So, a while ago I agreed to play some D&D, even though I'm not a fan of that game (https://cohost.org/georges/post/2026273-d-d-as-g-med-by-my-fr).
After the third session of the one-shot (yes), I'm starting to realize some bigger mismatches in my expectations (you know, bigger that just dice rolls or number of sessions in a one-shot). And they seem more about the GM and the GMing culture than just the game.
I've both run and played in games that were wholly the GM's design: over-arching plot, world, lore, characters, everything was of mine or their creation, and these are often the ones that landed the best and had the best response from the players. There's truly nothing like playing a campaign over a long period of time and feel like not only are you fully engaged with this secondary world, it's a world that only exists in the imaginations of you and your friends -- the social power of that is amazing, and it has a unique flavor when players are the receivers of the world from the GM.
The obvious problem with this mode as shown in the original post is that new GMs or GMs who have fallen into some bad habits can feel lost or overwhelmed, alternately desperate to maintain authorial control and therefore frustrated with the players, and disappointed in themselves for being unable to execute the concepts that live so fully in their imaginations.
My perhaps unpopular opinion is that this is totally fine. If the role of the GM is as an auteur, then GMing a game like the one described above is an art form. And art takes practice! There's no form of art that can be picked up and mastered immediately, and GMing is especially difficult, in that it trains not just writing, but also drama and performance, and acting -- a whole suite of skills, among others!
My first times GMing games makes me cringe down into my soul, but that's okay! The whole point of art is that you get better at it the more you practice, and the fortunate thing is that you practice by playing a game with your friends. Does a session suck sometimes? Sure, but probably no more frequently in classically-GMed games than in non-GM'd games.
I guess my point is that the "GM culture" -- that expects the GM to be author and interlocutor of an entire world -- is oftentimes troubling when assumed to be the default. But if everyone intentionally buys in to the idea that being an authorial GM and a player in that type of game is its own craft that needs practice, then you can really get some magic at the table.
Some advice below:
- If you're world-building from scratch, keep your potential players in mind no matter what scale you're working on: where do the heroes fit into this setting and does the setting's truth rely upon them?
- Like I said, GMing is a suite of skills, but you get to decide what skills you build! I basically never do character voices. This also goes for other non-obvious skills that you can bring in. Are you an artist? Do you knit? Play music? All of these art forms can also live at the table, it's not all writing and drama.
- The world isn't real until it touches the players. This means that you can't be too precious about stuff that lives in your notes, but it also means that you can adapt and reuse everything that went unseen.
- Be candid about the process of running a game. This is more of a matter of style and taste, but the more I've just communicated with my players what exactly I'm trying to do with a particular scene or game mechanic or narrative choice, the better results I've had. Some GMs don't like pulling back the curtain that much, but I've found a lot of success with that.
I can probably keep going, but that's enough for this post.
