Author: KillerGM (---.70.74)
Date: 08-22-2002 08:44
Well, Coil, I hate to say it, but it seems like you're going downhill with this article.
First: Coileen, I need to say this again...you need to lay off the brackets. Seriously. They just make the article that much harder to read.
Second: I think that the main problem you seem to have, with this article and a few of the others, is that you see gaming as a GameMaster-versus-Players type of thing, as opposed to GM-Working-With-The-Players, which is what most of the rest of us seem to do. This really got hammered home with your comment in Idiot/Savant's thread:
GM: "Stop metagaming."
Player: "No!"
GM: "Okay, nothing I can do."
Do you really think that all we're going to do is say "Knock it off" without trying to work with the player? If we resort to tricking the players into doing things the way we want, there's something really wrong here.
Plus, if you're so spineless to be stymied when the player says "No" in the example above, what the hell are you doing GMing?
I think a more realistic conversation would go
Player: (uses OOC knowledge)
GM: "You can't do that. Your character doesn't know that/isn't there."
Player: "Oh, sorry."
Or...
GM: (before or after a session) "Frank, you need to stop acting on stuff your character doesn't know. It's making my life a lot harder and is disrupting the game."
Player: "You think so? OK, I'll try to work on that."
I think you need to work off the fact that not all players are out to screw the GM, or vice versa. Some players actually want to improve or are willing to work with the rest of the group.
Third: I don't see what the point of having one of the players handle an NPC for one session, except that it increases the chance that your plot or your plans for said NPC get screwed up. Wouldn't that be a major concern for this methold?
|
|
