>Every GM does better if they've got someone to discuss

>>51661480
Yes, objectively.

>>51661480
That someone should be the group of players though.
That's one group of people GM is sure to have access to and who should be invested in the game and have interest of it being the best game it can be.

>>51661480
Yes. Creativity doesn't happen in a vacuum.

>>51661480
Everybody ever that's ever embarked on any creative endeavor has done better when they had someone to ping ideas off of.

>>51661480
Absolutely, I'm always amazed how talking to someone about ideas for 10 minutes can get me past a week-long mental block

>>51661480
Yes.
Peer review is a thing for a reason.

depends on the setting

>>51661480

This is 100% true.

Not getting feedback on your creative endeavors is how you get midichlorians.

>>51661480

Fuck everyone. It's false. Own your campaigns. They may not be perfect, but they will be yours. Books aren't written with a bunch of wannabe critics peering over your shoulder and telling their opinion on every line. Eventually, you will learn from experience what's cool and what's retarded.

The only guy here who's not full of shit:
>>51661510
The feedback from your players after the game is the only feedback you'll ever need. Don't forget to ask what they liked and what they didn't.

>>51662454

Nigga there's a world of difference between letting other people dictate your setting and getting feedback. If you think you can't "own" your setting when you seek out critique you're dead wrong.

Part of that experience you're harping on comes from sharing your stuff with people who may not tell you what you expected.

>>51661480
>__Everyone__ does better if they've got someone to discuss and ping ideas off of
It is called cooperation, and it is the only reason that humanity has had any chance to survive.

For me it's the player's hat help build the setting.
>So you're a halfling? What are halflings like?
>>Umm. They're the primary sailors, fishermen, and shipbuilders of the setting. Etc.

>>51662546
That's how half-giants got into my setting.

>Half-giants are murderous, violent goofs with an improper command of common. They have a tradition of rogues and ninjas despite their size, because as much as they like violence and killing, they don't like fair fights.

>>51662454
>Books aren't written with a bunch of wannabe critics peering over your shoulder and telling their opinion on every line.
Actually pretty much any author will sing of the importance of having someone to talk through ideas with. I don't know what the fuck you're smoking.

>>51661480
The first setting I made I did this, basically co-oping with a friend to make the whole world. It's still my favorite setting, but made me realize how differently we develop campaigns. He did more of the world building, but most of it was completely useless and too obtuse to use.

He's still a great sounding board for my current campaigns, because trying to explain something to someone else makes you realize the flaws in it yourself anyway.

>>51662454
>>>51661480 (OP)
>Books aren't written with a bunch of wannabe critics peering over your shoulder and telling their opinion on every line. Eventually, you will learn from experience what's cool and what's retarded.
What are editors

>>51662488
You don't even need feedback, though it's good. Just expressing your ideas is better than keeping them cooped up in your head.

I can't remember how many times in school I'd be stuck on a problem, find someone to ask for help, and then figure out the solution while explaining the problem to them. Putting ideas in a format that someone else can understand is a limiting factor that forces creativity.

File: teamwork.jpg (50KB, 698x400px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 698x400px

>>51661480
No shit.

I talk things over with a ST friend of mine all the time and we help each other think of stuff.

>>51663059
It's amazing how often, when learning, asking about an issue to someone else immediately makes the error I made apparent to me.

Of course it would, I guess. Speaking requires you to linearize concepts into some cogent.

>>51662454
>Books aren't written with a bunch of wannabe critics peering over your shoulder and telling their opinion on every line.
Good ones are.

>>51661510
This is exactly who it should not be.

It ruins the suprise and kills the magic when the audience is let backstage.

Not at the table to do a script reading or for a book club meeting for the DM's unpublished novel. I bail on "youre in my world" DMs.

>>51666567

It's good to run basic stuff by players, like the premise of the game (you're astronauts/outlaws/secret agents) and some of the minutia behind it to see if what you're selling works as a game.

You don't have to tell them "oh and this mysterious planet your gonna get sent to actually got Skynet-ed ten years ago but no one knows that yet".

Take a look at the Starwars prequels and Legend of Korra and tell me if it's not better to have a creative team.

>>51666567
Players are not supposed to be the audience though. Players are co creators. The story is mainly theirs.
As a GM you are ultimately serving your players, so taking them in on the creative process can get everyone more invested and it does the thing where you get some fresh ideas.

Even with that there is still infinite amount of room for moment to moment surprises.
You don't need to secretly decide that all elves are horrible cannibals, but instead decide that this particular tribe that characters found are horrible cannibals.

>>51661480
Yup

In every group there is a turncoat whom the GM talks with. They discuss things and gauge the party off of them. Sometimes the turncoat knows this, sometimes they don't.

If you're not that turncoat in your group....then who is?

>>51662454
Are you actually trying to say that other people's critique of your work, communication between peers and friends, and collaboration on creative endeavour is stifling your creativity?

Feedback from your players on your game is a good idea. But so is running your idea past other people first.