Rant on Gaming
No, nothing in particular brought this on....but the 7 repetitive habits of annoying GMs have really got my goat over the last 30 years:
Going "Oh, the players are going somewhere I don't like - I'll throw obstacles in their way!" and "The players are following the plot - I'll throw obstacles in their way!" and then complaining that the players don't follow the railway tracks.
Spending the first session crushing any attempt by the players to do anything interesting, and then whining that the game was supposed to be heroic, not slapstick.
If the PC's actions make them look like Rimmer, then the players are going to play a campy slapstick game. We get introduced to heroes when we see them being awesome, not as pretentious losers. And why would we want to play everyday joes being pushed around? That's called "real life".
Complaining about players working the system when the GM has demonstrated a complete failure to understand story. If a player has spent an hour real time preparing to drop a stone tower on the villain, and said villain walks away - then don't be surprised when the player ignores stories and just crunches the numbers.
Taking a plot that could be resolved in a session, and stretching it out over several games, calling it 'a campaign'. No, that's not epic, it's boring.
Stopping the PCs from exploring the implications of the world, whether social, economic or political. No world makes sense - take a look at the real one! Yes, the players are going to find interesting holes in the universe: stomping on that is boring. Running with that, and exploring what happens, is interesting.
Preventing the world from changing! Just as the real world changes, so will any imaginary world that is explored. Preventing the PCs from changing the world (whether by invincible Mary Sue villains, stopping commercial operations or PC politicking) is boring. Change is interesting. The GM is the adjudicator of the world, not its' owner.
Deciding what the PCs are doing. You have a world of NPCs to play with, the players have a single PC each. Granted the border is difficult to determine, what with families and minions and so forth, but if you can't avoid meddling with the PCs themselves, then your world is clearly too boring to begin with! If the GM isn't interested in the NPCs, why should the PCs be? And no, that isn't an excuse to make the game all about your Mary Sue NPCs either!
Going "Oh, the players are going somewhere I don't like - I'll throw obstacles in their way!" and "The players are following the plot - I'll throw obstacles in their way!" and then complaining that the players don't follow the railway tracks.
Spending the first session crushing any attempt by the players to do anything interesting, and then whining that the game was supposed to be heroic, not slapstick.
If the PC's actions make them look like Rimmer, then the players are going to play a campy slapstick game. We get introduced to heroes when we see them being awesome, not as pretentious losers. And why would we want to play everyday joes being pushed around? That's called "real life".
Complaining about players working the system when the GM has demonstrated a complete failure to understand story. If a player has spent an hour real time preparing to drop a stone tower on the villain, and said villain walks away - then don't be surprised when the player ignores stories and just crunches the numbers.
Taking a plot that could be resolved in a session, and stretching it out over several games, calling it 'a campaign'. No, that's not epic, it's boring.
Stopping the PCs from exploring the implications of the world, whether social, economic or political. No world makes sense - take a look at the real one! Yes, the players are going to find interesting holes in the universe: stomping on that is boring. Running with that, and exploring what happens, is interesting.
Preventing the world from changing! Just as the real world changes, so will any imaginary world that is explored. Preventing the PCs from changing the world (whether by invincible Mary Sue villains, stopping commercial operations or PC politicking) is boring. Change is interesting. The GM is the adjudicator of the world, not its' owner.
Deciding what the PCs are doing. You have a world of NPCs to play with, the players have a single PC each. Granted the border is difficult to determine, what with families and minions and so forth, but if you can't avoid meddling with the PCs themselves, then your world is clearly too boring to begin with! If the GM isn't interested in the NPCs, why should the PCs be? And no, that isn't an excuse to make the game all about your Mary Sue NPCs either!