Difference between revisions of "Talk:GM Manifesto"

Revision as of 16:46, 6 November 2006

--Edmiao 00:15, 6 November 2006 (MST)The part about "first allegance to the story...second allegance to the character you play" sounds controversial. Jason, you had a hard time figuring out why Hassan would ever go along with any of the plans of the other characters. This ignited a long drawn out debate. There was talk that compromising the character for the sake of the plot was undesireable metagaming. Have you had a change of heart?

--Matts 09:52, 6 November 2006 (MST)To me, this sounds like a lot of work. I already have a full-time job. I think as players and GMs, our number one commitment is to make sure everyone has fun. Some nights, that'll mean goofing off, some nights, that'll mean some really rewarding roleplaying.

--Jason 14:15, 6 November 2006 (MST)No change of heart, I was a little disenchanted then, but also Im not convinced they are analogous situations. Even then, if it meant a good story element I would happily lose Hassan. In the end, I had to compromise to the situation anyway. But in reality, who as a person hasnt compromised their ideals because of a difficult situation?

And Matt, youre right, its a lot of work. But that is what I believe an ideal gaming situation would be, and thats my goal. I am not going to GM again until I can provide that. When I first started playing with you guys the goofing off kinda bugged me, but now I am possibly the #1 purveyor of screwing around. I understand that this (what we have now) is what the players want, so I embrace it.

--Matts 15:46, 6 November 2006 (MST)It's fair enough to shoot for those goals; I just think that writing things in manifestos or contracts make gaming seem more like politics or work and less like entertainment. But to each their own.

And I suppose it's ok if our ideas of good preparation differ.