Let's boil down some stats on GMing and their definitions and have a *fun* discussion. Yes, if people have other ideas to fit in this framework, feel free to toss it out there. The idea is to synthesize down a framework that people can look at and see areas that they might want to work on. Especially for new GM's, that get "do's and don'ts" from YouTube without any context. This is a way to 'gamify' the act of GMing. This also means that some ratings can absolutely fluctuate based on your circumstances.
The stats are: Facility, Improvisation, Adjudication, Enthusiasm. There *are* other elements to GMing that fall between these tentpoles, or are emergent. (feel free to offer others but we'll try to fit them in as few as possible so they might get folded into these with an addendum).
Facility - Your ability to use the rules in question to run the setting and game. It also partially represents the work you put into the setting and game.
1 - Total Noob: You haven't even read the rules entirely, or at best you've done a single pass. Maybe you've played, but never GMed using them.
2 - Proficient: You've read the rules (maybe more than once), played them as a player, you keep the books handy and make references to them a lot in play.
3 - Journeyman: You understand the system enough to know where/when to make tweaks for your personal tastes (they don't always work). You reference the material as needed, but you understand the material well enough get the PC's over the session's finish line, even if the ride might get bumpy. You do *some* designwork to fill holes missing by the system.
4 - Experienced: You're fluent with the system. You know enough to bend the rules to represent your setting as you like it. You know how to make rules on the fly without your players missing a beat. You do a lot of designwork to flesh out aspects of the game that the system may not cover, or you expand rules that exist to do much more.
5 - Gamemaster: There is nothing in the system you don't understand. You could design for the company mechanically. You understand the underlying mechanics and why they exist so that any rules changes you make are seamless to the players.
Improvisation - Your ability to think of things on the fly. This includes your ability to roleplay dynamically and your ability to use rules and setting material in novel ways.
1 - Total Noob: You read the flavor-text the module tells you to read to your players right on queue. You can even do it without too many uhh's or umm's. Going off-road from the script or module gives you anxiety.
2 - Proficientt: You might read the flavor-text, but if you do, you'll embellish it to fit your needs. You'll use lots of random tables obviously, you'll stray from the adventure path, but while it's exciting, you'll get anxious trying to get the PC's back on track. You might use some funny voices to make NPC's distinct, or describe obvious mannerisms on occasion. You'd do it more, but there's a lot going on and it's something you're either not comfortable with or you're still learning to add to your repertoire.
3 - Journeyman: Flavor-text? You don't need no flavor-text (unless you're feeling lazy, and even then, you'll fully work it in your way. You might use voices for specific NPC's, have mood music, "get into" roleplaying a little more than your players with consistency. You use random tables liberally, but you have your go-to-Table's already queued up, and you know precisely where to look for ones that you don't. Consistency in your improvisation becomes noticeable by your players *not* while you're playing, but after your sessions because they don't realize it until later.
4 - Experienced: Flavor-text is useless. You rarely need random tables unless you're just feeling lazy to riff. You consistently portray your NPC's (important and unimportant) with idiosyncrasies to the effect your players can't tell the difference, which forces more immersion (including PC's that metagame making horribly bad assumptions). You portray your world and setting with nimbleness so that wherever the PC's go, you usually can describe in detail enough things of potential interest to make even jaded players engage. Most pre-packaged adventures at this point are improvised on with such precision they practically are not even required. Your prep-work is much more streamlined due to your recognized ability to improvise fluidly.
5 - Gamemaster: The world is in motion, and you know every current and path it might take without any written word. Every NPC is someone that can potentially matter. They all have personalities that are distinct culturally if not individually. Random tables are customized for specific reasons ahead of time. You can riff with such skill that you can pull off most sessions with little prep. Your improvisational skills can make tatters of most published adventures, and modify them for your own needs with zero effort. Or they can elevate them far beyond the bounds of their original intent and make them unrecognizable.
Adjudication - Your ability to utilize both setting conceits, rules and system mechanics to deliver content consistently and fairly. Knowing the rules (Facility) is different from using them in a consistent and thoughtful manner.
1 - Total Noob: You suffer from all the mistakes - Monty Haul, favoritism, Adversarial GM-Modes, Storytime Jackoff Hour - because this is really about your fictional work or worse, your idea of some other fictional setting that you wish to force the players through your narrative rather than letting the players actually play. Player trust is minimal unless they're too ignorant to know better. You cite Rule Zero like a fucking Tyrant for your worst ideas you're too ignorant to realize the actual purpose of Rule Zero.
2 - Proficient: You've made enough mistakes that you now try to cleave close to RAW as possible. You still might make some of the classic blunders (Monty Haul, Storytime Jackoff-Hour, Adversarial GM Mode) but you've learned through those mistakes and lost players, that the rules might actually help ameliorate your Noob blunders and give you better results. At some point in this tier, you're beginning to question what precisely IS a good way to express the game you want vs. the game you're currently running and realize a lot of the problem is *you*. You'll figure it out if you keep going... otherwise it starts eroding your Enthusiasm rating. Rule Zero is invoked less, but with slightly more precision. Player trust is middling *at best*.
3 - Journeyman : So you figured out most of the classic pathologies of adjudication at your table. Now you start thinking about how to express your setting to your players and make good strides in consistent application of your rulings. You start to feel less chained to RAW (though you cling to it tightly), you've begun to feel more confident
about your use of Rule Zero, because you've begun to understand your own particular tastes in expressing the setting to your players via those rules. Your players may balk, but this is where you're gaining confidence in standing firm. You also have eaten enough crow from your players to modulate your own excesses. Player trust is now fairly high - assuming that there no other GMs in the group. If there are, you're trusted enough to run a fairly tight game. You might even be considering Sandboxing or be dabbling in it already if your other GM Stats are up to the task. You start to question the concept of "system balance" because you start to realize your own GM agency.
4 - Experienced : You're long past most of the pathological Noob GM issues. If your Facility score is high-enough, you already know how you want the world presented via mechanics. You already know that consistency is the key to earning trust. You listen to your players, and know when/where to make adjustments. You have no problem saying "no" but you're always open to saying "yes". You take input from your players into consideration without problem, even though you may not use it. Your players trust your instincts even when your riffing (and they know it), when they don't know you're riffing - you're understanding how powerful the gaming experience can be and it becomes The Ring you chase in every game. RAW ceases to be the Law. Rule Zero sufficiently fills any gap fluidly and generally with accepted with little issue. "System Balance" is a phrase for people that are players that have not GMed and put the time in to understand. OR they have never played with a GM of your caliber. Player trust is very high.
5 - Gamemaster : You know the rules and what they represent in your setting. Very few player actions are beyond the scope of your ruling, and very few incidences are beyond the scope of your ability to fairly represent the game, either mechanically or narratively. Rule Zero is a surgical vorpal sword, RAW is a shield. You wield both with precision and have earned absolute trust from your players. The ideas of the "system balance" are joke to your players, ironically opening them up to any and all other systems and settings as a possibly option under your tenure as GM.
Enthusiasm - Real simple, its your propensity and desire to GM.
1 - Total Noob : You only GM because your players force your to, or no one else will do it. You don't really like GMing, you'd rather be playing than GMing, or doing something else.
2 - Proficient : You GM reluctantly. It takes too much work. You love the hobby, but you're ambivalent at best when it comes to GMing, and you still would rather play. You're fine running one-shots, or short campaigns, but you're *always* ready to hand it off to someone else at the quickest opportunity.
3 - Journeyman: You don't mind GMing. You might even look forward to it. You've gotten to the point where you realize that GM'ng fundamentally requires a different set of goals than being player, but sometimes you're not up for the energy requirements. This depends greatly on your other GMing Stats - Enthusiasm can be capped by deficiencies in other areas, likewise Enthusiasm can be raised by higher stats and other competencies. You still like the idea of playing more than GMing, but you'll do it now partially because you've acquired a taste for it. You look for inspiration from the usual sources - but you're starting to realize that you can find elements of GMing-mana elsewhere.
4 - Experienced : You GM because you like it. You've discovered how to really enjoy GMing even if you still like to play, GMing has become its own hobby. You're never going to say no, if there are no other GM's because you genuinely like doing it. Just the same, you also like encouraging others to GM and *help* them learn better techniques because you remember what it was like to be them. You gain inspiration from sources outside of the hobby, in fact, you actively pursue such inspiration for use IN the hobby.
5 - Gamemaster : You *want* to GM. It's not that you don't want to play, but GMing is its own reward to you. You've learned to derive a pleasure from GMing that most players will never understand, and other GM's might derive some inspiration to achieve in their own right. Everything is potential inspiration for your GMing needs, and you will cultivate the desire to GM regardless of whether you're actively playing or not. You will work on campaigns even when not gaming, for future use (right?) and when it comes time for you to present options to your players, you'll always have multiple solid campaign ideas ready to go. Because you're always ready to go.
So add up your numbers and what's your score? Understand circumstances can change these values - who the fuck wants to GM while in the middle of a divorce (there are some GM's that can do that)... or maybe you're into a new system so your Facility score might not be pegged out with your regular go-to system.
Thoughts? Elaborations? Lets the games begin!
Edit: by these criteria I'm sitting around 16-17 depending on the current games I'm running (SWADE and MSH respectively)
I'd say I'm a 14. Of course this is strongly based on me running the system I choose and in my setting.
My weakest area is probably improvisational skills. When it comes to coming up with an NPC on the fly, I just can't. That said, I have a index card box full of NPCs ready to go so I can pull one that looks right, read my notes, and I'm off to the races. I also do a lot of mapping and "geographical" note taking before I even start a campaign. I have a good idea of the sandbox the players are in before they roll dice for the first time. I know who all the key players are, where they are, what they are up to, motivations, etc. I also know where all the cool toys are, how to access them, and all the important bits and secrets about them. Once I've prepped a campaign, I'm good to go and generally can roll with the punches.
On your list, my desire to be a GM is my strongest point. I prefer to GM over play. (I still love to play.) I love running an adventure and seeing how players deal with the challenges.
This is a bit like a job interview.
The hardest one to answer is the improvisation category. though there is some similar issues with enthusiasm. For me currently, I'm sitting somewhere around 13-15, though part of that is there is only so high one can go in the first 3 categories when all your play is play testing a game as it is written. :o My facility and adjudication are gradually going up as I settle on the rules.
When I was rolling hot and heavy with D&D 5E, I was sitting at around 16 easy. However, as my Facility went up, my Enthusiasm went down. I still wanted to GM--just not that game. When I ran Hero, I might have hit 18 briefly, given that I could improvise 99%+ book correct creatures on the fly. :)
My main issue with Improvisation is that tangling up Immersion with it is a bridge too far. Or maybe it's the mix of setting/system that causes the disconnect. Or both. As you've written it, there's only so high I'm going to go, because I don't value some of the things in the list, at least not enough to chase them. OTOH, whether I hit closer to 4 or 2 is going to depend a lot on how invested I am in the settings as expressed by the system.
My very first game running D&D B/X might not have been good enough to count as a 4. And all 5 players wanted to play again immediately.
Yeah there's no "right" or "wrong" answer. Like all things it's how much you wanna dive into it.
I'm certainly not a 5 in everything, though I do GM at a pretty high level, but when I switch to new systems, I'm never going to be a 5 in Facility... hell I know a metric shit-ton about SWADE and I feel confident I can stand-and-bang with anyone on the rules, and I use a lot of the sub-systems across multiple genres... but I don't think I'm a 5 by a stretch.
And Enthusiasm might shift for a lot of people. And Improvisation is always an "issue" - I find that one doesn't need to chase immersion, it's an emergent quality. Do you think otherwise?
Quote from: BadApple on September 11, 2023, 05:24:49 PM
I'd say I'm a 14. Of course this is strongly based on me running the system I choose and in my setting.
My weakest area is probably improvisational skills. When it comes to coming up with an NPC on the fly, I just can't. That said, I have a index card box full of NPCs ready to go so I can pull one that looks right, read my notes, and I'm off to the races. I also do a lot of mapping and "geographical" note taking before I even start a campaign. I have a good idea of the sandbox the players are in before they roll dice for the first time. I know who all the key players are, where they are, what they are up to, motivations, etc. I also know where all the cool toys are, how to access them, and all the important bits and secrets about them. Once I've prepped a campaign, I'm good to go and generally can roll with the punches.
On your list, my desire to be a GM is my strongest point. I prefer to GM over play. (I still love to play.) I love running an adventure and seeing how players deal with the challenges.
My weakest stat is ironically, Facility, only because I'm in this phase where I'm doing a *lot* of system re-design with SWADE for some future purposes that I'm unsure of, but I'm planning on running it soon with my group of lab-ra... err players. I have strong Improvisational skills, but I've backed off a little as I'm in this phase of trying out new things, and pushing myself out of my comfort-zone... and the Improv takes a backseat to more Facilitation and cultivating my Enthusiasm (I'm juggling a lot of plates right now).
One of the greatest GM's I've ever had to pleasure of playing with was Skip Williams. Yeah - the fucking Sage himself.
I thought I was a great GM at the time (I think today I was decent/good)... then I played with him (he introduced me to Spelljammer)... I remember being stunned and how good he was. This motherfucker rolled in a felt bag full of rubber insects, plastic monsters, and dice. Ran his entire tournament without a single book, a single note, not a reference to be made, zero random tables, complete undivided attention and with utter discipline, perfect flow... meanwhile... I was having the time of my life (someone took a picture of it and put it up on Polyhedron) and saw what a *real GM* was, and he made it look effortless. He gave me something to aspire to as a GM. Never forgot it. I still chase that feeling to this day.
Edit: LOL of course someone put this on the internet (https://rpggeek.com/image/4809750/dean-poisso)... ahh the days of hair.
Facility - I'm somewhere between Proficient (2) and Experienced (4). I'm Proficient in dozens of systems, probably Journeyman in a handful and Experienced in a couple. I refuse to run something I've only just skimmed and I'm never going to master a system because my brain just can't hang onto that much info on any one thing. The few I've tried to commit to, I found myself losing interest before I ever got close to that point.
Improvisation - To toot my own horn here for a minute - I am an improv god. Maybe that's a bit too much, but I'm going Gamemaster (5) here. Prep for me is maybe a couple notes about things that happened previously and a few more on ideas that I may have had over the downtime. I very rarely bother working stuff out ahead of time and am comfortable just running shit on the fly and riffing off the player's actions. My players trust me to keep things straight and for it all to make sense eventually. For NPCs I've got funny voices, mannerisms and quirks down pat.
Adjudication - Journeyman (3) bordering on Experienced (4). I have a hard time saying "no" to my players and then regretting it later. I'm getting better at it, but they know I struggle on rules vs rule of cool and sometimes try to take advantage of it. This sometimes leads to some inconsistent rulings from time to time - "why didn't we have to roll for X last time but we do now" sorts of things. However, they are well aware that I'm never out to fuck them over with my rulings, even if they disagree with them.
Enthusiasm - Experienced (4) because I genuinely do enjoy GMing. While some of the next level up applies, I'm not quite there. I rarely prep campaigns for future use, but I do keep notes on inspiration whenever it hits, for both when I play and when I GM. I may not have solid campaign ideas ready to go at a moment's notice, but I can be up to speed and ready pretty darn quick.
Quote from: tenbones on September 11, 2023, 05:54:44 PMI find that one doesn't need to chase immersion, it's an emergent quality. Do you think otherwise?
I think there are two different kinds of immersion, shallow and deep.
Shallow is emergent. It's players getting into the game, GM rolling smoothly with the conceits of the setting, everything "clicks". Mechanics "fade into the background" as much as possible given the system, maybe more for the participants than an outside observer. The rolls still happen, people still talk mechanics, but everyone is visualizing the outcomes, not really thinking directly about the mechanics themselves. Ideally, the mechanics are like breathing, but you get a great deal of the positive effect somewhat short of that ideal--like everyone has been driving for years, and you don't completely turn off your brain given that driving can be dangerous, yet flipping the turn signal is automatic.
Deep immersion is either not emergent or only emergent at the expense of other desirable qualities. I'm not sure which. It's related to "being the character", not just thinking as a portrayal but emotions, empathy, philosophy, etc. It can still happen without sacrificing those other desirable qualities up to a point, but only by explicitly working at it. It's technique
and a trained attitude.
I would say a big marker for the difference is how OOC chatter affects the play. At times, OOC chatter is a valued part of shallow immersion. It's the setting coming to life despite the 4th wall being rubble, or even sometimes because the 4th wall is down. Whereas with deep immersion, every interruption is anathema.
That's very insightful and rings very true to me.
What you would call "Deep Immersion" is something that is pretty rarified. I've hit that spot a few times - I've had players crying both over joy and sadness, even players telling me they've had nightmares over stuff that happened in the game that they reflected on for years.
I'm not sure games *should* go that deep, at least attempting to do it intentionally (which while some aspects of genre play can be/is manipulative) it depends on the game. OOC chatter is an absolute immersion killer - it's one of the reasons I don't like most online live-plays.
My horror/grimdark games are the ones where I really try to put the clamp down on OOC nonsense, when we're doing swashbuckling adventuring stuff (which is a LOT of the time) I let it ride... to a point. But you're certainly right that it will limit the deeper aspects of immersion in most genres of traditional play.
Seeing as how I only run systems I've built myself I score perfect marks on facility and adjudication (no one knows the nuts, bolts, hows and whys of my systems more).
My improvisation and therefore enthusiasm though are slightly hampered by only presently being able to run via VTT and can't digitally create maps on the fly with anywhere near the speed I can in a face-to-face game with my custom gridded map boards and dry erase markers (also, just the need to use maps at all because one of the players suffersfrom Aphantasia (inability to visualize things) and needs at least a basic map (or pictures of a space) to functionally play).
Because I am far more limited in my ability to improvise (one of my favorite parts of GMing is to make things up on the fly) that also dings my enthusiasm to run; not by much; but still enough that I can say I have perfect marks.
I would say Facility is very system dependent. The others are more universal and can apply to multiple systems.
It's quite clear some of your are full of shit: scores of 12+? ???
I'm rocking an 8, but unlike the rest of you, I provided an honest assessment of my GMing abilities. Most GMs are gonna fall between 7-9 just based on reality. 12+ is Matt Mercer territory and I'd bet money nobody here is on that level.
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/3oKIPE5jUcsLSdDHbi/giphy.gif)
Quote from: Theory of Games on September 12, 2023, 05:18:51 AM
It's quite clear some of your are full of shit: scores of 12+? ???
... Most GMs are gonna fall between 7-9 just based on reality
Apparently, you didn't read the scale very carefully. A 12 is Journeyman across the board. A modest score for someone with decades under their belt. It's not on a bell curve, because of the numbers. And the population here is not representative of a typical sample, either in interest or in experience.
Quote from: Theory of Games on September 12, 2023, 05:18:51 AM
It's quite clear some of your are full of shit: scores of 12+? ???
I'm rocking an 8, but unlike the rest of you, I provided an honest assessment of my GMing abilities. Most GMs are gonna fall between 7-9 just based on reality. 12+ is Matt Mercer territory and I'd bet money nobody here is on that level.
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/3oKIPE5jUcsLSdDHbi/giphy.gif)
I have watched a few episodes and Mercer is an entertaining DM. I have noticed though, that very little gets accomplished in each session as he and the players will spend gobs of game time having breakfast, or shopping for mundane shit. If this RP was connected to and advancing what they were trying to accomplish then fine. Most of it is just wasted game time on shit that would bore the hell out of most players. One can only put up with funny shopkeeper voices for so long before wanting to get to the damn adventure. All of this theater also leaves several players just sitting there twiddling their thumbs for twenty minutes or more, on camera, while he does his shopkeeper performance for one or two players. He may have the skill set to be a great DM, but aside from the theatrical part of it, does not display it on what I have seen of Critical Role.
Quote from: Theory of Games on September 12, 2023, 05:18:51 AM
It's quite clear some of your are full of shit: scores of 12+? ???
I'm rocking an 8, but unlike the rest of you, I provided an honest assessment of my GMing abilities. Most GMs are gonna fall between 7-9 just based on reality. 12+ is Matt Mercer territory and I'd bet money nobody here is on that level.
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/3oKIPE5jUcsLSdDHbi/giphy.gif)
I've been GMing weekly since 1978. I've run hundreds of convention games. I've run, jesus... a *LOT* of different systems. I'm published, done design-work for WotC, Paizo, Goodman Games, and a few other companies. I'm not saying this to tout myself... rather...
I know for a *fact* many people on this very forum are *more* experienced than me, and have done a lot more in the industry. I think you might be underestimating a lot of the GMing knowledge on this forum which in my estimation is probably one of the highest concentrations of GMing ability and knowledge on *any* forum.
As far as Critical Roll is concerned - I think Mercer is skilled in many areas, but I'm not particularly impressed with his game as a show as I am with others who have shown me on this very forum their own knowledge and ideas. Mercer's Improvisation is a solid 5. Facility 4 with 5e? Adjudication solid 4. Enthusiasm 4 maybe 5? Remember he's paid very well to do this. I'm not in his mind, but it's clear he does enjoy it, and he *should* enjoy it, given his success.
But also keep in mind, he runs a very different kind of game than 99% of all the other forms of TTRPG's - he's running a performative gameshow and his other skills funnel directly into that. And he's *very* good at it. His players are professional actors, they show up to play/perform, on time, they know how to *perform* as players for obvious reasons. They certainly aren't bringing their baggage that other players have to the camera for your consumption. They don't have "bad days" or "bad sessions" - by design.
But that kind of game is... well... not particularly complex to me. It might be to *you* but you probably, admittedly by your own estimation of yourself and the high-place you put Mercer (and I'm not saying he's not skilled - clearly he is - my outside assessment shows that) but you're also showing that 1) you've never played in a game like Mercer's with a GM like Mercer, which should be no surprise since that's not a typical kind of D&D game. 2) for GM's that do run their private games with that level of skill - their games are likely radically more in-depth and complex than Mercers. Mine definitely are.
As for "most GM's" ... 7-9 is literally average. So yeah? Given the average GM hasn't put a lot of time into the craft of GMing. But there is a purpose to me putting this out there (which is for discussion here) and it has nothing to do with litigating who is bullshitting who. But! I'm totally open to discussing, personally, why I think my scores are what I think they are, and yes they fluctuate. Others can engage on their own assessments too. Calling uniform bullshit on anyone that is a 12+ on this forum seems... hyperbolic, and I'm not even *trying*, because I'm willing to bet there's at least a dozen GM's on this forum that would pull a 12+ here.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on September 12, 2023, 07:01:05 AM
Quote from: Theory of Games on September 12, 2023, 05:18:51 AM
It's quite clear some of your are full of shit: scores of 12+? ???
... Most GMs are gonna fall between 7-9 just based on reality
Apparently, you didn't read the scale very carefully. A 12 is Journeyman across the board. A modest score for someone with decades under their belt. It's not on a bell curve, because of the numbers. And the population here is not representative of a typical sample, either in interest or in experience.
Bingo...
Quote from: Exploderwizard on September 11, 2023, 09:37:40 PM
I would say Facility is very system dependent. The others are more universal and can apply to multiple systems.
Absolutely. I am nowhere near as good in my Facility of say Stars without Number, as I am with D&D1e,2e,3e. Likewise with SWADE. Enthusiasm will also wax/wane.
Self evaluation is always tricky. Especially when it's as subjective as being a good GM. You might be the greatest GM for a particular table and shit for another group of nerds you never mesh with. There are practical skills that are needed that we can improve but that's only part of the story. Hell, I could be a solid 20 with this list and still be a shit GM.
Quote from: tenbones on September 12, 2023, 11:21:48 AM
Quote from: Theory of Games on September 12, 2023, 05:18:51 AM
It's quite clear some of your are full of shit: scores of 12+? ???
I'm rocking an 8, but unlike the rest of you, I provided an honest assessment of my GMing abilities. Most GMs are gonna fall between 7-9 just based on reality. 12+ is Matt Mercer territory and I'd bet money nobody here is on that level.
But also keep in mind, he runs a very different kind of game than 99% of all the other forms of TTRPG's - he's running a performative gameshow and his other skills funnel directly into that. And he's *very* good at it. His players are professional actors, they show up to play/perform, on time, they know how to *perform* as players for obvious reasons. They certainly aren't bringing their baggage that other players have to the camera for your consumption. They don't have "bad days" or "bad sessions" - by design.
TL;DR: Critical Role is basically the TTRPG version of Who's Line is it, Anyway? and anybody playing with Wayne Brady would look like a fantastic GM.
Quote from: tenbones on September 12, 2023, 11:24:36 AM
Quote from: Exploderwizard on September 11, 2023, 09:37:40 PM
I would say Facility is very system dependent. The others are more universal and can apply to multiple systems.
Absolutely. I am nowhere near as good in my Facility of say Stars without Number, as I am with D&D1e,2e,3e. Likewise with SWADE. Enthusiasm will also wax/wane.
Yeah, and the breakpoints for each tier in Facility can vary quite a bit from system to system, inherently too. Hero System has a very steep learning curve. Once you get it, it's not all that difficult to get up into the 3-4 range (assuming interest). 5 is difficult because of the sheer amount of stuff, but it's doable with time.
Meanwhile, Toon is a system that an interested GM can go from 1 to 2 after a couple of sessions, given any kind of prior experience with RPGs. Really mastering Facility in Toon is deceptively difficult, though, for the amount of material. Part of it is understanding the source material at more than a surface level. The game can't really teach you that, only show you some examples and hope you get it. Another part is that you can't run Toon correctly and refer to the rules at all during play. So it is kind of a "deep breathe, plunge in for 20 minutes, do the best you can" thing, then repeat after a break.
Don't get me wrong, Toon is a much easier system than Hero to learn. However, it's not as easy to master as it would appear at first glance.
Currently, I'd say I'm a 15 on your scale, but that's a deceptively high answer. Assuming I'm using my own system, I default into gamemaster status in Facility and Adjudication skills because I designed the bloody thing. If we were talking a published system, my best system would be SWADE, and my score would probably be around 10.
I'm really not great at Improv and Enthusiasm is something I've been hit or miss at. I tend to filibuster major changes to the session break, when I can actually think about what I want to do with things. As I've said elsewhere, I don't view myself as a particularly gifted GM. In fact, one of the key reasons I switched from GMing to game design was so I could design myself crutches out of the mechanics.
I also suggest you add familiarity with Storytelling formulae. One of the biggest things I can bring to a game table is that I used to be a developmental editor (before accepting that Academia and book publishing is...a mess and I should do my own thing) and I know things like story structures and character arcs quite well.
- Do you know Vonnegut's Rules for Writing a Short Story?
- Do you know what a Character Arc is?
- Do you know what the shapes a story can take are?
- Do you know the difference between a Flat and a Round character?
As a freebie, here's Vonnegut explaining the shapes of stories. I use Vonnegut because he was a humor writer and is good at making learning this stuff amusing.
I'd put my self at a 9, maybe a 10. Most of that is my enthusiasm is a 4 or 5. I've been DMing since I got Holmes and I always prefer the big chair. There are few things that don't make me go "I could game that", but I'm not sure I'm quite proficient enough to doing that to get a 5.
My weak spot is facility, in large part because of laziness and disorganization in prep and getting too easily swept up in the things. I rate it a 2.
The others are solid 3s and I just need more time behind the screen with deliberate work to up them.
Quote from: Exploderwizard on September 11, 2023, 09:37:40 PM
I would say Facility is very system dependent. The others are more universal and can apply to multiple systems.
While true it also reflects a bit of personality.
I put myself at 2 because I get scattered and lack focus. My last long running game I relied heavily on two players as my rules expert instead of being the rules expert at the table. That is not unique.
One reason I avoid Rolemaster or DragonQuest or other very complex games I'd love to run is knowing myself well enough to know I probably won't put the needed work in having the bare minimum facility in running them.
As a side note, that's the big reason I love B/X and clones...not nostaligia but knowing today they are systems that match my willingness/ability to put the work in to have an acceptable facility.
Quote from: PulpHerb on September 12, 2023, 06:17:42 PM
I'd put my self at a 9, maybe a 10. Most of that is my enthusiasm is a 4 or 5. I've been DMing since I got Holmes and I always prefer the big chair. There are few things that don't make me go "I could game that", but I'm not sure I'm quite proficient enough to doing that to get a 5.
My weak spot is facility, in large part because of laziness and disorganization in prep and getting too easily swept up in the things. I rate it a 2.
The others are solid 3s and I just need more time behind the screen with deliberate work to up them.
By the math and reading your post, you're a 15. Also, facility is the easiest thing to get to a solid 3 and it doesn't take that much more effort. It's more about technique than lots of work.
Quote from: BadApple on September 12, 2023, 06:23:43 PM
Quote from: PulpHerb on September 12, 2023, 06:17:42 PM
I'd put my self at a 9, maybe a 10. Most of that is my enthusiasm is a 4 or 5. I've been DMing since I got Holmes and I always prefer the big chair. There are few things that don't make me go "I could game that", but I'm not sure I'm quite proficient enough to doing that to get a 5.
My weak spot is facility, in large part because of laziness and disorganization in prep and getting too easily swept up in the things. I rate it a 2.
The others are solid 3s and I just need more time behind the screen with deliberate work to up them.
By the math and reading your post, you're a 15. Also, facility is the easiest thing to get to a solid 3 and it doesn't take that much more effort. It's more about technique than lots of work.
2+3+3+4 = 12
or 13
Opps *hides math degree*
Oh, and this math error shows my problem with facility :)
Quote from: PulpHerb on September 12, 2023, 06:25:00 PM
Quote from: BadApple on September 12, 2023, 06:23:43 PM
Quote from: PulpHerb on September 12, 2023, 06:17:42 PM
I'd put my self at a 9, maybe a 10. Most of that is my enthusiasm is a 4 or 5. I've been DMing since I got Holmes and I always prefer the big chair. There are few things that don't make me go "I could game that", but I'm not sure I'm quite proficient enough to doing that to get a 5.
My weak spot is facility, in large part because of laziness and disorganization in prep and getting too easily swept up in the things. I rate it a 2.
The others are solid 3s and I just need more time behind the screen with deliberate work to up them.
By the math and reading your post, you're a 15. Also, facility is the easiest thing to get to a solid 3 and it doesn't take that much more effort. It's more about technique than lots of work.
2+3+3+4 = 12
or 13
Opps *hides math degree*
Oh, and this math error shows my problem with facility :)
Stupid me just put in an extra category and added 3. :P
Either way, don't undervalue yourself.
I'd give myself a 10, but a full 40% of that comes from enthusiasm and engagement, not actually being good at it. For mechanical mastery, 3, I can handle the rules just fine, and am not averse to homebrewing once I feel I have the system down well enough. I'd say I'm about a 2, though, with respect to adjudication, on account of issues linked into my major weak point... 1 in my ability to improvise on the fly. I can alter modules or (recently also) seriously pre-prepped sessions slightly on the fly, but that's about as far as I go while maintaining my comfort zone. This means I very often have to try to vacate said zone, oftentimes with subpar quality as the result. Character dialogue outside of scripted events and anticipated actions is difficult for me, and I find I tend to broadly describe what folks say rather than actually saying it. Likewise, I struggle making things up whole cloth rather than extrapolating from prior prep or module worldbuilding. Random tables are usable, but making them come to life constitutes a struggle. So in a sense I do feel this system overrates me a bit. Enthusiasm and mechanical comprehension/alteration are indeed helpful... But not having the ability to adapt and adjudicate well will kill the quality of your game, and there's a reason why I am seldom a group's first choice of GM, lol. Might be something to say for more general dramatic acting/story narration/creativity too, though I won't complain at getting a higher score by right of their exclusion. ;D
Quote from: Fheredin on September 12, 2023, 06:07:07 PM
Currently, I'd say I'm a 15 on your scale, but that's a deceptively high answer. Assuming I'm using my own system, I default into gamemaster status in Facility and Adjudication skills because I designed the bloody thing. If we were talking a published system, my best system would be SWADE, and my score would probably be around 10.
I'm really not great at Improv and Enthusiasm is something I've been hit or miss at. I tend to filibuster major changes to the session break, when I can actually think about what I want to do with things. As I've said elsewhere, I don't view myself as a particularly gifted GM. In fact, one of the key reasons I switched from GMing to game design was so I could design myself crutches out of the mechanics.
I also suggest you add familiarity with Storytelling formulae. One of the biggest things I can bring to a game table is that I used to be a developmental editor (before accepting that Academia and book publishing is...a mess and I should do my own thing) and I know things like story structures and character arcs quite well.
- Do you know Vonnegut's Rules for Writing a Short Story?
- Do you know what a Character Arc is?
- Do you know what the shapes a story can take are?
- Do you know the difference between a Flat and a Round character?
As a freebie, here's Vonnegut explaining the shapes of stories. I use Vonnegut because he was a humor writer and is good at making learning this stuff amusing.
What does storytelling have to do with running a game?
One of the issues of the hobby, especially today, is that there are people that give advice on GMing, but there are no standards as to what IS good GMing. It's do these "5-things and be a good GM". There are no clear indicators on what exactly you're striving towards. Mainly because the advice is geared toward appeasing ones players instead of setting the axis down upon which your world spins.
So there is no established process for someone that is essentially left to their own devices to figure out. Today, we constantly reinvent the wheel unnecessarily. YES that is what we did in the past, we had little choice in that matter. With the flood of new players that have come into the hobby, there should be framework for more experienced GM's to point to and to hand down this knowledge for our hobby to continue to flourish. Especially with the direction WotC is going. This is a huge opportunity for independent gaming. We should take full advantage of it - whether you're running a private game, or whether you're a publisher/creator.
We should care about our gaming and that starts at our table. Outside of the need to be unified against corporate asshattery that is WotC, surely we can be united on framing a set of standards for GMing that people can all benefit from. Whether you *agree* on the framing is irrelevant - the framing is there for us to discuss and if you GM, you'll be in there somewhere to find some ideas for YOU.
I'll be posting more in this thread about methods to deal with perceived holes in their "game" as GM's. And obviously others are welcome. The goal should be to cultivate the enthusiasm to GM for its own sake. And *push* your own boundaries to levels that you're comfortable with, but with enough effort you can see possibilities beyond your own expectations.
I do notice a lot of people, both in this thread, and in my many discussions off this forum, rate themselves hardest on Improvisation. I expected that. I'll address that first in a later post.
Quote from: tenbones on September 13, 2023, 05:57:29 PM
I do notice a lot of people, both in this thread, and in my many discussions off this forum, rate themselves hardest on Improvisation. I expected that. I'll address that first in a later post.
Improvisation relies on so many different techniques that it can be all over the place in the same session. Depends on what needs to be improvised. By now, some things I can improvise half asleep. Other things, no matter how much I work at it, no matter how many tricks I pull, it just doesn't fly. For example, I simply cannot make up a name off the cuff without a huge risk of it being off.
GM Preparation for me largely consists of having things handy that are either difficult for me to improvise or that are too distracting to do in a rush all the time. I can improvise a monster in a system/setting that I know well, but I'd rather not Give me a name and a hint of a personality, and I can improvise an NPC just fine. Give me a name and make me come up with the personality off the cuff, I can do it, but there might be a little hesitation. No name? Flounder awkwardly for 20-30 seconds that feels to me like an eternity. Nope, gave up worrying about it long time ago. Better to just have that list of names handy.
Quote from: Exploderwizard on September 13, 2023, 07:21:26 AM
What does storytelling have to do with running a game?
Storytelling improves the roleplay experience by adding a direction to the campaign. Your character isn't just gaining power; they're actually learning a moral lesson which connects the main story to their backstory or the character's motivations.
Quote from: Fheredin on September 13, 2023, 10:18:29 PM
Quote from: Exploderwizard on September 13, 2023, 07:21:26 AM
What does storytelling have to do with running a game?
Storytelling improves the roleplay experience by adding a direction to the campaign. Your character isn't just gaining power; they're actually learning a moral lesson which connects the main story to their backstory or the character's motivations.
What the hell is a main story? The story of the campaign is whatever the hell the PCs decide to do. Moral lesson? Do evil characters learn this too? Backstory is the first few sessions of play if the character doesn't die. This ain't some novel, its a game.-
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on September 13, 2023, 06:31:45 PM
Quote from: tenbones on September 13, 2023, 05:57:29 PM
I do notice a lot of people, both in this thread, and in my many discussions off this forum, rate themselves hardest on Improvisation. I expected that. I'll address that first in a later post.
Improvisation relies on so many different techniques that it can be all over the place in the same session. Depends on what needs to be improvised. By now, some things I can improvise half asleep. Other things, no matter how much I work at it, no matter how many tricks I pull, it just doesn't fly. For example, I simply cannot make up a name off the cuff without a huge risk of it being off.
GM Preparation for me largely consists of having things handy that are either difficult for me to improvise or that are too distracting to do in a rush all the time. I can improvise a monster in a system/setting that I know well, but I'd rather not Give me a name and a hint of a personality, and I can improvise an NPC just fine. Give me a name and make me come up with the personality off the cuff, I can do it, but there might be a little hesitation. No name? Flounder awkwardly for 20-30 seconds that feels to me like an eternity. Nope, gave up worrying about it long time ago. Better to just have that list of names handy.
For me it's not even about making NPCs; I typically have a few old-hat techniques to quickly draw up NPCs like a list of names or a baby name book opened to random pages.
Personally, I have problems improvising when the players go off in a direction I haven't prepared early in a session. Usually my worlds do not like being abused with quantum monsters; I typically tailor them specifically for both the location I expect the PCs to be in and the strategies the PCs are using at the time. I generally have to make a metagame handshake with players that going to a new location is an automatic session-break so I can prep for it.
The other thing I tend to have problems with is getting players to snap out of RNG failure streaks. On one notable occasion I was GMing a Lasers and Feelings session for new players just to get an idea what roleplaying games were like. The party got chased by upset space pirates into a blind alleyway where they spent seven rolls trying to open a door.
In retrospect, I probably should have gotten the PCs into an encounter at about roll 3, but these were new players trying to be pacifists, L&F is a really un-crunchy system which doesn't do combat well, and the players were already eyeballs deep in a really bad cold dice streak. Escalating the need for one successful roll to pick or force a door to three successful rolls to incapacitate three space pirates in a cold dice streak struck me as exceptionally unwise. To this day, I'm not sure what I really could have done. Besides using Savage Worlds to actually have crunchy encounters, like I probably should have, anyways. But again, my system choice was to help brand new players.
Quote from: Exploderwizard on September 13, 2023, 10:34:32 PM
Quote from: Fheredin on September 13, 2023, 10:18:29 PM
Quote from: Exploderwizard on September 13, 2023, 07:21:26 AM
What does storytelling have to do with running a game?
Storytelling improves the roleplay experience by adding a direction to the campaign. Your character isn't just gaining power; they're actually learning a moral lesson which connects the main story to their backstory or the character's motivations.
What the hell is a main story? The story of the campaign is whatever the hell the PCs decide to do. Moral lesson? Do evil characters learn this too? Backstory is the first few sessions of play if the character doesn't die. This ain't some novel, its a game.-
Main Story: The stuff the GM prepared.
Do evil characters learn this, too? Lessons are often unique to each individual, so not all characters on the same adventure will learn the same lesson; it's how the story acted upon that particular character. Villains can learn lessons, though, and they can either be a heroic lesson or the sign inverse of a heroic lesson, depending on if you want the villain to be threatening or sympathetic. However, in RPGs you probably can't communicate that without a villainous monologue....
I suspect the problem is that you think storytelling infects the purity of your simulated adventure. The fact it's an adventure and not a pastoral fantasy cow-milking and dung-scooping simulator means that the simulated adventure
already comes with a storytelling contract. The question is if you're aware of it.
Quote from: Fheredin on September 13, 2023, 10:18:29 PM
Quote from: Exploderwizard on September 13, 2023, 07:21:26 AM
What does storytelling have to do with running a game?
Storytelling improves the roleplay experience by adding a direction to the campaign. Your character isn't just gaining power; they're actually learning a moral lesson which connects the main story to their backstory or the character's motivations.
That's a very narrow definition of roleplay, and it depends on a specific play style and set of expectations. Not only is it not a universal quality of GMs, it's not even necessarily a desirable one. You've mistaken your preferred playstyle for RPGs...
Storytelling is not required to be a good GM - and I agree people that confuse "telling a story" with GMing a TTRPG often get in their own way *if* they're trying to run anything with a complexity over a one-shot.
Agency for the PC's and how to give it to them at a maximal level *while* presenting your setting as broadly as possible with consistency is the the goal.
Quote from: Fheredin on September 13, 2023, 10:18:29 PM
Quote from: Exploderwizard on September 13, 2023, 07:21:26 AM
What does storytelling have to do with running a game?
Storytelling improves the roleplay experience by adding a direction to the campaign. Your character isn't just gaining power; they're actually learning a moral lesson which connects the main story to their backstory or the character's motivations.
C'mon guys! Tabletop rpgs aren't for leveling up your shifty 1st-Level PC to godhood -- they're for teaching players moral lessons that makes them throw off the evil yoke of Conservatism. The ultimate goal of playing rpgs is embracing Socialism dammit! Wake up fuckers! 😭😭😭
Quote from: tenbones on September 13, 2023, 11:14:24 PM
Storytelling is not required to be a good GM - and I agree people that confuse "telling a story" with GMing a TTRPG often get in their own way *if* they're trying to run anything with a complexity over a one-shot.
It is not
required, but that does not mean understanding the structure of storytelling isn't useful knowledge to a good GM. For one thing, it can help him find holes in what is offered for the players to choose what to do. Players may choose only to pursue fighting, but failure to offer things to do other than fighting limits their agency.
An analog might be something odd I heard in high school from a couple of motorheads. They were bored with algebra but excited for trig because trig had application to designing and building hotrods.
So, trig isn't required to build hotrods, but it is a useful skill to hotrod builders. Same with storytelling and GMs.
Ok, so I'm about to say something controversial but please carefully consider this before going after me.
Story telling and story structure are very important skills for a GM. First, you should be telling stories (even if you're not telling them directly to your players.) They should be the stories of the NPCs that make up the background of your world. Long dead heroes, the tragic decline of noble families, arrogant geniuses that ultimately destroyed themselves with their innovations, the rise of great nations, the fall of powerful sects, and so much more should be the stories you have at your fingertips to explain why your world is the way it is. You should not dump this on your players as exposition but it should be something your players tease out in exploration, discussions with NPCs, and treasures that they find.
My fantasy world has multiple hero arcs, fallen empires, lost orders, and forgotten pacts that I have written up. (about 300 pages across multiple files.) These are mostly in the form of stories. I use this a lot in preparing a campaign. None of this is for the players to read but for me to build on for making my sandbox for the players.
Second, the standard three act story telling method is basic adventure design. Sometimes you should directly inflict the first act on your players to motivate them and to see what they will do. Sometimes, you should introduce them to a story in the middle of or right at the end of the second act for them to intervene in. After that, it's the player through the PCs that take these situations and conclude them.
Half of my prep for a campaign is setting up these stories that I don't know the ending to. (I do know how they will end if the players ignore them though. ;D ) I also put a lot of these things on a timer. Some will kick off when the PCs encounter them, others start as soon as the campaign starts.
Quote from: BadApple on September 14, 2023, 02:40:25 PM
Story telling and story structure are very important skills for a GM. First, you should be telling stories (even if you're not telling them directly to your players.) They should be the stories of the NPCs that make up the background of your world. Long dead heroes, the tragic decline of noble families, arrogant geniuses that ultimately destroyed themselves with their innovations, the rise of great nations, the fall of powerful sects, and so much more should be the stories you have at your fingertips to explain why your world is the way it is. You should not dump this on your players as exposition but it should be something your players tease out in exploration, discussions with NPCs, and treasures that they find.
I don't entirely disagree even the way I think you mean it, because knowing how things might go in interesting directions is a useful, if tertiary skill. However, I do disagree that what you describe above is story telling or story structure. Some of the later stuff I omitted from the quote is.
The above is about having interesting situations. It happens to be relevant in both an RPG and a narrative, but those things are really about the setting.
Quote from: BadApple on September 14, 2023, 02:40:25 PM
Ok, so I'm about to say something controversial but please carefully consider this before going after me.
Story telling and story structure are very important skills for a GM. First, you should be telling stories (even if you're not telling them directly to your players.) They should be the stories of the NPCs that make up the background of your world. Long dead heroes, the tragic decline of noble families, arrogant geniuses that ultimately destroyed themselves with their innovations, the rise of great nations, the fall of powerful sects, and so much more should be the stories you have at your fingertips to explain why your world is the way it is. You should not dump this on your players as exposition but it should be something your players tease out in exploration, discussions with NPCs, and treasures that they find.
My fantasy world has multiple hero arcs, fallen empires, lost orders, and forgotten pacts that I have written up. (about 300 pages across multiple files.) These are mostly in the form of stories. I use this a lot in preparing a campaign. None of this is for the players to read but for me to build on for making my sandbox for the players.
This is just going the extra mile in world building. Stories of fallen empires, and ancient heroes are great additions to the setting.
Quote from: BadApple on September 14, 2023, 02:40:25 PM
Second, the standard three act story telling method is basic adventure design. Sometimes you should directly inflict the first act on your players to motivate them and to see what they will do. Sometimes, you should introduce them to a story in the middle of or right at the end of the second act for them to intervene in. After that, it's the player through the PCs that take these situations and conclude them.
Half of my prep for a campaign is setting up these stories that I don't know the ending to. (I do know how they will end if the players ignore them though. ;D ) I also put a lot of these things on a timer. Some will kick off when the PCs encounter them, others start as soon as the campaign starts.
This is where things go haywire. Any adventure prep that involves player action is not a story. Situations that are taking place in the game world without PC activity are fine. These are not stories. These are potential scenarios that the plays may choose to engage with. What happens without player involvement isn't really a story either. It is simply the world in motion. Now, when players engage with a scenario and take action and play the game, what comes out of it may make for one hell of a story told in the inn by the fireside.
Quote from: BadApple on September 14, 2023, 02:40:25 PM
Ok, so I'm about to say something controversial but please carefully consider this before going after me.
Story telling and story structure are very important skills for a GM. First, you should be telling stories (even if you're not telling them directly to your players.) They should be the stories of the NPCs that make up the background of your world. Long dead heroes, the tragic decline of noble families, arrogant geniuses that ultimately destroyed themselves with their innovations, the rise of great nations, the fall of powerful sects, and so much more should be the stories you have at your fingertips to explain why your world is the way it is. You should not dump this on your players as exposition but it should be something your players tease out in exploration, discussions with NPCs, and treasures that they find.
This is correct. Your world has a story. Your NPC's have stories. But the adventure, so to speak, from Sandbox perspective* is what the players actually do. The "Story" of the campaign is what happens after those interactions. And never should these stories of your world and its NPC's be safe from your PC's machinations - but the PC's likewise aren't safe from these narratives either.
*Sandbox is an overarching form of game that can contain linear-ish contents i.e. you might use an adventure module to fit into a Sandbox - they are different in scale and require different skillsets to run properly. What you've described is precisely what I think of as "classic Sandbox setup" - and it's big-league TTRPG gaming. Running a one-shots>APs>Plot Point Campaigns>Sandbox are nested versions of lesser to maximal agency for the PC's. Sandboxing is its own set of principles that scales down, what it takes to run One-Shots doesn't scale up. My goal is to identify those tools and skills required to scale up GM's and their games (if they choose) to experience that level of gaming and deliver to their players.
Quote from: BadApple on September 14, 2023, 02:40:25 PMMy fantasy world has multiple hero arcs, fallen empires, lost orders, and forgotten pacts that I have written up. (about 300 pages across multiple files.) These are mostly in the form of stories. I use this a lot in preparing a campaign. None of this is for the players to read but for me to build on for making my sandbox for the players.
Second, the standard three act story telling method is basic adventure design. Sometimes you should directly inflict the first act on your players to motivate them and to see what they will do. Sometimes, you should introduce them to a story in the middle of or right at the end of the second act for them to intervene in. After that, it's the player through the PCs that take these situations and conclude them.
I don't do any story acts. I work with and am married to a professional novel editor, I sit in with her editor's circle and we have this discussion all the time about the differences between fiction and TTRPG's (many of them have been editors for various big RPG companies - and a few video-game companies), in pure Sandox (which we're going to need to discuss possibly in another thread as I don't want to confuse people) there are no "acts to follow" as the PC's are dictating the course of story de-facto as they are the protagonists. As a GM - at best you're using your NPC's as antagonists to do their own shenanigans, but it *shouldn't* follow a fictional narrative structure because the PC's should be setting that pace. You can nudge, but you shouldn't overtly push. The goal should be to respond with the world and its contents consistently and naturally. This *could* be perceived by players and outsiders as "narrative" - but it's not if you've got your chops (and a good Facility rating) when all you're doing is playing your NPC's intelligently and presenting your setting correctly.
Other forms of game - One-Shots, AP's etc. limit agency of players, which run RAW, tend to feel exactly artificial - because it is. I contend Sandbox GM's rarely run such fare without good reason, simply because by habit of running big sandboxes, you tend to want to break linear content down as much as possible. There are *always* reasons not to - laziness, time constraints, etc.
Quote from: BadApple on September 14, 2023, 02:40:25 PMHalf of my prep for a campaign is setting up these stories that I don't know the ending to. (I do know how they will end if the players ignore them though. ;D ) I also put a lot of these things on a timer. Some will kick off when the PCs encounter them, others start as soon as the campaign starts.
Yeah this is much like me. I create a whole big sandbox full of stuff, backstory, NPC's with motivations and machinations, organizations etc. etc. I wind it all up. We do character generation and session zero, and negotiate the backgrounds of everyone's characters, and I fit them into the context of the sandbox so *everyone* knows exactly what they need to know to hit the ground running in the starting location(s). Once the first session starts - the machine runs itself. NPC's and PC's doing their thing until TPK or Glory.
Good categorization! Like any kind of activity or performance or competition, you're never going to be at the tippy-top of your game every single day.
When I'm at my best, I believe I'd score a (natural) 20. But sometimes, I'm as low as a 16 or 17. So, on average, I'll say a solid 18. Of course, if I switched gears for some reason, like trying out a new system or experimenting with a totally different approach than my usual, the numbers would be lower.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 13, 2023, 11:06:18 PM
Quote from: Fheredin on September 13, 2023, 10:18:29 PM
Quote from: Exploderwizard on September 13, 2023, 07:21:26 AM
What does storytelling have to do with running a game?
Storytelling improves the roleplay experience by adding a direction to the campaign. Your character isn't just gaining power; they're actually learning a moral lesson which connects the main story to their backstory or the character's motivations.
That's a very narrow definition of roleplay, and it depends on a specific play style and set of expectations. Not only is it not a universal quality of GMs, it's not even necessarily a desirable one. You've mistaken your preferred playstyle for RPGs...
Bluff called.
I am not saying you always need to choose the "storytelling" option. It doesn't fit every campaign and the GM's job is to juggle many hats, anyways. What I
am saying is that telling a story requires some intentionality and if you don't know a thing or two about storytelling, you can't explore this direction of roleplay.
You also can't really judge other playgroups using it. I don't mean this in the sense of snowflakes not wanting to be judged...I mean that your knowledge of the subject is limited to browsing TV Tropes ten years ago. You literally do not know what you're talking about, so you have absolutely no idea how it does or doesn't combine with other game aspects.
...This is another allergic reaction to Forge-style story games, isn't it? Do I need to start prefacing my posts with trigger warnings? I don't even view those as stories beyond the fevered dreams of lobotomized hamsters; they don't know much more about storytelling than you do.
Quote from: Fheredin on September 14, 2023, 07:41:24 PM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 13, 2023, 11:06:18 PM
Quote from: Fheredin on September 13, 2023, 10:18:29 PM
Quote from: Exploderwizard on September 13, 2023, 07:21:26 AM
What does storytelling have to do with running a game?
Storytelling improves the roleplay experience by adding a direction to the campaign. Your character isn't just gaining power; they're actually learning a moral lesson which connects the main story to their backstory or the character's motivations.
That's a very narrow definition of roleplay, and it depends on a specific play style and set of expectations. Not only is it not a universal quality of GMs, it's not even necessarily a desirable one. You've mistaken your preferred playstyle for RPGs...
Bluff called.
I am not saying you always need to choose the "storytelling" option. It doesn't fit every campaign and the GM's job is to juggle many hats, anyways. What I am saying is that telling a story requires some intentionality and if you don't know a thing or two about storytelling, you can't explore this direction of roleplay.
You also can't really judge other playgroups using it. I don't mean this in the sense of snowflakes not wanting to be judged...I mean that your knowledge of the subject is limited to browsing TV Tropes ten years ago. You literally do not know what you're talking about, so you have absolutely no idea how it does or doesn't combine with other game aspects.
...This is another allergic reaction to Forge-style story games, isn't it? Do I need to start prefacing my posts with trigger warnings? I don't even view those as stories beyond the fevered dreams of lobotomized hamsters; they don't know much more about storytelling than you do.
You fucking buffoon, I have a MA in English Lit. I've published scholarly papers on Anglo-Saxon and Chaucerian texts. I've forgotten more about storytelling than you've ever known. When people don't agree with you, it doesn't make them ignorant; it might just mean you're wrong. You are the poster boy for the Dunning-Kruger Effect. You seem to think, because you've learned a little bit about the structure of stories, that you have some supreme knowledge that others around you don't share.
I recognize the elements of story, dumbass. The difference is that I don't prioritize them over the agency of players in an RPG. If players push forward consistently, I don't enforce a relaxation of tension, despite the fact that narrative beats tend to make better stories. Because my players are playing a GAME. And their fun is not limited to, or even primarily connected to, constructing a cohesive narrative. So, anyone who says that their DMing is significantly informed by the principles of narrative structure is simply declaring to the world that they are a shitty DM.
The problem with clinging to "narrative-as-necessary" as the default premise, is the fact that *too many* inexperienced GM's lean on this notion as a crutch that takes them down bad pathways that keep them from "letting go".
The inverse of this is that Forge adherents, even if it's just a residue of Forge ideology, tend to overplay the value of narrative for no other reason than its own sake. It ultimately gets in the way of running large Sandbox affairs - which is fine if there is no intent to do so. The issue then becomes one of denial of player agency as a default position in lieu of letting things take their natural course and forcing the narrative for the GM's own egoic needs.
I'm not saying *YOU* do any of this - I'm speaking in general. I personally believe there is a natural progression of GMing skill development. And no, not everyone is destined for doing Sandbox... and that's not bad. But it's the trek there that sharpens ones skills that makes high-narrative campaigns not only undesirable, but unnecessary.
Case in point - I absolutely understand story composition and a variety of story-structures far beyond the traditional 3-act structure, lots of people have made small fortunes inventing new structures based on some minutiae they deem important (true or not) - but I can run a one-shot using my Sandbox skills with absolutely ZERO need for creating a narrative to guide the PC's to wherever with the simple use of a plot premise - the PC's can choose to go for it or not - and if they don't they'll find my abilities to produce "adventure" for them to engage with seamless. It's not because I *need* to create a narrative, that inherently exists by dint of the fact that even if I run a one-shot, I've already created a reasonable facsimile of a working world that only exists for the PC's in this much tinier Sandbox than I'd normally run.
In fact, it's trivial for any decent Sandbox GM. My goal is to get people there if they're willing.
@VengerSatanis - I definitely need to play in one your campaigns someday.
Quote from: Theory of Games on September 12, 2023, 05:18:51 AM12+ is Matt Mercer territory and I'd bet money nobody here is on that level.
Matt Mercer isn't a DM, he's an actor. Stick him in a convention, give him a module with 15 minutes to read through it, and give him 6 players he's never met before and see how he does.
Aside from that, not to betray old school but I'm not sure that a numerical rating is that useful. However the different aspects are certainly something to think about, and tenbones has laid them out thoughtfully and intelligently as we've come to expect from him.
It'd probably be more useful to simply put a tick by whichever you think you're best at, and a cross by whichever you think you're worst at. Then think: would my games be improved more by emphasising my strengths, or working on my weaknesses?
In either case, most of us just need to game more. You don't get better at something never doing it. Of course, simply doing it isn't enough - you have to reflect on it afterwards. For example in my most recent game session (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipWMe3C8vm0), the players were soldier/SWAT types doing a training mission of liberating hostages in a bank robbery. Afterwards they "debriefed" with their instructors on what they felt they did right, what they could do better, were there different approaches and why they would have been better or worse, and so on.
And I as GM reflected a bit, too - I'd provided blueprints for them to plan their assault, but these were electrical and some players didn't realise this was a wire rather than a wall or furniture, etc. And as I wrote up the session for them afterwards, I realised I could have given them a bit more flavour. Instead of "he misses," it could be, "the rounds whizz past you, and into the marble wall behind, ricocheting off and sending small bits of stone flying," as that sort of description tends to bring players a bit more into the events - everyone instinctively ducks slightly when they hear that, and their character becomes more cautious, etc.
Keep gaming, and reflecting on it. Tenbones has given us a framework for that.
I got 14
Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 14, 2023, 09:22:59 PM
Quote from: Fheredin on September 14, 2023, 07:41:24 PM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 13, 2023, 11:06:18 PM
Quote from: Fheredin on September 13, 2023, 10:18:29 PM
Quote from: Exploderwizard on September 13, 2023, 07:21:26 AM
What does storytelling have to do with running a game?
Storytelling improves the roleplay experience by adding a direction to the campaign. Your character isn't just gaining power; they're actually learning a moral lesson which connects the main story to their backstory or the character's motivations.
That's a very narrow definition of roleplay, and it depends on a specific play style and set of expectations. Not only is it not a universal quality of GMs, it's not even necessarily a desirable one. You've mistaken your preferred playstyle for RPGs...
Bluff called.
I am not saying you always need to choose the "storytelling" option. It doesn't fit every campaign and the GM's job is to juggle many hats, anyways. What I am saying is that telling a story requires some intentionality and if you don't know a thing or two about storytelling, you can't explore this direction of roleplay.
You also can't really judge other playgroups using it. I don't mean this in the sense of snowflakes not wanting to be judged...I mean that your knowledge of the subject is limited to browsing TV Tropes ten years ago. You literally do not know what you're talking about, so you have absolutely no idea how it does or doesn't combine with other game aspects.
...This is another allergic reaction to Forge-style story games, isn't it? Do I need to start prefacing my posts with trigger warnings? I don't even view those as stories beyond the fevered dreams of lobotomized hamsters; they don't know much more about storytelling than you do.
You fucking buffoon, I have a MA in English Lit. I've published scholarly papers on Anglo-Saxon and Chaucerian texts. I've forgotten more about storytelling than you've ever known. When people don't agree with you, it doesn't make them ignorant; it might just mean you're wrong. You are the poster boy for the Dunning-Kruger Effect. You seem to think, because you've learned a little bit about the structure of stories, that you have some supreme knowledge that others around you don't share.
I recognize the elements of story, dumbass. The difference is that I don't prioritize them over the agency of players in an RPG. If players push forward consistently, I don't enforce a relaxation of tension, despite the fact that narrative beats tend to make better stories. Because my players are playing a GAME. And their fun is not limited to, or even primarily connected to, constructing a cohesive narrative. So, anyone who says that their DMing is significantly informed by the principles of narrative structure is simply declaring to the world that they are a shitty DM.
A common Lit-major misconception.
A Literature credential is not a publishing credential. Literature classes tend to focus on classics, with Chaucer being a good example. However, Literature favors essay writing because academic publishers rank publications based on citations. It's my educated guess that you don't see too many publication classes because it would negatively interfere with a university's accreditation.
Publishing and creative writing for commercial fiction is more a blue collar field that happens to sometimes be taught at University. Popular fiction has completely different tropes than classics and you can't learn about popular fiction by studying the classics. I actually have a publishing degree, and the actual classes on creative writing focused on 19th and 20th century authors who wrote about writing. Chekhov, Forster, Vonnegut, Capote. You go further back than about 1850 and popular fiction wasn't developed enough to take to modern reverse engineering.
Regardless, my point is not that I have a piece of paper and you don't--if anything, the best way to learn this stuff is to self-educate because the university classes are not that great. My point is that classics literature and publishing popular writing are two radically different academic domains which happen to share the English Department at most Universities.
I flat out do not have a lit related degree, so I apologize in advance if this comes off as uneducated to those among you who do. That said, I do sometimes wish I were better at describing a scene, crafting plot hooks, narrating and adjudicating actions from an in-world rather than mechanical sense, and bringing characters and in-game stories to life. I feel y'all are probably at least a bit better at that all told, and I respect it. I kinda call this story narration, as opposed to storytelling, since I fear if I ever tried for the latter I would likely railroad. Like, scene description, tale telling, dialogue writing/improv, you get it. It all feels very creative arts/writing-exercise-esque to me.
I also feel like good module writers probably have what you guys have, even if that's not necessarily the same as being a good DM who can do good improv (also something I want to learn, lol). I really respect those folks and the time and energy they put into a less well paying hobby and commercial arena. They certainly make my own life easier and my games better, even if I myself may lean a bit too much on them from time to time.
My point being... Maybe y'all don't recognize quite how good at improv/story narration you really are, even if you've had to practice to get where you are. It's inspiring, and I plan to work to become better at that sort of thing as well. But yeah, definitely give yourselves some credit on that level as well. And thank you all for your involvement and posts in the community.
Quote from: Fheredin on September 15, 2023, 07:19:43 PM
A common Lit-major misconception.
A Literature credential is not a publishing credential. Literature classes tend to focus on classics, with Chaucer being a good example. However, Literature favors essay writing because academic publishers rank publications based on citations. It's my educated guess that you don't see too many publication classes because it would negatively interfere with a university's accreditation.
Publishing and creative writing for commercial fiction is more a blue collar field that happens to sometimes be taught at University. Popular fiction has completely different tropes than classics and you can't learn about popular fiction by studying the classics. I actually have a publishing degree, and the actual classes on creative writing focused on 19th and 20th century authors who wrote about writing. Chekhov, Forster, Vonnegut, Capote. You go further back than about 1850 and popular fiction wasn't developed enough to take to modern reverse engineering.
Regardless, my point is not that I have a piece of paper and you don't--if anything, the best way to learn this stuff is to self-educate because the university classes are not that great. My point is that classics literature and publishing popular writing are two radically different academic domains which happen to share the English Department at most Universities.
What are you talking about? First of all, the elements of story are not the domain of "modern writers" only. Most of the storytelling techniques employed by modern fiction writers are no different in kind (but not necessarily in excellence) that those employed by everyone from the Greeks to the Middle Ages. While some evolution has taken place in what is considered popular, any story-telling technique you think is modern, I guarantee you I can find an example of from 200+ years ago. (BTW, just because a person specialized in a particular literature doesn't mean we didn't study works from outside those periods)
As for this:
QuoteHowever, Literature favors essay writing because academic publishers rank publications based on citations.
This is one of the most ignorant takes I've ever read. While literary publications might feature the discussions of literature in the format of essays (though I did co-edit a creative journal in grad school that was primarily prose fiction and poetry), the discussion is of the structure, composition, and elements of the narrative works we are studying. That's like saying that because a doctor uses a Latin term for an ailment, his remedy must be antiquated. An essay about literary analysis is about ... literary analysis. You, once again, have no idea what you are talking about.
(BTW, if you want to contrast a literary journal with an actual technical journal, I can point you in that direction, too. I did my undergrad double-majored Physics and Math... so I know the difference between a technical treatise and a literary analysis... having written both...)
Out of curiosity, to Eirikrautha, have you found your training on writing and themes, say for instance character analysis and dialogue within the classics or whatnot (probably using the wrong words there) helpful for DMing? Like, if I took a free or cheap online creative writing course or the like do you think it might help with my improv? Or at least my prep? I don't want to tell a story or whatnot, so much as get better at narration and those things I mentioned in my prior post.
Alternatively, would my time better be invested in writing practice, drama exercises (if I can somehow find the time and fellow participants), or watching YouTube/trawling places like here for advice? I do DM occasionally, but to often lackluster effect, I feel.
Also, anyone else can obviously jump in on this. If my problems are improv and what I earlier termed narrating scenes/world/in-game stories/doing good dialogue (not storytelling in the traditional sense) what has helped y'all get past difficulties or build up strengths in those areas?
Quote from: KindaMeh on September 15, 2023, 08:07:26 PM
I flat out do not have a lit related degree, so I apologize in advance if this comes off as uneducated to those among you who do. That said, I do sometimes wish I were better at describing a scene, crafting plot hooks, narrating and adjudicating actions from an in-world rather than mechanical sense, and bringing characters and in-game stories to life.
I've a degree in history and literature, and honestly neither helped me in those things. What does help is a wide range of reading and watching, plus some personal experience. For example, if you go camping even for one weekend in the forest, lie there in the dark, hearing the animal noises and seeing the stars, starting a fire and so on - well, now you'll become better at describing the D&D party camping in the woods. But if you don't do that, well nowadays there are a zillion YouTube videos and blogs describing it, spending some time watching and reading this stuff will teach you a lot.
Likewise anything else, like various melee weapons, firearms, and so on. Characters and plots you can just rip off from books and movies. Obviously you don't go from zero to doing this wonderfully in one session. It takes time. And your players will help you in this, because everyone at the game table wants to have a good and fun session. They'll cut you a lot of slack, and the tiniest detail you offer they'll take and run with, and build on themselves.
"Why does the villain have that thing?" says player A.
"He's probably going to do such-and-such," says player B.
And then you, who'd only put in that thing as window dressing, say to yourself, "Actually that's a pretty good idea!" note it down and go with it.
Your feeling, even unconscious, is that players are judging you and passively waiting for you to present things. It's not true. They're ready to jump in enthusiastically, and they're grateful to you for being there, since the game can go ahead without one of the players, but it can't go ahead without the GM. So they'll give you a chance, give you the benefit of the doubt, and do their best to help you.
Quote from: KindaMeh on September 15, 2023, 08:46:57 PM
Out of curiosity, to Eirikrautha, have you found your training on writing and themes, say for instance character analysis and dialogue within the classics or whatnot (probably using the wrong words there) helpful for DMing? Like, if I took a free or cheap online creative writing course or the like do you think it might help with my improv? Or at least my prep? I don't want to tell a story or whatnot, so much as get better at narration and those things I mentioned in my prior post.
Alternatively, would my time better be invested in writing practice, drama exercises (if I can somehow find the time and fellow participants), or watching YouTube/trawling places like here for advice? I do DM occasionally, but to often lackluster effect, I feel.
Also, anyone else can obviously jump in on this. If my problems are improv and what I called story narration (not storytelling) what has helped y'all get past difficulties or build up strengths in those areas?
Being a good DM involves so many different techniques, that almost anything you do to exercise the relevant parts of your brain will be helpful. You need to be careful, however, not to over apply the techniques. Or rather, don't fixate on a handful of techniques as if they are the "answer". Part of being your own good DM is synthesizing a mix of techniques that fit your goals.
Take for example, listening to a variety of music, playing a musical instrument, singing, composing, etc. I can almost guarantee that doing several of those things seriously will, as a side effect, improve a GM's sense of subtle pacing. But you don't go chase those thing as if they are going to make your pacing perfect (they won't), nor are they the only way to get those improvements (they aren't), and if you do decide to study music, to get the most benefit, it should be for its own sake, because it is interesting.
Another exercise that will strengthen "narrative muscles" is to parrot poetry. That is, take an existing piece of verse (not free verse), keep the same syllables and flow, but replace most of the words to completely change the meaning. The result will be garbage poetry. However, doing this will give some insight into what makes the original good. This is one of the poetical equivalents of practicing scales in music. However, the main reason to do this is not to be a better GM but as exercises towards eventually writing your own poetry. Becoming more poetical will, as a side effect, likely help your narrative descriptions have more punch in fewer words.
Those are only examples. Getting new experiences by living is one of the best DM training things you can ever do, and it doesn't much matter what those new experiences are.
Quote from: KindaMeh on September 15, 2023, 08:46:57 PM
Out of curiosity, to Eirikrautha, have you found your training on writing and themes, say for instance character analysis and dialogue within the classics or whatnot (probably using the wrong words there) helpful for DMing? Like, if I took a free or cheap online creative writing course or the like do you think it might help with my improv? Or at least my prep? I don't want to tell a story or whatnot, so much as get better at narration and those things I mentioned in my prior post.
Alternatively, would my time better be invested in writing practice, drama exercises (if I can somehow find the time and fellow participants), or watching YouTube/trawling places like here for advice? I do DM occasionally, but to often lackluster effect, I feel.
Also, anyone else can obviously jump in on this. If my problems are improv and what I earlier termed narrating scenes/world/in-game stories/doing good dialogue (not storytelling in the traditional sense) what has helped y'all get past difficulties or build up strengths in those areas?
Ehhh, not really. Some plot points can be helpful for inventing what is happening in the setting, and coming up with characters on the fly I will occasionally steal mannerisms or personalities from literature (but you could easily do the same from movies or TV shows). I mainly run sandbox campaigns, sometimes with a long-term existential threat, but usually not. So I really don't use much of what has been referred to above as "story mechanics."
Honestly, the best way to get better at improvising material is to... improvise material. I'd avoid creative writing or improv workshops, just because they aren't really focused on the kind of improvisational techniques you need for a roleplaying game. I find that the sorts of things I need on the spur of the moment defy direct preparation. When my players decide to enter the sewers to see if they can infiltrate the stronghold, a general knowledge of how sewers work, what they are likely to be made of and contain, how to access them, etc., is far more important that how to improv a clever voice. So I'd say a well-rounded investigation of the elements of your setting (medieval, sci-fi, modern, etc.) is far more valuable than studying characterization.
As well, when it comes to description or presenting the "scene," I find that the two most important tools I use are details and vocabulary. Thinking in terms of the sights, smells, sounds, and tactile stimuli help paint a verbal picture for the players. On the surface this is similar to some facets of creative writing, but really it is a matter of being able to picture the place or situation you are creating for the players and doesn't require any special skills or training. Having read a wide variety of literature probably doesn't hurt, but I don't think it is necessary, either. I also find that being able to describe similar things using different words helps to keep my players from getting bored with the descriptions, so a decent vocabulary is helpful (the twentieth room with the "smell of rotting flesh" pretty much loses all uniqueness and impact). Much of my vocab was probably gained via reading literature, but, once again, I don't think that necessarily means that literature is the only vehicle for such acquisition. If you feel that presenting the world to your players in an engaging and convincing manner is a weakness, then looking at how other people describe things doesn't hurt. But it's just a small part of what RPG "improvisation" really is. It's part psychology ("What will grip my players?"), part literary ("How can I paint a picture in their head?"), part verisimilitude ("What is believable and authentic in this moment?"), and part reactionary ("How can I play off of what they just did/said/believe?").
And it's also about recognizing how people interact with the world around them. One of the first things I used to teach my students was how to spot the important ideas is walls of fictional prose text (some authors can be very descriptive and wordy... I think it was Mark Twain that said Herman Melville could pack a sentence into a whole paragraph). The keys: look for things repeated and things out of place. You don't need to describe what the players expect to see; describe what is unusual about the scene. If you mention the temperature multiple times, your players will instinctively assume that the temperature is somehow important or of significance... so it should be (nothing irritates players more than unintentional red herrings). People walking into a blood-soaked room aren't going to notice the tile patterns on the floor first... it'll be all the blood that catches their attention first! So be aware of what you are describing and how it relates to what people would actually notice in real life. Once again, a skill that is related to literary analysis, but not exclusive to it.
So I'd say practice by running games. Then practice by running more games. Get feedback (and use your own senses... you'll know when you have your players engaged) and be self-critical. Finally, as an ultimate step, practice by running even more games. There's no shortcut. Experience is the best teacher...
:) KindaMeh, you have to give yourself permission to fail along the way to grow into success. Yes, it's just that hard... and simple. ;)
You have to let go of the 'accreditization of everything'. That's theoretical stuff, fun for laboratory research, often up in its own ass in fear of theory failure, ready to split every hair. But it is the application, the play, the uncontrollable reality that is the real crucible. And it's a lot less serious in stakes, and people in it a lot more forgiving, than we think.
;D Stop overthinking and play!
Quote from: Opaopajr on September 16, 2023, 03:22:46 AM
:) KindaMeh, you have to give yourself permission to fail along the way to grow into success. Yes, it's just that hard... and simple. ;)
You have to let go of the 'accreditization of everything'. That's theoretical stuff, fun for laboratory research, often up in its own ass in fear of theory failure, ready to split every hair. But it is the application, the play, the uncontrollable reality that is the real crucible. And it's a lot less serious in stakes, and people in it a lot more forgiving, than we think.
;D Stop overthinking and play!
Very good advice! I really think that a lot of the problem comes from would-be DMs watching lots of play from people streaming online and getting the impression that they have to meet a certain performance standard to even try. Never forget that unless you are a paid DM that you are just a participant like everyone else. You are not some performer that everyone is expecting to give them a show. Just chill and run the game. Learn from that session, take notes and run some more.
Thank you all for your responses and encouragement. Much appreciated. :)
Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 15, 2023, 08:33:36 PM
Quote from: Fheredin on September 15, 2023, 07:19:43 PM
A common Lit-major misconception.
A Literature credential is not a publishing credential. Literature classes tend to focus on classics, with Chaucer being a good example. However, Literature favors essay writing because academic publishers rank publications based on citations. It's my educated guess that you don't see too many publication classes because it would negatively interfere with a university's accreditation.
Publishing and creative writing for commercial fiction is more a blue collar field that happens to sometimes be taught at University. Popular fiction has completely different tropes than classics and you can't learn about popular fiction by studying the classics. I actually have a publishing degree, and the actual classes on creative writing focused on 19th and 20th century authors who wrote about writing. Chekhov, Forster, Vonnegut, Capote. You go further back than about 1850 and popular fiction wasn't developed enough to take to modern reverse engineering.
Regardless, my point is not that I have a piece of paper and you don't--if anything, the best way to learn this stuff is to self-educate because the university classes are not that great. My point is that classics literature and publishing popular writing are two radically different academic domains which happen to share the English Department at most Universities.
What are you talking about? First of all, the elements of story are not the domain of "modern writers" only. Most of the storytelling techniques employed by modern fiction writers are no different in kind (but not necessarily in excellence) that those employed by everyone from the Greeks to the Middle Ages. While some evolution has taken place in what is considered popular, any story-telling technique you think is modern, I guarantee you I can find an example of from 200+ years ago. (BTW, just because a person specialized in a particular literature doesn't mean we didn't study works from outside those periods)
As for this:
QuoteHowever, Literature favors essay writing because academic publishers rank publications based on citations.
This is one of the most ignorant takes I've ever read. While literary publications might feature the discussions of literature in the format of essays (though I did co-edit a creative journal in grad school that was primarily prose fiction and poetry), the discussion is of the structure, composition, and elements of the narrative works we are studying. That's like saying that because a doctor uses a Latin term for an ailment, his remedy must be antiquated. An essay about literary analysis is about ... literary analysis. You, once again, have no idea what you are talking about.
(BTW, if you want to contrast a literary journal with an actual technical journal, I can point you in that direction, too. I did my undergrad double-majored Physics and Math... so I know the difference between a technical treatise and a literary analysis... having written both...)
You can't publish in the modern story environment without actually understanding it. Sure, "round characters" technically existed before Forster gave a test to characterize them, but because we now have a formal test for them, they are now far more prevalent than they ever were in antiquity. I would hazard a guess they're about 100 times more common in 20th century and later writing than they were in the Greco-Roman or Medieval eras, but I can say with confidence they are at least 20 times more common.
This is also true when you look at the history of the speculative genres because they were not particularly well codified before the 1940s.
But here's the real problem I have with what you say; you have now stated that you have effectively three degrees in two radically different fields, but you haven't demonstrated to me that you've even read a Wikipedia article on Chaucer, let alone the original. There's also the decorum of proving a negative case; academics are usually quite reluctant to argue negative cases because it's pretty likely someone could prove them wrong, and they are very unlikely to argue their field of study is irrelevant or that they don't use it for something because that's asking to get their funding cut.
I'm not saying you don't have a degree--these days bear scat in the woods contains tapeworms with BAs in it--but if you don't know anything relevant...
I kinda suspect these degrees weren't worth it.
Quote from: Fheredin on September 17, 2023, 02:49:02 PM
I would hazard a guess they're about 100 times more common in 20th century and later writing than they were in the Greco-Roman or Medieval eras, but I can say with confidence they are at least 20 times more common.
And the first thing we learn when pursuing a degree is to back up our assertions with evidence. Now, provide your statistics to prove your assertions above. Because the vast majority of ALL characters ever written are flat characters, and this is especially true in modern media. Most authors don't both to create attributes for characters that won't be needed, and every character doesn't need to be rounded for a story to be effective (some times it can even be a detriment). So I don't see how you pulling numbers out of your ass is any sign of expertise.
In fact, I've yet to see any information provided by you that shows even a basic knowledge of literature or storytelling. What's your brilliant insight here? You keep telling us that you know more than we do about storytelling, but you never actually say anything about storytelling. So, put your money where your mouth is. Describe this perspective you have on RPGs and storytelling. Because, based on what you've posted so far in this thread, you haven't said anything a middle-schooler with Wikipedia couldn't babble out...
Quote from: Fheredin on September 17, 2023, 02:49:02 PM
But here's the real problem I have with what you say; you have now stated that you have effectively three degrees in two radically different fields, but you haven't demonstrated to me that you've even read a Wikipedia article on Chaucer, let alone the original.
Well, the topic hasn't been Chaucer, up to this point. But I'm happy to educate you, if you have questions. I've frequently found the description of the Canon in the "Canon's Yeoman's Tale" to be an excellent starting point for RPG systems of alchemy. Would you prefer to continue the discussion in Middle English? Otherwise, stint thee clap, or thee beth clept a fole.
I rate my improv as pretty basic, at 2, but otherwise I'm OK. I give myself 13 points.
Quote from: tenbones on September 14, 2023, 09:40:47 PM
@VengerSatanis - I definitely need to play in one your campaigns someday.
At the very least a one-shot, yes. I still believe I have room for improvement... but most of that comes down to stage presence and delivery.
Come to VENGER CON sometime and we can at least sit down for a few hours and roleplay!