| From: | Gurth <gurth@******.NL> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: gamemastering |
| Date: | Wed, 23 Aug 1995 11:54:29 +0200 |
>back into the by-the-book mode]? Could an rpg work with a 'referee' instead?
CP2020 calls the GM a referee occassionally, and who cares what name you
stick onto it -- as my high school physics teacher used to say "the beast
needs a name," and I think that holds true here as well. It doesn't matter
what you call it, GM, DM(tm), referee, storyteller, that geek behind the
screen, or whatever, as long as you know what he or she does -- namely
trying to keep a game going without people argueing about it too much. Maybe
you could run an RPG without a GM (sort of like on ShadowTK I think), but
very soon arguments start to pop up, and _that_ is where you need a GM IMHO:
to resolve those disputes. Same thing as with an umpire in <insert sport here>.
Yes, the GM places the PCs in a situation, but if all goes well, I think
it's not so much a situation of the GM saying "What will you do" and the PCs
responding, followed by the GM saying "But that goes against all my plans!
You can't do that. Period." As a GM, you adapt to what your players do,
twisting the intended storyline in such a way that the players can try and
follow it even if they do something totally unexpected. Adaption is the name
of the game, and that's something you can't do without someone in a GM's
position (and never mind the name you give him/her).
>Female figurines with huge hooters wearing chainmail bikinis is also the way
>it IS. That doesn't mean I shouldn't question the design practices of [for
>example] Ral Partha.
Don't get that started again...
>>Are you going to argue with the writer of the adventure you're playing
>>too? Call up FASA and complain that this rule sucks, and since you players
>>outnumber FASA, then FASA should change?
>
>No, we already know how this works - house rules.
So now you're saying that you wouldn't call up FASA but would use house
rules instead? House rules which you dismissed last week as mostly made by
munchkin-wannabes? Or are you being sarcastic?
>Yes, you've made it clear that you don't think it should be a contest [and
>luckily, neither does my current gm]. On the other hand, how many [evil gm
>grin] blurbs have you seen on the list?
*Evil GM Grins* are a _joke_ as far as I'm concerned. (Hell, I once had an
email conversation with one of my PBEM players where she tried to out-evil
grin me so we came up with ever-eviller grins, _for_fun_...) It's _not_ IMHO
a way of the GM saying "I'm better than you" or whatever, it's just seeing
things from a different angle than the players are... As a GM you try to set
puzzles for your players, and the *evil GM grins* are usually the result of
an idea for a nasty puzzle that will hopefully take the players lots of time
to solve. I like it when my players run into difficulties they hadn't
expected, and then find a way around them.
>Or more explicit descriptions of making life miserable for PC's?
I have to agree with you on this one, there are GMs, also on this list (or
at least there used to be :), who are out to make life miserable for the
players. Like when someone says "I've got a player who walks around with 4
spell locks and IMO he is too powerful that way." This is usually followed
by 1001 methods of nuking spell locks. I don't like this style of GMing either.
>Most of the time the MOTIVATION may be to make it more entertaining for the
>PC's. But if this is true wouldn't the collaborative-authorship metaphor be
>more appropriate? IMHO the single-authorship approach is part of the problem
>- the 'author' decides what will be entertaining to the reader and if the
>reader doesn't like it then the reader can take a hike.
I encourage my players to do things by themselves, without me telling them
about it. Too bad it hasn't really worked so far (but I do have them so far
that they invent small things on the spot -- "I dive behind the potted
plant!" when I haven't told them whether or not there is a potted plant).
>[time to put in some
>psychology for Gurth :)] GM's can get the same ego involvement with 'their
>world' as players can get with their characters.
Of course they can. And why shouldn't they?
>Are there a lot of gaming groups in your area
>so that you can easily dump one campaign and join another?
There probably are, without you knowing it... I found a number in my area,
while I had thought there were very few.
--
Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I listen for the voice inside my head
GC3.0: GAT/! dpu s:- !a>? C+(++) U P L E? W(++) N K- w+ O V? PS+ PE Y PGP-
t(+) 5 X R+++>$ tv+(++) b+@ DI? D+ G++ e h! !r(--) y? Unofficial Shadowrun
Guru :)
