|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 8:07 am
I have played enough table top RPGs to know that everyone has a diffrent style of running a game. I tend to make maps, and statistics for everything, and generally try to think through every possible action course before things start. The Flaw of my style is that it is often linear, but it has the advantage of often going along at a fairly steady clip. It also maks it easier (for me) to include puzzles, and fairly intense social situations.
How do you guys GM? what is your desired play style? Any advice on the fabled perfect approach to GMing?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 4:09 pm
I don't GM, but I've tried my hand at running online, thread-based RPs.
I take my time and worldbuild. If I couldn't write a story in the universe I create, I wouldn't want to play anything with it. This includes types of magic (if any,) races, classes, pantheons, social structure, religious practices, customs, holidays, land layout, history, everything. The world I'm working on now was spawned by a discussion I had with one of my friends while walking home from class the other day when it was raining. If I can't see it making a good roleplay, I won't use it for anything. biggrin
...at this point, it's just an excuse to draw dapper gentlemen in bowling hats killing people with umbrellas.
...what.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:27 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 11:02 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 12:03 am
Well, you probably already know this as i play under you and vice versa, but I'm almost your exact opposite. I pull stuff straight out of any orafice it starts to come through as I go as far as actual details. I'll plan in my head what I want the basis of the story to be, then the ideas for the different areas you'll probably end up, but nothing concrete. I'll have a style of enemies you'll probably be facing, but what you actually meet is in no way prepared.
Advantages are that it's easy to adapt to what players do, right up until they do something you hadn't thought possible. Area's can be adapted to inhibit specific ideas and tactics players prefer, or give them advantages, as is needed.
Disadvantages are that there is a distinct lack of maps and social situatuations can feel very forced. Area's become nondescript and annoyingly simmilar. Also, your immagination can quickly be stretched. Once I reach the end of my semi thought out situation, it becomes very difficult to keep the game moving.
Also, while it is possible to keep the players on their toes, action sequences, particularly chases, feel intolerably linear, at least on my part as GM.
As for your style, I've never felt things as being linear. Episodic, which is not bad, and a little lead by the nose at times while following orders of people, but never linear. Because of the puzzles you put in, what would have been rather monotonous as you treked through a series of doors and passages in my game, it becomes much more entertaining. Yes the goal is to get through the door, but when that takes an hour of active trial and error, it becomes fun, like the temples in Zelda games, particularly the newer 3-D titles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:58 pm
I seem to do alot of planning as well. I really like to get together stats and make a pretty straight forward playable thread that can last with constant amounts of play for as long as possible. I usualy make the plot general so the players can make their own story rather the having to get to a common ending making all the posting stop. Because of this I don't usualy make threads were you have to kill something so that the thread can live as long as possible. At least that how I tend to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
