and only my opinion) the Gm should be focused on the players first, the campaign second and what happens to be &quot;good for the game&quot; third.&nbsp; If attention to what is good for the game is primary in the minds of the GM, then the Gm must constantly be tweaking, adjusting and making sure that the game runs smoothly.In my mind, putting that responsibility on the heads of the GM is just lazy design.&nbsp; &quot;We can't be bothered coming up with something that works most of the time, so, here's something that works, kinda/sorta, it's now up to you to keep it running.&quot;Personally, I'd much prefer a system that works the majority of the time, so it can run in the background and not need constant patching and adjustment, necessitating a very long learning curve to find out what works and what doesn't.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 5046522, member: 22779"] While, on the other hand, I think this is absolutely backwards. IMO (and only my opinion) the Gm should be focused on the players first, the campaign second and what happens to be "good for the game" third. If attention to what is good for the game is primary in the minds of the GM, then the Gm must constantly be tweaking, adjusting and making sure that the game runs smoothly. In my mind, putting that responsibility on the heads of the GM is just lazy design. "We can't be bothered coming up with something that works most of the time, so, here's something that works, kinda/sorta, it's now up to you to keep it running." Personally, I'd much prefer a system that works the majority of the time, so it can run in the background and not need constant patching and adjustment, necessitating a very long learning curve to find out what works and what doesn't. [/QUOTE]

Verification