Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6107648" data-attributes="member: 42582">Hussar is requesting that the GM use his/her scene framing authority to frame interesting scenes. As per my quote upthread from Ron Edwards, he is asking the GM to take suggestions. I don't see how that is a controversial thing to do!This is a curious argument against the GM framing scenes in response to player priorities rather than the GM's preconception of how things should go!No I'm not. Rather, I'm taking Hussar at his word that his GM did not do this, and that the players in that scenario were not interested in it being done either.By "player driven" I mean following player cues so as to maintain interest, engagement and momentum. A sure sign that things have gone wrong is that, even years later, a player remembers the episode as boring and exemplary of bad GMing!Why would the GM be rolling?I can think of dozens, maybe hundreds, of scenarios I would rather play through or GM than what you describe here. And none of them involves "grinding through a dungeon crawl" - and I don't know on what basis you are describing Hussar's play in that way.Are you describing your preferences here? Fine. Are you telling me that I should share them? Well sorry, I don't.I'm not assuming that the time-teleportation GM I described upthread engaged in bad GMing. I know it - I was there. Likewise Hussar. He is not making his assumptions. He is reporting his experiences of bad GMing. I don't really understand why his testimony is treated as suspect, and the GM - about whom we know nothing other than Hussar's report that he provided a boring session - is being put forward as some paragon of the GMing art.For me, that   [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] thought it was an irrelevant distraction is good evidence that it was. Hussar has stated that it was bad GMing, and what he's described is utterly consistent with patterns of bad GMing that I'm quite familiar with, and that I attribute to certain tendencies in RPG advice and practice dating from the mid-to-late 80s and continuing through the 90s. Two basic features of that advice are (1) an assumption that combat is antithetical to roleplaying, and (2) an assumption that if only the amount of GM narration of setting and backstory were to increase, and player immersion in that narration to increase, the game would be more rewarding, more "story-like" and a "truer" RPG experience.Oddly enough, this advice was often given in the context of games that have no serious action resolution mechanics other than for combat. But that also leads to a connection between (1) and (2): the absence of non-combat action resolution means that moving away from combat is also moving into terrain in which GM narration and, to a significant extent, GM fiat is the sole determinant of action resolution and hence of plot development.</blockquote>

Verification