>>44580175 Yes I do. I'm that rare breed of GM that actually enjoys it more than he does playing it, and I'm doing it NOT because nobody else wants to do it.
I like GMing because I view it as sort of being an entertainer. I can't sing, I can't dance, I'm horrible at stand-up comedy, I can't play an instrument, but I can at least tell you a nice interactive story.
It's fun for me to see all the neat PC shenanigans. Plus just the usual OOC banter at the table amongst friends.
GMing is the only way my friends and I will have a game. One has been forever GM and wants a break. No one else wants to step up, and even if they did, only two of the five of us even make characters instead of stat sheets with a nametag.
Tl;dr only way I get to approach playing, so I'm forced to "like" it.
Disturbingly few GMs live up to my standards for three things: (1) fairness in all things, especially with regard to even-handedness across players and respecting player investments, (2) mechanical consistency, and (3) setting lore consistency.
I care for very little in a GM besides these three things. I am perfectly fine with being railroaded, having zero player agency, unmemorable NPCs or scenarios, or being subjected to many other things most other players would take issue with. Oddly enough, I am completely accepting of such things (although I strive to avoid them when I am the one GMing, because my players would rather not be put through these).
However, nearly every GM I come across is a resounding failure at these two things. That is why I take it upon myself to GM instead, such that I may be the GM I have always wanted to play under. Thus, I can personally promote myself fairness in all things, mechanical consistency, and setting lore consistency.
The end result is me having entered a cycle of GMing three times a week (sometimes, four times) for an average of six hours each time.
Unfortunately, even after many months of GMing like this, I still do not live up to my own standards and thus consider myself a failure of a GM.
I like doing voices I enjoy making my friends laugh with interesting characters I enjoy crafting stories and improvising I get an incredible rush of power when I reveal that everything the party has done (all willingly) has been contributing to the BBEG's plan
I like GMing because I like it when games are structured properly and the game always keeps up a distinct pace with no waffling around or doing-nothing. Nothing bores me more than IRC games where the players all sit down to drink tea and pretend to be little girls and discuss and do absolutely nothing meaningful.
Most GMs don't know how to structure their games, so I find myself GMing because I'd rather do it right and be behind the GM screen than be a player and languish as it's done horribly, horribly wrong.
Also, there is a distinct pleasure to figuring out how to structure a game in an interesting and interactive way and watching how things go once the players start playing, and then back-and-forthing with them. It's far more mentally stimulating than being a player, frankly.
I'm still pretty new to GM'ing and roleplaying in general but so far I've enjoyed it even more than playing. I guess I like the worldbuilding and watching people react to what you put in front of them.
>>44580213 This entertainer thing is pretty spot on, players saying 'I had fun' is my fetish
I think I also prefer GMing because ultimately I just trust in my own fun-making skills more than I do other people's. Not that I haven't played with great GMs and great players, it's just that other people are always an unknown variable, and if I'm a GM I have more agency to twist variables into fun things than I do as a player.
>>44580175 I like being able to come up with a world, and scenarios and then sit back and let my players interact with it. My players are really active so they make my job really easy. I run nWoD (CofD) so it's not D&D, but my area is homebrewed and it's just as much mine as a D&D world.
I like telling stories. I love roleplaying. I'm also a much better roleplayer than most of my group. So by GMing, I can tell stories and by my roleplay and careful prodding of the players increase the quality of their RP.
I seek neither drama nor engagement as a player. It is not a priority for me, although it is a reasonably welcome addition, and I respect GMs whose fortes are such things.
Fairness, mechanical consistency, and setting lore consistency, on the other hand, are extremely high-priority for me. I have great difficulty deriving entertainment from a game when such factors are missing.
>>44580175 Each session is a test in planning and improvisation. Character, plot, theme, all turns on the hair of unexpected input from the players. Keeping up with them and keeping them entertained pushes my creative and story telling ability.
Because when I was younger, I always wanted to be the villain; the magnificent bastard pulling strings behind the scenes and twisting everyone to his schemes. As I got older, I dawned on me that I just wasn't that kind of person; I was too kind, too... absent minded.
DMing lets me be the bad guy without being a bad guy.
The phrase I have been using is "a holistic blend of 2e, 3.X, and sometimes even 4e lore."
4e lore comprises perhaps only ~0.5-1% of this blend, and it mostly concerns late-cycle 4e lore that was deliberately supposed to continue the Great Wheel's lore, specifically referencing the baernaloths, Maeldur et Kavurik, Pelion, Larsdana ap Neut, obyriths, and other relatively obscure planar topics.
The remainder of the mix is predominantly 2e and 3.X lore.
When planning out Planescape games, I have often found myself having to "fill in" for topics that have had sparse preestablished lore on them. I attempt to make my own material as internally consistent with preestablished lore as possible, down to cross-referencing various sourcebooks and consulting a certain other Planescape expert for their opinion on any given extrapolation.
Sometimes when I play as a PC I get a bit distracted from what's at hand, especially when the GM gets wrapped up in another player's business and I'm left to sit for a bit. As a GM, I am always occupied, which lends itself to me having fun. Very rarely does it become overwhelming to me.
I also like the highly creative aspects, as well as helping make a nice story for the players by incorporating themes and scenarios I think their characters would respond well to. Also the power aspect. God damn.
You would be surprised by how often GMs present inconsistencies in setting details, and then scramble to conjure forth a contrived, after-the-fact rationalization when that inconsistency is pointed out.
I should know, because I often find myself forced to do the same, although I admit my mistake each time. I find myself perpetually admitting to "behind the scenes" mistakes and apologizing for them as a GM.
Spotting these is easier when one presses the GM for as many details as possible about their homebrew world before the campaign begins, particularly those pertinent to one's player character. Some GMs appreciate the questions, while others inexplicably find it wearying and unnecessary; I will never comprehend the latter group.
>>44581524 >presses the GM for as many details as possible about their homebrew world before the campaign begins, particularly those pertinent to one's player character. The best response to this is always 'I don't know, make some shit up'. Then you sew it all together.
I *always* present this offer of collaborative world-building to my own players, but never have any of them accepted it, perhaps out of a traditional perception of the supposed boundaries between GM or player. Yes, this exact thing happens even when we are playing, say, Fate (and I had just run a Fate session hours ago).
Another thing that baffles me about many a player and a GM is that they all claim to wish to "tell a story together," yet every single one of them balks at the idea of the GM telling the players a rough idea of what is *likely* to happen in advance in the next session or two. Surely, if a group of authors were indeed collaborating together to "tell a story," they would not be so daft as to keep critical information away from one another, now, would they?
I am wholly willing to tell players in advance what is likely to happen in advance in the next session or two. If they would like for me to, I can go into as much detail as they desire. All of them refuse out of a desire to "not be spoiled." Naturally, I do not even bother asking for something similar when I am a player, even though I am perfectly capable of enjoying a story (particularly when participating in it) despite having a good idea of what will happen next.
I do not understand the stigma against knowing in advance what is likely to happen.
>>44581458 >You've got an opinion so different from my own that I feel like I just reached a new level of understanding of human consciousness just from seeing the vast gap between our two viewpoints. You... you got mindbroken into enlightenment. GG, you're an Unknown Armies character now.
>>44581606 >All of them refuse out of a desire to "not be spoiled." Huh, really? >>44581068 >>44580213 These, though I do enjoy playing. Even if I'm a bit self-conscious about annoying other players or the GM by being too-present in the story or in terms of talking too much/describing too long etc. >>44580175 Aside from the above, I enjoy... well. Creating, really.
I am not too great a fan of uncertainty either. If I had my way, I would run resource-based diceless RPGs that emphasize forethought and decision-making skills, but the players I am "compatible" would hardly consider such a thing.
Nothing is too small to point out, if I do spot an inconsistency in the first place. (I imagine that I miss the vast majority of them, although one of the GMs I play under has a very good sense of setting consistency.)
>Can come up with lore for races and how they fit into the world >Can't come up with actual NPCs besides the "important" ones >Can't even decide on a system to host it in so I just default to D&D 3.5 no matter how much I'm sick of the shit Fuck
>>44581668 Huh. You know, that might actually be quite enjoyable; just a test of skill and wits without the ever present spanner that is RNG.
As for uncertainty; you kinda just have to put yourself in those situations. Its terrifying, but believe me you will probably end up better for it.
>>44581690 If you really want to move, go to 5e first. Its fairly similar so the transition will be relatively painless, and it actually has some character/personality building tools in it to get you started. Just remember you can go beyond if you want to.
>>44581702 If he is autistic, then no, he won't. Not that its his fault, of course.
First of all, I get to play a huge array of characters. I play in a setting that makes it very easy to generate interesting characters from a simple start, and I have a lot of fun coming up with mannerisms, styles, descriptions, etc then getting to use or play them. Sometimes I'll come up with a character that the party really likes and they get to expand their role in the story, and that's always a lot of fun.
I also get to include all sorts of exotic scenarios and scenes, and it's a lot of fun taking my inspirations and putting a lot of creative effort into turning them into something else. I take great joy in coming up with beautiful environments and unique locations that provide awe-inspiring vistas as well as interesting locations for fights, then having the players move through them.
Ultimately, I think it's because I get to tell a story without knowing exactly what happens. I get to come up with really interesting ideas for encounters and see how they play out without knowing in advance what would happen or being able to predict exactly what comes next. It's really engaging, and there's nothing else quite like it.
>>44580681 >I get an incredible rush of power when I reveal that everything the party has done (all willingly) has been contributing to the BBEG's plan Then what happens? Does everything fall apart as the BBEG wins and the party loses?
>>44581775 Not who you're responding to, but you can have that happen without it necessarily being a railroad. As long as you present enough clues and hints (and then a few more to be safe, because what might seem obvious to you probably isn't to people who aren't you) there's nothing wrong with pulling that sort of twist.
It only becomes a problem when it's brought up at the end and the players never had a chance of figuring it out.
I put a lot of time and effort into knowing the game well enough so that I can give the players a hook and just adapt the rest of the adventure to whatever they want to do. Anything can be an adventure if you're willing to improvise a little.
I find that most DMs (that I've played with, anyways) railroad players pretty hard. They write a specific story or scenario and expect the players to just play along, which is really boring, especially when the DM is shit at creating scenarios.
For example, I once rolled a bard in a 3.5e game and put a lot of points into skills related to deception. We come upon a guard that we need to pass in order to meet with an important person in the local government. None of the other players see a way past, so I attempt to disguise my character as a woman (rolled a 20, too!) to woo the guard away and then knock him out.
It turned out that the DM had created an elaborate way for us to get into this place involving climbing around the back of the building and using erosion to break away an old wall. He was apparently pretty proud of this thing he had created. So, he flat out says "you can't do that".
It's like these people don't know how role-playing games work.
>>44581790 4e looks fun as hell but the leap might be hard for the one other veteran in my group. He tends to be a slight 3aboo. >>44581794 >>44581804 The only problem for me going to 2e is race/class restrictions.
>>44581891 THAC0 is easy to replace with something else - that doesn't stop it from being bad.
And besides, I mentioned far more issues. Incredibly bullshit monsters and traps that are essentially death no save or have absurdly specific weaknesses, elven archers, the psionics system, a skill system that just isn't really there and bizarre GP/XP tables that make bards better spellcasters than wizards for almost the entire game due to them getting far more XP than wizards do, etc etc.
>>44581101 > My players are really active Fuck you, you cock-gobbling faggot. I am so jealous. When I play - which is quite rare since I do prefer GMing over it - I usually grab the bull by its horns and go where no man has ever been before, always being proactive and interested in things around. Why do I always get players who just sit there (after asking for a sandbox game where "they can have player agency" and go "uhm...eh....mm" every time a situation with a modicum of uncertainty presents itself?!
>>44581935 >Incredibly bullshit monsters You mean monsters that remain a threat even if the party is high level? >traps that are essentially death no save Due to an actual understanding of what hitpoints are and how they function in terms of mechanics >elves You really didn't want to fuck with elves OR dwarves. Ever read that comic about happy songs being about killing invading humans? >psionics Was bolted on trash by a trash company. >skills Unintuitive, but made it so that you either succeeded entirely or did not. >bards being better than wizards Look up what Bards actually were in the classic sense. They were not traveling minstrels like in your medieval fantasy, the Bard was one of the giants of Druidic culture, a man of incredible singular learning, skill, and knowledge. A Bard was SUPPOSED to be better than a wizard, because anyone could be a wizard, and only a man among men could be a Bard.
>>44581935 >THAC0 is easy to replace with something else - that doesn't stop it from being bad.
Keep in mind we aren't talking about a shortcoming in the system, we're talking about a shortcoming with *you* specifically. We aren't replacing it with anything else, merely representing the same exact data in a way more intuitive to modern minds.
Most of your other concerns are either total nonsense or merely to taste.
Stuff like the demilich was just from an obscure module and it needn't be engaged at all. The monsters that are instant death are almost universally slow, relatively vulnerable melee types.
The kit? Archery isn't exactly an easy to abuse combat method. More people are worried about, you know, bladesingers..
>the psionics system
Low information RPGers tend to have a problem with psionics in any incarnation due to not understanding the rules. Let me guess, this is something retarded like "ermagerd disintegrate at level 2?"
>bards better spellcasters than wizards
Bards are almost nonfunctionally bad at magic compared to wizards. As a rogue subclass, they're opportunists who have the potential to become decent if they somehow manage to find some nice spells and somehow manage to learn them, nothing wrong with that.
>>44582043 >What optimised elven archers could do was horribly obscene.
There's nothing wrong with that at all, though. Archery is, appropriately, a very dicey and unreliable method of combat. Your inits FUCKING SUCK, and if you or the target enters melee it ceases to be worthwhile or becomes actively harmful altogether. And of course, magic item rarity.
>bards are better than wizards
They aren't, though. Not by a mile. If xyz rogue subclass manages to steal spellbooks and somehow manages to translate them, good for him! He's earned it. But it probably won't happen.
>>44582018 But I do, anon. After realising - long, long time ago - that they can't do jack without having their hand held, I started asking suggestive, leading questions, reminding them of certain plot points or NPCs ("oh, it's that paladin commander we spoke to literally five minutes ago I completely forgot about him lol xD).
At some point I've just gone an homebrewed something akin to the CoC "idea roll", so if they are completely lost (which is always) they can at least try to roll for an obvious hint.
>>44582043 >No, I mean monsters that can't be beaten without very specific circumstances or spells, or that wipe characters out in one turn with little possibility of resistance.
As far as monsters that have a decent chance of surprise and that can't be escaped or accounted for, its pretty much just some incorporeal undead. The meme that all monsters should be melee'd to death with no trouble is vidya thinking. If its undead or resembles a venomous creature, don't melee it. That's 75% of all you have to do. 24% of it is noticing that creatures made of goo, or solid stone or iron, may be difficult to hurt.
Thread replies: 82 Thread images: 14
Thread DB ID: 362063
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.