GM's teach the players how to play in their game
dugfromthearth:
There seems to be a natural reaction that this is a terrible thing and should not even be suggested. But GM's teach players how to play in their game.
One GM in every system has enemies try to surprise us for almost every fight. You have to make a perception roll or you are surprised. So in his games perception skill is very valuable.
Another GM describes his campaign in some fanciful and exotic terms (like x-files investigation, swashbuckling, etc) and then shortly after the game begins he switches it to be something different. He seems to think he is being clever and we should enjoy it. So I have learned to ignore his description of the campaign and make a combat heavy character as that is what the campaigns always turn into.
Some GM's have lots of locked doors, some have none. Some expect you to get captured, some don't. Some have social interactions be vital to the game, others only care about combat.
Every GM teaches the players through their actions and how they run their games how to play in their games.
Callan S.:
I'm going to agree in a roundabout way...
If someone hits you with a cricket bat, does that mean they ARE the cricket bat? No - the cricket bat is a tool - a mechanism they applied to you.
I would say the GM didn't teach you. Instead there was a mechanical consistancy to what mechanics the GM applied to you. And you engaged those mechanics like someone learning chess by engaging it's mechanics.
GM's need to take responsibility and conciously realise the mechanics they are applying to players, rather than just do stuff that then applies a mechanic that enables or rewards one playstyle, but then they try and yet again blame the player for, gasp, actually engaging that playstyle (your bait and switch/make a combat heavy PC comes to mind)
I think it's important to not just say it's the GM and instead say it's the GM applying mechanics. If he doesn't recoginise the mechanics he's applying - well, he just wont be concious of what he's doing to do anything about changing it.
Moreno R.:
I think it's more correct to say that people learn to play together. (and this ties nicely with the Bass Playing metaphor).
The players learn to play with a GM, or with each other as GM (in the group where more than one player rotate on the role), or with no GM in the games where there is no GM, and with each other in all there cases, and this include the GMs learning to play with the other players too.
One of the most precious bits of "forge wisdom" forged in the last years is that "GMs are players too". Everyone play, with different authorities and responsibilities. But everyone play. And so, has to learn to play with the other players.
Saying that "The GM has to teach the player how to play" irk me a little because it seems like he is above the others, that he is always right and has nothing to learn, and the other players are the one to have to adapt to what he want. Like they are not playing together, but like they are doing something that can't really be called "play", that has more to do with ego stroking that with having fun together.
But it's only a bad impression left by a role-playing subculture built on things like there. There is really no reason to consider this case "bad" in absolute, it's simply possible that the GM is the only one who has played before or the only one who has read the rules, so he have to teach them playing.
What I would consider "bad" (not in an absolute way, like a sin, but bad for that group) is considering this not a specific case among others (I have played many times games where I was the one teaching the rules and I wasn't the GM) but "the rule", thinking about the situation not as a group of people who are starting to play together and will be naturally better with time, but more like a cult-like relationship with a "guru" who will teach them how to play to please him...
oculusverit:
It seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that in most traditionally GM-"led" games that, well, let's look at a basketball analogy:
The game involves two teams, rules for the game to make it fair for both teams, a neutral referee to make sure the rules are being followed correctly, and a court to house the goals and obstacles for the game.
In a basketball game, all of these things are separate, discrete things, which makes the game fair from the start. In a roleplaying game, however, we have one team (the PCs, each played by a distinct player), and we have a separate rules set (the game being played). Then we have the GM: in Illusionism, we have to pretend that somehow the GM is at the same time responsible for creating a fair court to play in (the story), as well as being a neutral referee of the rules, AND plays the opposing team (the antagonists). But the objectives of the opposing team (to beat the PCs), of the referee (to be fair and neutral), and of the court/story (to be interesting to the players, as well as to not end too quickly) are sometimes at cross-purposes.
I think Ron has explained this before, from what I've read, in a different way, as the different duties that a GM has. Moreno was right that the GM is another player in the game, and it has to be fun for him/her... but if the GM wants to only play combat oriented games, and then lies to players to get them to play this combat game pretending it's going to be something else instead... well, that's not fair is it? And players who encourage the GM to not only "run the game" but also run THEM that way are just too lazy or comfortable, thinking this is the "only game in town" and putting the GM's enjoyment over their own... they need to either make their needs known or find another game to play in.
--Kinch
dugfromthearth:
I agree with the comments
the GM is playing as well, and the GM teaches how to play against/with them
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page