Unfortunately, I've spent too much time as a GM that I can't really speak to my play experience. Yes I've mentioned that I've had some experience as a player lately, but I haven't done it long enough to have the practice to be considered good at it. So this is going to be me talking about my evolution as a Game Master.
One thing that has been consistently important to me as a GM is that the story that comes out of my game sessions is more important than the story that goes in. There are GMs that go in to a session with a fairly strict script, railroading their players on a guided tour of their story. I have no interest in that. Even before I had managed to express it, this is something that I very strongly supported.
My most recent evolution in an increased appreciation for players as content. I've been experimenting with lighter games that require less preparation and are therefore easier to pick up and play (and also play in a coffee shop, which was my gaming venue for a while). And a number of those games manage it by sharing or even off-loading GM authority through the playgroup. While I've understood that players are there to entertain the GM as much as the GM was there to entertain the players, having explicit mechanical support for the approach was very eye-opening.
In a game of InSpectres I ran once, the scenario I had prepared involved a haunted zoo. I went in with a description of weird noises and as things progressed, things were going to get spookier as they player characters investigated the problem. However, since the players had a fairly strong amount of input (players are allowed to describe the results of their successful rolls, while the GM describes their failures), they were able to create clues that led to them discovering animal zombies instead of animal ghosts. If it was a more conventional game, I don't know how doggedly I would have stuck with ghosts or how readily I would have moved it to zombies, but because the players had the authority to insert their own ideas, that's how it came out.
One thing that has been consistently important to me as a GM is that the story that comes out of my game sessions is more important than the story that goes in. There are GMs that go in to a session with a fairly strict script, railroading their players on a guided tour of their story. I have no interest in that. Even before I had managed to express it, this is something that I very strongly supported.
My most recent evolution in an increased appreciation for players as content. I've been experimenting with lighter games that require less preparation and are therefore easier to pick up and play (and also play in a coffee shop, which was my gaming venue for a while). And a number of those games manage it by sharing or even off-loading GM authority through the playgroup. While I've understood that players are there to entertain the GM as much as the GM was there to entertain the players, having explicit mechanical support for the approach was very eye-opening.
In a game of InSpectres I ran once, the scenario I had prepared involved a haunted zoo. I went in with a description of weird noises and as things progressed, things were going to get spookier as they player characters investigated the problem. However, since the players had a fairly strong amount of input (players are allowed to describe the results of their successful rolls, while the GM describes their failures), they were able to create clues that led to them discovering animal zombies instead of animal ghosts. If it was a more conventional game, I don't know how doggedly I would have stuck with ghosts or how readily I would have moved it to zombies, but because the players had the authority to insert their own ideas, that's how it came out.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment