Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="uzirath" data-source="post: 8257281" data-attributes="member: 8495">I'm curious to flip this around a bit and think of my experiences as a player. I don't typically care much if a GM prepares ahead of time or not. I care, of course, if the game is a fun experience that was worth my time. With some GMs, that seems to require prep: if they don't have time to prepare, they get flustered and spend too much time looking things up or changing their mind or whatever. Others seem to do fine with little prep. I have in the past gotten frustrated when the fiction becomes inconsistent. If my notes about a past session say one thing but the GM forgets, that tends to push me out of my happy place as a player. Similarly if some mechanic worked one way and now it works a different way for no apparent reason, that can be frustrating too. If the GM is creative and humble enough to incorporate corrections or provide a post hoc explanation, I'm good with that (and I strive to do that as a GM myself). I did have one GM, though, who played very fast and loose all the time. I found his games really fun for short adventures. When I played in a longer campaign, however, it didn't work as well for me. There were so many inconsistencies that it started feeling like our choices didn't matter.At the time of that game, I was annoyed that the GM wasn't more organized. I felt like he should have been doing more to prepare and keep track of locations and NPCs. (It was a space opera setting where we were always galavanting around the galaxy.) After reading many of these threads, I think it may also have been that the RPG we were playing at the time (a small indie game called Persona) didn't have enough structure around who was empowered to drive the fiction. It was, in some ways, a traditional GM-driven game trying to be more oriented toward protagonism.</blockquote>

Verification