GMing?
Mathew E. Reuther:
You're referring continually to what is essentially a one-on-one session in your posts. You might find that your style actually improves when you have more players influencing things. I know that I personally prefer games with a larger number of players, and that when I do run one-on0one stuff it is preferable that it be part of a larger game, usually between sessions.
Just a thought, as I don't know what the situation is like in your area. If there's really no alternative for you in person, you might try to get involved in a play by email or chatroom game group as this might give you the larger group you need to shine.
Callan S.:
Hi TS,
Alot of people will mention prep as if it's part of playing the game, when really in alot of traditional RPG's it's not part of playing the game, it's what your doing to actually make there be any game to play at all! That's inventing an RPG, really. It's not easy!
Quote
my mind blanked, and I turned what could have been an interesting scene into a miserable failure.
Okay, second you seem to be 100% taking on the responsiblity for something interesting to happen.
Rewind to your fun example from another GM
Quote
The RPG that got me hooked on role-playing games was a D&D campaign. One of my friends was the DM, and he did a very good job. It was an intrigue/adventure campaign, with plenty of allies who weren't allies, and enemies who weren't enemies. The highlight of the game for me was a tense diplomatic negotiation with a Halfling we had attacked earlier by mistake. One of the party members, a cleric, provoked the Halfling's son to a duel, and another of my party members, a fighter/barbarian, went into a rage and charged the Halfling. It was a truly fascinating incident, one that I'll remember for a long time. I can't even compare it to any of the scenarios in the campaigns I've GM'd, unless you consider the two scenes I've outlined above.
Did the GM tell the group to attack the halfling? Did the GM tell one player to provoke the halflings son to a duel? Did the GM tell the barbarian to go beserk?
No! What's made this scene vibrant are players choices in how their character acts. It's not 100% on the GM's shoulders to be interesting!
Now if there was a problem with your scene, is that the scene opens with the scene/it's elements pretty much resolved already. I mean, he's been busted out and...there's no other element of trouble/potential trouble there to interact with/set off.
It depends - do you want to definately ensure something interesting happens? Or do you want to set up troubles/potential troubles and then the players take up part of the job of making it interesting by playing out their characters engaging the troubles/stuff?
Ron Edwards:
Hi TS,
Let's take a look at the system you're using. Wushu is, bluntly, a hamster wheel, which means a lot of cycling through mechanics that seem to be doing something, when in fact they do nothing in terms of moving in-game events into new and interesting circumstances. You talk in order to accumulate dice to roll, and you roll the dice in order to talk. I consider it one of the weakest systems of the last ten years. It's effectively a 90s "ignore the system" device disguised as Hot New Indie.
Such a system puts you in a tough position as GM. Either you take on full authority over exactly how Situations arise and how the mechanics' outcomes turn into Plot, or nothing happens. Which means you're effectively screenwriter, director, producer, and most of the actors. Some people claim they like doing this. I've tried it for many years and I hate it, whether I'm GM or player. The players are called upon for maximum blather in terms of color, but can't really accomplish anything or initiate anything without the GM's say-so.
This is only one piece of a really big question: what makes this activity fun, anyway? Chris and Callan have laid out a lot of different aspects and points of it already, so I'm tossing in this bit about system too.
Best, Ron
Ar Kayon:
I agree with Callan's post. Play seems to actually be better the more you improvise and the less you plan. This is from my own experiences, of course, and I can't speak for anyone else. Perhaps some people do well with a good deal of planning, but that doesn't seem like you.
Perhaps what makes it good is that players don't feel like they're being controlled by an outside force, even if the events seem completely contrived (and then...a cyborg BEAR!). In my opinion, I believe it would be a good idea for you to practice free-form gaming, and then slowly introduce planned elements to get an idea of what works and what doesn't.
Rush Wright:
Wow, thanks to all of you for all this advice! I've been following your advice/suggestions and my campaigns are much more interesting now than they were a few weeks ago.
Thanks again,
TS
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page