Reflecting back on my Pendragon campaign I have realised that I had stagnated as a GM. Rather stark but let me explain. I was still running this like I was running games in the 90s. I was leading the story and having the characters running alongside my storyline. This was traditional DnD GMing at its best [worst?] and really didn't deal with the issues that the players made for the character. I needed to learn.
Following the Iron DM [who seems to pick up any game and run superb sessions] I was losing my way for the group was not having as much fun and a not so subtle nudge was needed to get me out of this mode! We had a gaming style as a group and the way I was running it did not match this. I felt that as the campaign progressed I developed a more story-telling style game but I still think I have more to do. However, as I like to learn and the Iron DM suggested some good reading material [the Tips and Tricks section of the Fate rules as a starter] and put me onto the Sons of Kryos podcast, which I have returned back to the beginning of. GMing is like any skill and you can improve it.
I have also started to buy and read some of the better indie games - Burning Wheel, SOTC, Thousand Suns and Dust Devils - mainly to see how they deal with player ideas and bringing them to the table. It includes the introduction of player and character goals, the use of aspects/beliefs and instincts/hooks/devils and many of the cool things that are happening in rpgs.
Where will this learning take me? Hopefully to run a game of Thousand Suns and, even more challenging, the storytelling game Dust Devils but also to make me better understand where my hobby has gone to and follow it there.
6 comments:
Railroad 'em and bitchslap 'em when they step out of line. That's what I say.
While Ben is being funny, he does sort of have a point.
I don't think what you did in Pendragon was bad there was just a bit of a clash of expectations, probably to different degrees for different people.
There is bad GM'ing, and Pendragon didn't come close at any point I don't think.
You can't also remove the player side here, in somce cases we just didn't deliver. In my view Pendragon had the highest percentage of lonely fun we've had in a game. A part of that is a player issue to tackle.
So yes, improve were you see improvement, but don't necessarily see things you value get thrown out.
But I agree, I need to work a bit on my GM'ing as well. Less so actual delivery and more the prep-to-play cycle.
Ian.
'While Ben is being funny, he does sort of have a point.'
As always, I'm some kind of wise fool lol.
I didn't play in Pendragon but from what I heard from people who did it didn't seem that anyone had an issue with how you GM'd. It doesn't really matter how you GM as long as the end product is an enjoyable game.
It's removing the lonely fun element that I am particularly looking at here and there are a couple of good statements / questions to direct at players to get them thinking and contributing:
1. If you want it to happen just say it.
2. Are there any scenes that anyone wants to see?
A starting point on the development path.
True the end product of Pendragon was a fun campaign and there are elements that really worked that are definitely worth keeping. However, I also realised that I can't sit on my laurels and expect players to play my style. Also the length of the campiagn would necessitate periods when things were not as consistent as at other times. So like anything development work is always good if it improves the end product and that is what I aim to do.
Both Ben and Ian make absolute killer observations in this that are worth repeating:
From Ian - there is a responsibility upon the players to step up in a game session as well
From Ben - as long as the end result is fun, thats cool
From my perspective, as has been said before here and elsewhere, your style re: Pendragon was fine. Where I would be a little disappointed is that we, as players, were so able to sit back and be passive receivers of story rather than active creators of story. When we play other games we are more than capable of leaping forward and grabbing the game by the nuts - why not here? Thats the thing about these so-called new fangled hippy stylings of play. They give the power to the player and as we all know, with great power comes great responsibility!
You can be a very 'trad' GM and still deliver a very empowering game for the players (Exhibit A: BAYUHC)
If you look at our bevvy of GMs, we can all learn and improve. Personally I leave an awful lot of the imagining to my players - my descriptives are terrible. Ian maybe overthinks some of his situations and that leads to disconnects when the players do something off message. Pendragon could have done with some more 'character' in the NPCs that we met alot like Brastias and Robert. The intricacies of Ben's games could easily lead to them being a handheld showcase rather than a game, if the players aren't up and at the table bringing it within the picture he paints. Andrew ... Andrew ... actually, I cannot think of anything wrong with Andrew's games - I think he's a magnificent GM!!!! *g*
My point is that we can all improve, both as GMs and as players. No-one can afford to rest on their laurels and stay still.
I look forward to 1000 Suns very much!
neil
I will simply say that I enjoyed Pendragon greatly. Yes it could have had more player driven plot but the game isnt terribly toned for it.
What we did was highly enjoyable and I disagree with Ian almost entirely. I think the only element of lonely fun was really around Dave and his plot to kill me which became known round the table after a matter of weeks.
Andrew
Post a Comment