TheRPGSite

So I was talking to some friends of mine back in LA. Things aren't going well. Their GM is a railroading combat-monkey that tries to tell the players how their PC's *should* be reacting to his self-circle-jerk world. The guy is a bit of a clod.

It got me thinking...

How much does one's reading habits matter for GMing? A few guys I know that I consider "great GM's" that are voracious readers of fiction and non-fiction.

I know a few GM's that I just consider "good" or "decent" - their reading habits are sporadic, but when they read anything, it's usually good material.

I know of *no* "good" GM's that don't read at all.

Is this anecdotal with the rest of you? Do your own reading habits inform what you consider good/great in your GMs? What about your playstyle?

Hmm. Interesting question. The only GM's I've had experience who weren't reasonably well-read were grade school kids, so I don't think that counts.

I don't think there's been a direct correlation between good vs. great and a massive reading list _per se_, but I do see how reading (and video) content greatly influences GM style. All the GM's I know use what content they have and find interesting in their game worlds, and their thinking about cause and effect and narrative and all sorts of other subjects shows up in their GM style, naturally enough.

Well, hopefully, naturally enough. The weird and problematic GM's I can think of tended to also have some wonky/off thinking, or to be hung up on some ideas or reading or viewing and trying too hard, or in weird ways, to incorporate it in their games. I've done this myself, and look back on it as some of my weakest bits, when something had caught my imagination and so I ended up putting stuff in my worlds that was derivative and not really integrated into the world in a satisfying way. These things tend to be off-putting when I see similar things from GM's, especially when they're obvious and lazy and/or self-satisfied about it. I know one GM who I generally think is great, but my least favorite parts of her games are when the inspiration is borrowed in a way that seems transparent and shallow to me. Especially when I'm not particularly interested in the original subject being used.

I may be mis-interpreting, but it seems to me that over the last 25 years or so, both pop fiction and RPGs (and computer games) have taken a depressing dip in the direction of forced plots, exaggerated protagonist abilities with no reason, easy protagonist survival, things not needing to make sense, undeserved focus/significance on protagonist plots, etc., and I imagine that TV and Hollywood and Young Adult fiction have a lot to answer for. But maybe I'm just becoming a cantankerous old grump. ;-)

Well it could be the baseline of what is expected in new GM's/Players has increased.

I mean if you're my vintage (I started GMing in the mid/late 70's) all we had were books for fantasy media. I'm mean sure we had some movies, like all those Steve Reeves Hercules movies, Spartacus etc. but certainly nothing to compare with REH, and Moorcock, Leiber, Tolkien etc in terms of impact.

I think you bring up another good point I glazed over - GM's that flub it in trying to force a narrative. I think that's just a learning experience, but it still stems from having consumed SOME kind of media that they're trying to recreate. That said, I think the ones that learn from this are the ones that go on to let go with trying to force narratives (because they inevitably fail) and come to embrace the Sandbox ethic of letting the game be emergent from actual play.

Getting to that point is, in my experience, an often bumpy ride to figure out on your own.

I think you need to be a student of story, if you want to create memorable moments in concert with your players.  However, I think you can be a fine GM without being anything close to a voracious reader, provided you tap into player creativity. What broad reading does, for me, is allow me to pilfer ideas, morph them, and bring them into play in other guises. Also helps with prep because fluency speeds things up.

Honestly, I don't think I've ever met a gamer who wasn't a reader, so this seems something of a foreign to me.

Yes, I still do.  I read lot's of fantasy and comics, and I love to build worlds.

Sometimes I think reading too much is a hindrance. (For me.) I'm a voracious reader of science fiction; I read the classics when I was younger, and now I'm hooked on modern SF, especially the new space opera.

But most of my players are TV/movie addicts, and that leads to a lot of disconnects when I'm running a game. They're completely lost when I explain to them which authors inspired my game; I usually get a chorus of variations on "Never heard of them" in response.

It's hard to run a good SF RPG when you can't find players who've read Iain Banks, Stephen Baxter, and Alastair Reynolds. But they've all heard of "The Fifth Element."  :banghead:

Most of my gaming circle(s) is (are or have been) extremely well read and have been for about as long as I've known them (up to 30+ years in a couple cases).  They vary dramatically in their ability to GM in my experience, but I will put up with the worst because sometimes just the chance to game with old friends is worth it.  It also helps that the worst ISN'T totally horrible, just occasionally annoying.

I don't really think it comes down to being a heavy reader or reading good material even. A lot of natural storytellers I have known never even touched a book. And GMing, while I don't consider it storytelling, is more like telling a story than like writing a novel. Your speaking. People are reacting. It is a kind of public speaking. In fact, the worst GMs I've had try too hard to sound like prose from a novel. That doesn't really work well for setting the scene in an RPG in my experience. It is a whole different skill set.

What I do think is important is being inspired. Some GMs will find that in books, some in film, others in music or art. Most will probably have a blend of places they take inspiration from.

Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;858251They're completely lost when I explain to them which authors inspired my game; I usually get a chorus of variations on "Never heard of them" in response.

I'm not sure I see why that is a problem... if anything it frees you up to pull from those sources without Players recognition.
If the Players want Star Wars and you're aiming for Asimov... that's a different issue.

From my own experience, I appreciate GMs who have read (and watched) widely... not just reams of mainstream fantasy and scifi. I WANT them to get inspiration and ideas from places I'm not familiar with.
Playing with a group who all read and watched the same narrow scope of fiction had led me to kinda hate fan-service in games... "Oh, look! ANOTHER clever reference to The Princess Bride!"

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;858256I don't really think it comes down to being a heavy reader or reading good material even. A lot of natural storytellers I have known never even touched a book. And GMing, while I don't consider it storytelling, is more like telling a story than like writing a novel. Your speaking. People are reacting. It is a kind of public speaking. In fact, the worst GMs I've had try too hard to sound like prose from a novel. That doesn't really work well for setting the scene in an RPG in my experience. It is a whole different skill set.

What I do think is important is being inspired. Some GMs will find that in books, some in film, others in music or art. Most will probably have a blend of places they take inspiration from.

Yeah, it's true, I steal from everything.  TV, comics, Cartoons, Anime, Movies of all genres, novels, other game systems/settings, video games... If I think it's cool, and I can make something of it, consider it stolen.

Quote from: Simlasa;858257I'm not sure I see why that is a problem... if anything it frees you up to pull from those sources without Players recognition.
If the Players want Star Wars and you're aiming for Asimov... that's a different issue.

Exactly, and in the end if you turn your players onto your inspirations, so much the better.

Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;858251It's hard to run a good SF RPG when you can't find players who've read Iain Banks, Stephen Baxter, and Alastair Reynolds. But they've all heard of "The Fifth Element."  :banghead:

Hard to run a game based on those three authors, I'd imagine. But since they are a tiny fraction of SF authors, not hard to run a good SF RPG with people who have never, ever read those three authors. All three of whom are British authors of roughly the same age as me which is a rather narrow cross section of SF authors.

• Banks - name is familiar, can't recall anything by him I've read, certainly none of his novels.
• Baxter - might have read something of his, though nothing comes to mind when I skim his bibliography.
• Reynolds - nothing looks remotely familiar.

Of course they've heard of the Fifth Element. It had both Bruce Willis and Milla Javovich in it and they are way better known than almost any SF writer living or dead. Now if the only thing your players know about SF is the Fifth Element, I agree you have a problem. And if it were me, I'd choose to run something other than SF for that group.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;858256I don't really think it comes down to being a heavy reader or reading good material even. A lot of natural storytellers I have known never even touched a book. And GMing, while I don't consider it storytelling, is more like telling a story than like writing a novel. Your speaking. People are reacting. It is a kind of public speaking. In fact, the worst GMs I've had try too hard to sound like prose from a novel. That doesn't really work well for setting the scene in an RPG in my experience. It is a whole different skill set.

I disagree. I've seldom  (like maybe one session at a Con) played an RPG that was set in the same time and place that my GM is from. If the GM isn't well read, then they really need to be extremely well traveled. Otherwise the scope of what they know and can represent is going to be limited to their little slice of whatever country and city they happened to grow up and to live in. And that's just way too narrow a point of view.

Quote from: Bren;858262I disagree. I've seldom  (like maybe one session at a Con) played an RPG that was set in the same time and place that my GM is from. If the GM isn't well read, then they really need to be extremely well traveled. Otherwise the scope of what they know and can represent is going to be limited to their little slice of whatever country and city they happened to grow up and to live in. And that's just way too narrow a point of view.

You don't need to read for that though. You can pick it up from television, movies, talking with people, documentaries and radio. I am not knocking being well read but I really don't think it's the only way to be a great GM. Nor do I think it is all that necessary. The reading levels of the good GMs I have played with are all over the map.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;858263You don't need to read for that though. You can pick it up from television, movies, talking with people, documentaries and radio. I am not knocking being well read but I really don't think it's the only way to be a great GM. Nor do I think it is all that necessary. The reading levels of the good GMs I have played with are all over the map.

For anything beyond a very surface level of knowledge one will get from TV and film, I think you do need to read. Even the long documentaries like Ken Burns' Civil War are still only at a surface level of knowledge and in my experience, those are the exceptions not the norms for documentaries.

Quote from: Bren;858264For anything beyond a very surface level of knowledge one will get from TV and film, I think you do need to read. Even the long documentaries like Ken Burns' Civil War are still only at a surface level of knowledge and in my experience, those are the exceptions not the norms for documentaries.

What exactly are you looking for in your games???

Quote from: Bren;858264For anything beyond a very surface level of knowledge one will get from TV and film, I think you do need to read. Even the long documentaries like Ken Burns' Civil War are still only at a surface level of knowledge and in my experience, those are the exceptions not the norms for documentaries.

Some GMs are great at research and enhance their campaigns with it. Others take a lot of surface level knowledge and turn it into an exciting adventure. I certainly won't dispute you are probably going to learn more by reading books about the civil war than by watching documentaries (though reading the right books is just as important as how much you read). But I don't think GMing requires that kind of smarts. Again, I am not knocking being well read. I like to read a lot myself. And above all I like to read history books. But I have never really seen level of reading reflect quality in GMing in the groups I've been in. What seems to matter is that the person have sources of inspiration.

Quote from: tenbones;858215How much does one's reading habits matter for GMing? A few guys I know that I consider "great GM's" that are voracious readers of fiction and non-fiction.

...

Is this anecdotal with the rest of you? Do your own reading habits inform what you consider good/great in your GMs? What about your playstyle?

In my view the GM skills depends on practical experience (I play on weekly basis) and reading (I typically read 2 books per week).

I believe that reading greatly improves role playing because I get plenty of ideas and character mindsets from books. History in general and social history in particular are my main source for science fiction games. Knowing the world view and seeing how it makes the world work helps to make unique and different worlds.

I have been thinking before why reading makes a better GM. My conclusion was and is that literary and historical characters are often far more complex than television characters. Second thing is that role play requires one to get into mindset of the character and thus understanding world view of different kinds of societies helps in it. This method is also used by theater actors.

There are often lamentations of quality of books in these discussions. I do not see that as the critical issue. In my view it is the breath of subjects you read. The more different books you read, the wider the viewpoints and thus your experience. Of course it does not hurt to avoid bad books in general as one should generally avoid garbage.

I haven't read fiction in years, although I do listen regularly to a handful of short-fiction podcasts, which may or may not count.  I do read a fair bit of non-fiction and (obviously) discussion forums, but I assume that's not the kind of "reading" you're talking about.

I also get the impression that the people I've played with consider me a good GM and enjoy my games.  And, in recent years, I've only been playing with strangers (moving halfway across the world tends to do that), so it's not just old friends humoring me to be nice.  There have been a few who have left because they wanted different things in their RPGs than what I was offering, but that's to be expected any time you're bringing new players in.

Perhaps relevant, though, is that I specifically aim for campaigns which feel like they could be taking place in the (or at least a) real world rather than a feeling of being in a story, which seems like it would be a good fit with my reality-heavy/fiction-light reading habits.

I'm a GM, and I'm a voracious, constant reader (of RPGs, fiction, nonfiction, etc.). I think the upside is the bank of knowledge i draw from. Sometimes the downside is that my attention and interest move on to the next shiny thing.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;858256I don't really think it comes down to being a heavy reader or reading good material even. A lot of natural storytellers I have known never even touched a book. And GMing, while I don't consider it storytelling, is more like telling a story than like writing a novel. Your speaking. People are reacting. It is a kind of public speaking. In fact, the worst GMs I've had try too hard to sound like prose from a novel. That doesn't really work well for setting the scene in an RPG in my experience. It is a whole different skill set.

I generally agree here. But I'd stipulate that having a background in storytelling/storyconstruction/writing/reading etc. lets the GM nudge things in directions that players who may not otherwise have considered taking their characters.

An interesting anecdotal observation I have is trying to run EPIC FANTASY with people that know literally nothing about "epic fantasy" or even "fantasy" outside of the Lord of the Rings movies, it's difficult. Because they walk into the game with post-modern conceits about trying to be down-and-dirty as opposed to being a tad selfless. This could be a reflection of other things... but with people that read high-fantasy, its obviously a non-issue.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;858256What I do think is important is being inspired. Some GMs will find that in books, some in film, others in music or art. Most will probably have a blend of places they take inspiration from.

Agreed. New GM's will often try to replicate storylines from such media - rather than spin the settings into their own thing. This is why I rarely run Star Wars set during the movies and prefer doing things in the Old Republic. Much much larger canvas to paint with. But I understand why others would use the standard setting - it's less complicated.

Quote from: nDervish;858303I haven't read fiction in years, although I do listen regularly to a handful of short-fiction podcasts, which may or may not count.  I do read a fair bit of non-fiction and (obviously) discussion forums, but I assume that's not the kind of "reading" you're talking about.

I also get the impression that the people I've played with consider me a good GM and enjoy my games.  And, in recent years, I've only been playing with strangers (moving halfway across the world tends to do that), so it's not just old friends humoring me to be nice.  There have been a few who have left because they wanted different things in their RPGs than what I was offering, but that's to be expected any time you're bringing new players in.

Perhaps relevant, though, is that I specifically aim for campaigns which feel like they could be taking place in the (or at least a) real world rather than a feeling of being in a story, which seems like it would be a good fit with my reality-heavy/fiction-light reading habits.

Would you say that your games have hit the "Great" level? By that I mean you, and your players are jonesing to get to the next session, and emails are flying, IM's and texts are hammering you while you try to do your dayjob. Some old bastard is griping how you need to set up an Obsidian Portal site for the game so they can journal - or something along those lines?

Long thought:

On reflection, I think there are a bunch of talents that can make for a great GM, and a bunch of issues that can mess one up, and that there are similar traits for all the players, as well as different sets of sensitivities for everyone. By sensitivities I mean that when I was a younger gamer, I wouldn't notice many things that today would put me off, and I also wouldn't be able to appreciate or enjoy many things that now I do. And, I think all of these things can be developed by a variety of types of experience, but that reading good books is one excellent source, and reading is similar in that it also takes something to find and digest good books. Some literature professors like to say that completely understanding one great book can be a full education in itself.

I think that great GM skills can come from other places, even without any reading, though I'd certainly recommend reading good books (and avoiding crap). As for quality, I think it also depends on the quality of the other media, and it feels to me like the quality has plummeted since I was younger. I'd want to play in an RPG that operated like a good (1960's-1970's-style) movie, but now I have a hard time finding films I even want to watch. There have of course been exceptions, but there seems to be an awful lot of stuff that feels like crap that wouldn't be much like games I'd want to play.

I think persistence is a huge quality for a "great GM".

I try to tell that to a lot of new GM's. You WILL FAIL. Campaigns crater all the time. It's not always your fault, but sometimes it is. The key is to get back into the saddle.

I still can't get away from the nagging notion that a lot of it has to do with ones consumption of good inspiration. I probably should not hem-and-haw about it being just books, but that's due to my age. The issue then becomes how has media consumption changed how GM's run their games as time has moved on? Is that a fair question?

We've seen it countless times where D&D 3.x and 4e have been bludgeoned with being called WoW-simulators...

And right on queue...

someone links me this...

http://imgur.com/gallery/Cvrey

hahah nice.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;858268Some GMs are great at research and enhance their campaigns with it. Others take a lot of surface level knowledge and turn it into an exciting adventure. I certainly won't dispute you are probably going to learn more by reading books about the civil war than by watching documentaries (though reading the right books is just as important as how much you read). But I don't think GMing requires that kind of smarts. Again, I am not knocking being well read. I like to read a lot myself. And above all I like to read history books. But I have never really seen level of reading reflect quality in GMing in the groups I've been in. What seems to matter is that the person have sources of inspiration.

I may be reading to much into my experiences as I can't recall any GMs who didn't read a lot of books. Of course most of my friends are nerds and there was a high correlation between nerds and reading. It seems like there still is, from the younger nerds I know, though perhaps not as high a correlation. And on the other hand, the friends of mine who aren't interested in reading don't seem like they would make good GMs or even be very interested.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;858265What exactly are you looking for in your games???

Fun. What exactly fun consists of varies by what we are playing: Runequest/Glorantha, Pendragon, Call of Cthulhu, Star Trek, Star Wars, and Honor+Intrigue are clearly going to differ and the particular characters in any one of those settings we play will vary the fun even more, e.g. good-guy heroic Rebels vs. Empire is going to have different kinds of fun than playing a crew of scruffy fringers trying to pay the vig on their ship loan long enough to finally make the big score.

Quote from: Bren;858341I may be reading to much into my experiences as I can't recall any GMs who didn't read a lot of books. Of course most of my friends are nerds and there was a high correlation between nerds and reading. It seems like there still is, from the younger nerds I know, though perhaps not as high a correlation. And on the other hand, the friends of mine who aren't interested in reading don't seem like they would make good GMs or even be very interested.
e.

I know a lot of movie geeks or comic book geeks who run a good game. My first group was actually a couple of guys who probably only watched saturday morning cartoons and a GM who mainly played video games and watched movies. I've also gamed with a lot of people who like to read. My view is it doesn't matter to me where the inspiration comes from. If the GM watches old martial arts movies 24/7 and finds inspiration there, I am on board with that, if the GM reads a bunch of fantasy novels, I am sure that will give them plenty of ideas. What is most important is for the GM to run stuff that he or she is enthusiastic about, regardless of what their source of inspiration is. It is when he GM who doesn't like hard science fiction, tries to run a hard science fiction game, that I think you tend to run into problems. But if I am about to play say a Horror Session, I'd feel comfortable in the hands of a GM who either reads lots of horror stories, watches lots of horror films, or some combination of the two. Really I think it is about the media you consume and turning that into inspiration for adventures.

Quote from: tenbones;858336I think persistence is a huge quality for a "great GM".

I try to tell that to a lot of new GM's. You WILL FAIL. Campaigns crater all the time. It's not always your fault, but sometimes it is. The key is to get back into the saddle.

I still can't get away from the nagging notion that a lot of it has to do with ones consumption of good inspiration. I probably should not hem-and-haw about it being just books, but that's due to my age. The issue then becomes how has media consumption changed how GM's run their games as time has moved on? Is that a fair question?

We've seen it countless times where D&D 3.x and 4e have been bludgeoned with being called WoW-simulators...

This is good advice, another piece I would give potential GMs is 'Be flexible'.  Don't pre-plan everything.  Have a backbone for what you want, but you're players may end up fleshing it out in a way you didn't expect. Roll with it.  A good GM needs to be able to react to whatever happens, cuz sometimes?  That's all you're getting.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;858343I know a lot of movie geeks or comic book geeks who run a good game. My first group was actually a couple of guys who probably only watched saturday morning cartoons and a GM who mainly played video games and watched movies. I've also gamed with a lot of people who like to read. My view is it doesn't matter to me where the inspiration comes from. If the GM watches old martial arts movies 24/7 and finds inspiration there, I am on board with that, if the GM reads a bunch of fantasy novels, I am sure that will give them plenty of ideas. What is most important is for the GM to run stuff that he or she is enthusiastic about, regardless of what their source of inspiration is. It is when he GM who doesn't like hard science fiction, tries to run a hard science fiction game, that I think you tend to run into problems. But if I am about to play say a Horror Session, I'd feel comfortable in the hands of a GM who either reads lots of horror stories, watches lots of horror films, or some combination of the two. Really I think it is about the media you consume and turning that into inspiration for adventures.

This is exactly what crystallized the question for me. Do you agree that it's certainly possible to have a non-reading/consuming GM do a "good" game. But what about those really *great* campaigns? I guess this is an informal poll of sorts... has anyone had a truly WTF-awesome campaign from a GM that wasn't an avid reader (or whatever passes for that these days)?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;858346This is good advice, another piece I would give potential GMs is 'Be flexible'.  Don't pre-plan everything.  Have a backbone for what you want, but you're players may end up fleshing it out in a way you didn't expect. Roll with it.  A good GM needs to be able to react to whatever happens, cuz sometimes?  That's all you're getting.

Yep. In fact I'd say that it's basically impossible to prepare for everything. The players *will* at some point, go off of any script you concoct. That's why I just write a basic fabric of a region, its general conceits, fill it with setpieces and how they all interact (if at all) populate it with NPC's and let'er rip.

The offroading that players take the game is where you learn to be a good GM. And that's where the flexibility to let your players do that. It also means you have to trust yourself and be fearless about your game. Take it where the players lead it. Give'em a nudge to keep the train moving as necessary, slap some rough terrain in front to slow it down as needed.

Basic rules of advanced GMancy

Quote from: tenbones;858359This is exactly what crystallized the question for me. Do you agree that it's certainly possible to have a non-reading/consuming GM do a "good" game. But what about those really *great* campaigns? I guess this is an informal poll of sorts... has anyone had a truly WTF-awesome campaign from a GM that wasn't an avid reader (or whatever passes for that these days)?

I think it is possible to have non-reading GM make a good or a great campaign. I've definitely had WTF-Awesome campaigns run by people who read very little or not at all. I think sometimes because we are gamers and gamer culture is so focused on books and reading, we don't see other approaches as viable or we maybe dismiss people who don't talk like they read a lot. The great GMs have usually had a strong source of inspiration that helped inform their GMing and were good at dealing with the social situation of speaking to a group and managing it. Like I said before some of the best GMs I knew really liked a particular kind of movie for example.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;858343I know a lot of movie geeks or comic book geeks who run a good game.

We definitely have different experiences with our GMs. I find it takes a fair amount of effort to summarize the insights in culture, history, and language derived from wide reading to people who don't read. That's part of what I was trying to say about narrowness and shallowness vs. depth and breadth of information.

Quote from: Bren;858372We definitely have different experiences with our GMs. I find it takes a fair amount of effort to summarize the insights in culture, history, and language derived from wide reading to people who don't read. That's part of what I was trying to say about narrowness and shallowness vs. depth and breadth of information.

This is my experience too. I am open to the possibilities that there are great GM's that don't read a lot... I've just never seen one. I twitch a little when some oddity springs up that has no real basis in the game, that isn't there for a reason. Even if I don't know what the reason was.

For instance I had this newb-GM who is in real life an incredibly smart guy, doesn't read a lot outside of his work-related stuff, he tells us in his world the mountains that surround us are impossibly high. Like... 100-miles high... so I'm like, hunh? okay. Then when he starts describing things as we go - nothing about the world makes sense based on that stipulation. In fact while it was even somewhat interesting that we were completely locked in on our continent, I assumed there were caverns and stuff that tunneled through- but nope. So then when I started asking questions about how did these other races get here... he vaporlocked. OOPS...

Quote from: Bren;858372We definitely have different experiences with our GMs. I find it takes a fair amount of effort to summarize the insights in culture, history, and language derived from wide reading to people who don't read. That's part of what I was trying to say about narrowness and shallowness vs. depth and breadth of information.

Our expectations as players may be different as well. What I've found is the guy who watches Kung Fu movies all day long can put together just as fun and exciting a campaign for me as the guy who does nothing but read books on Chinese history and culture. Those are going to likely be two very different campaigns, but they can both be just as fun and exciting (and informed in their own way). In reality though of course, few people are that extreme on either end. But I've definitely met folks who just don't read that much that can still run and manage a highly entertaining campaign.

Quote from: Bren;858372I find it takes a fair amount of effort to summarize the insights in culture, history, and language derived from wide reading to people who don't read. That's part of what I was trying to say about narrowness and shallowness vs. depth and breadth of information.

Since the OP does imply concern for the reading habits of Players as well... of course a good game hinges on more than just what the GM has been exposed to. The 'Worlds Greatest GM' still won't be able to do much with a bunch of intellectual sluggards at the table... even just for purposes of basic communication and having a larger vocabulary available.

Quote from: tenbones;858331Would you say that your games have hit the "Great" level? By that I mean you, and your players are jonesing to get to the next session, and emails are flying, IM's and texts are hammering you while you try to do your dayjob. Some old bastard is griping how you need to set up an Obsidian Portal site for the game so they can journal - or something along those lines?

Based on your description, I'd say I've at least come close in the past, maybe even hit it.  Specifically, back when Shadowrun first came out, I was in college and ran a game that got there pretty consistently.  At its peak, I had 9 active players, with another 8 or 9 who wanted to play and occasionally joined us as spectators.  Most of us lived in the same dorm and people would stop me in the hall with questions about the game or ask to set up solo sessions for their character between the main weekly sessions.  It was intense, but also the only time I've really hit that zone.

More recently, I've run an ACKS campaign where I was the old bastard bringing in Obsidian Portal.  Two of the players and I were into it enough that, between the three of us, we'd sometimes add 20 or so posts to the campaign forum in a day, but the other three players were generally happy just to show up for the actual game sessions and leave it at that.

Going back to your original question, I was still reading fiction when I did the Shadowrun game in college, but probably not more than a book or so a month on average.  Unfortunately, it's hard to assess how significant a factor the drop in my fiction-consumption since then might be, since it's also coincided with a long gaming hiatus (I played a total of about a dozen RPG sessions between 1996 and 2012) and the general increase of real-world demands as one goes from their early 20s to their early 40s.

Quote from: tenbones;858336I try to tell that to a lot of new GM's. You WILL FAIL. Campaigns crater all the time. It's not always your fault, but sometimes it is. The key is to get back into the saddle.

Truth!

I think a great game requires a strong flow from the GM to the players. The GM can provide a great game to players with less demanding tastes, but if the players have a block to what the GM offers (like you example where the players notice problems the GM hasn't noticed yet), then that will tend to spoil things.

Which means, tenbones, that you as an experienced well-read player, will have a higher bar to finding a GM who offers a game that will be a great time for you. And your filters and view of what's great is going to be colored by what you've read. But as much as I agree that the ill-considered 100-mile mountains were BS in many ways and he'll be a better GM if he learns some lessons (and doesn't get too discouraged by them), maybe he could be a a great GM for similarly-inexperienced or not-logically-demanding players, at least for a while until the situation itself broke down.

There were many games I loved as a kid and a less-experienced adult player, that I now couldn't stand to play. There are campaign materials and RPG sessions I've run and we all had a great time, but I'd now not do anything like them.

After several years of GM experience, I was running games using complex tactical rules but making them accessible to small kids who had never roleplayed, and players from other systems who had never used a battle map, and they were able to get right into play and have a great time because I was translating all the action and choices into natural language. However, as a player, I avoid playing games that I know won't satisfy my now very particular tastes and sensitivities, which is almost all of them. My skin crawls a bit every time I hear about games that don't use battle maps, or people who think detailed realism or dangerous combat are the opposite of fun, etc etc. I end up biting my tongue a lot so as not to spoil the fun of players who don't have my tastes, because I know that they're in a different place.

In most genres it isn't a problem, but in supers it is huge, or it used to be. The various DCAU cartoons as well Earth's Mightiest Heroes have made a huge difference. However, at one time, it was entirely possible to get someone at the table who had no experience with capes beyond the live action Batman TV show from the 1960's. It happend to me. Combined with fact that the dude in question was a thespy dork at best- that shit was game breaking painful.

It was more of a GM problem when I was even younger, though. I am from the Holmes wave, but I spent my entire childhood with my nose in a book, and had read most of the important stuff on the Appendix N list before I ever played- or saw the list, for that matter. I don't think any of the groups I played with had members that read anything for pleasure until just before I went off to college. Our games mostly sucked, but I didn't have any basis for comparison.

Quote from: Skarg;858530I think a great game requires a strong flow from the GM to the players. The GM can provide a great game to players with less demanding tastes, but if the players have a block to what the GM offers (like you example where the players notice problems the GM hasn't noticed yet), then that will tend to spoil things.

I find that I definitely down-shift the scope and complexities of my games based on the relative "newness" factor of my players for this reason. Especially if I don't know them personally before bringing them in.

It's a sniff-test for everyone. I usually have a few advanced sub-plots waiting to be worked on just in case... but it's important for me as both a player and GM to make sure the start of the game is damn near air-tight in terms of consistency. That's why it's good to start small. I'm leery of new GM's trying to go all out, it turns into setting masturbation like newby writers that infodump their fantasy-world's histories on you in the first chapter... ugh. Or worse... a fucking prologue.

Quote from: Skarg;858530Which means, tenbones, that you as an experienced well-read player, will have a higher bar to finding a GM who offers a game that will be a great time for you. And your filters and view of what's great is going to be colored by what you've read. But as much as I agree that the ill-considered 100-mile mountains were BS in many ways and he'll be a better GM if he learns some lessons (and doesn't get too discouraged by them), maybe he could be a a great GM for similarly-inexperienced or not-logically-demanding players, at least for a while until the situation itself broke down.

Yeah. I have really fucked up games inadvertently because of this. I generally try to hang back when I'm playing because I don't wanna push on the GM.

Funny story (about me fucking things up) - About a year ago I let one of my players GM. He's a total rookie and wanted to run a small adventure. No problem! So we're playing and we were after these assassins and we managed to figure out they fled north. Two days later we fun into this small trading outpost.

The GM starts describing things and he mentions this big warehouse, like a REALLY big one. I start thinking "A big warehouse? This is a small trading post! That's kinda odd. I'd have figured at best maybe a bunch of small storage sheds. Hmm?" So I ask "How old is this place? Have we ever heard about it? (we were new to the relative region)"

GM says almost quietly after a pause - "It looks... really new. You've never heard of this place."

My Spidersense kicks in. "My character goes into the warehouse. What's in there?"

GM - Uhh... crates. Lots of crates.

Me - Like a LOT of crates? like how many?

GM - Stacked to the ceiling. It's uhh.. 20-feet high.

Me - That's a lot of fucking crates! Any guards or workers?

GM - None near you.

Me - I walk into the warehouse, and I use my short-sword to try and pry one of the crates open. What's in it?

GM - There's nothing in the crate.

Me - Alarmed. WTF? What do you mean there's nothing in the crate? I go to another one. I open it.

GM - Nothing.

Me - NOTHING?!?! I check four more!

GM - There's nothing in the crates. You start checking all of the crates - there's nothing in them.

Me - Alarmed. Holy shit. This place is a setup. It's a TRAP!...

...It wasn't until after I'd panicked the other players and they started slaughtering all of the innocents that the GM just gave up. I was shocked. I honestly thought it was something like Michael Douglas in the movie The Game where he's in this house and the whole thing is fake. I later realized the GM was trying to improvise *because* I was nosing around and he simply didn't know what to say. My checking all the crates made him feel like I was putting him on the spot and he didn't know what to put in them, nor how big the dimensions of a warehouse in a trading post should/would be etc.

The funniest thing about that - to this day, my players will tease me if they walk into a warehouse and say "What's in the crate?"

And I tell them - Go ahead and look. I guarantee you I can tell you what's in all two-hundred and fifty-three crates and they'll all be different. Go ahead. Look. I dare you.

Anyhow... yeah. I inadvertently killed that game.

Quote from: Aos;858547In most genres it isn't a problem, but in supers it is huge, or it used to be. The various DCAU cartoons as well Earth's Mightiest Heroes have made a huge difference. However, at one time, it was entirely possible to get someone at the table who had no experience with capes beyond the live action Batman TV show from the 1960's. It happend to me. Combined with fact that the dude in question was a thespy dork at best- that shit was game breaking painful.

Supers definitely has its own sub-genres. That's why it's important to set up the players with what the setting is about thematically. Especially if they don't know anything about comics in general. The MCU movies and modern animated shows have definitely changed things. But yeah - I usually give everyone a primer (see my post in 4d Sandbox thread) to "situate things".

Quote from: Aos;858547It was more of a GM problem when I was even younger, though. I am from the Holmes wave, but I spent my entire childhood with my nose in a book, and had read most of the important stuff on the Appendix N list before I ever played- or saw the list, for that matter. I don't think any of the groups I played with had members that read anything for pleasure until just before I went off to college. Our games mostly sucked, but I didn't have any basis for comparison.

I think this kind of drives my point of suspicion. The reading-thing seems to be a big indicator for having a "great game", and I don't mean purely for rip-off potential. That kinda inspiration can usually drive a home-brew for years.

I'm still wait-and-see when it comes to other media.

Quote from: tenbones;858648I think this kind of drives my point of suspicion. The reading-thing seems to be a big indicator for having a "great game", and I don't mean purely for rip-off potential. That kinda inspiration can usually drive a home-brew for years.

I'm still wait-and-see when it comes to other media.

Is it possible this is more a product of you being on the same page with people who have read similar things or have similar backgrounds?

Quote from: tenbones;858646I later realized the GM was trying to improvise *because* was nosing around and simply didn't know what to say. My checking all the crates made him feel like I was putting him on the spot and he didn't know what to put in them, nor how big the dimensions of a warehouse in a trading post should/would be etc.

When I'm a player in a game with a new GM I tend to do a lot of thinking out loud, especially if it starts to look like things are going off the rails.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;858651Is it possible this is more a product of you being on the same page with people who have read similar things or have similar backgrounds?

Interesting point. I find myself having players that aren't as experienced in a lot of the genres that my games draw inspiration from. To me, it's not that big of a deal, I take my role as a GM as a part-time salesman to get buy-in even while in the middle of the game. But in order to do that I need to cultivate what I found inspirational from whatever reading material (and other sources) in-game and make it wtfawesome fun.

In my experience you can only get buy-in so far before the game starts. The best you can do is set up some low-end expectations. The rest you have to GM your ass off to give room to the players to figure out how to take off and fly.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;858651Is it possible this is more a product of you being on the same page with people who have read similar things or have similar backgrounds?

I'm sure that's a factor. I don't know how to separate affiliation from other effects of a GM who reads a lot though.

I've read pretty widely, so if someone reads a lot, especially fiction, chances are really good that I've read something in the area they enjoy that I can draw upon (yes even Harlequin romances) even if we don't read similar things in general.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;858651Is it possible this is more a product of you being on the same page with people who have read similar things or have similar backgrounds?

Absolutely.  Doesn't matter how 'well read' people are, if they're an expert in Japanese mythology and is running such a campaign, but their players are European Medieval enthusiasts, it ain't gonna fly.

Quote from: tenbones;858669Interesting point. I find myself having players that aren't as experienced in a lot of the genres that my games draw inspiration from. To me, it's not that big of a deal, I take my role as a GM as a part-time salesman to get buy-in even while in the middle of the game. But in order to do that I need to cultivate what I found inspirational from whatever reading material (and other sources) in-game and make it wtfawesome fun.

In my experience you can only get buy-in so far before the game starts. The best you can do is set up some low-end expectations. The rest you have to GM your ass off to give room to the players to figure out how to take off and fly.

I guess where I am heading with this is I think it is less about the reading and more about common interests, experience and expectations. I read quite a bit. But try putting me in a room full of gamers who adore football and are super into cars, and I am going to have a hard time running a game that is believable to them when those two things come up.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;858679Absolutely.  Doesn't matter how 'well read' people are, if they're an expert in Japanese mythology and is running such a campaign, but their players are European Medieval enthusiasts, it ain't gonna fly.

I completely disagree. This depends far more on how much of an annoying pedant the GM is and how interested and willing to learn something new the Medievalists are.

The experiences of people who enjoy playing in and learning about Tekumel or Glorantha provide excellent counterexamples of your point. MAR Barker clearly was an expert on Tekumel, but from everything I've read and heard he was many things, but an annoying pedant was not one of them. Also players like Chirine and Gronan (and me) were happy to learn something new about Tekumel even though our expertises lie in other areas, just like my players (and players in many other games) have been happy over the years to learn about Glorantha.

Quote from: Bren;858689I completely disagree.

Personal experience say otherwise.  Now, that was an extreme example, but my point was that if the players interests don't really align, then it doesn't matter how educated the crew is, it ain't going to go well.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;858693Personal experience say otherwise.  Now, that was an extreme example, but my point was that if the players interests don't really align, then it doesn't matter how educated the crew is, it ain't going to go well.

And my point is that you incorrectly identified successful gaming as solely a matter of preexisting congruence of interests and it's not. No one ever has complete alignment of interests. Therefore every successful interaction is a function of the ability of the participants to reach an acceptable level of congruence in their interests. And that is at least as much a matter of their flexibility and openness as it is their preexisting alignment of interests.

And given a choice between someone who is not already aligned with the setting but who is flexible and open and someone who has a preexisting alignment with the setting but who is rigid and closed to new ideas and experiences, I'll take the player who is flexible and open every single time. And my personal and professional experiences both bear that out as the better choice.

None of that is intended to imply that working to set out and to align expectations ahead of time is a bad thing – because it is not, only that it is not the most important thing for long term success of a campaign group. Whereas flexibility and openness are.

One might then wonder how this relates to my earlier comments regarding reading habits of good GMs. In my experience people who read widely and deeply are more able to make connections to the backgrounds of other people than are people who do not read much at all. This is important for the GM since the GM needs to find some way to connect to the players with descriptions, with tone, with the selection and presentation of adventure hooks, with the characterization of NPCs, with a whole host of things that come up as the GM. The GM needs to connect their knowledge and experiences to that of their players. So in that sense the more the GM knows the better the chance that they know something that either overlaps or that they can connect to something that the player also knows. In addition, the breadth of their reading is important, probably more important than depth of reading, because it aids in drawing connections, but also because it tends to correlate to openness to new ideas and experiences and it either correlates to or improves flexibility in thought.

Quote from: tenbones;858646...
Me - Alarmed. Holy shit. This place is a setup. It's a TRAP!...

...It wasn't until after I'd panicked the other players and they started slaughtering all of the innocents that the GM just gave up.

...

And I tell them - Go ahead and look. I guarantee you I can tell you what's in all two-hundred and fifty-three crates and they'll all be different. Go ahead. Look. I dare you.

...

You just completely cracked me up! Brings back a lot of memories of learning to GM, and some great players who pushed the limits and made us all better GMs, often in hilarious ways on both sides. I am going to point some of my olde players at this post!

Quote from: tenbones;858215So I was talking to some friends of mine back in LA. Things aren't going well. Their GM is a railroading combat-monkey that tries to tell the players how their PC's *should* be reacting to his self-circle-jerk world. The guy is a bit of a clod.

It got me thinking...

How much does one's reading habits matter for GMing? A few guys I know that I consider "great GM's" that are voracious readers of fiction and non-fiction.

I know a few GM's that I just consider "good" or "decent" - their reading habits are sporadic, but when they read anything, it's usually good material.

I know of *no* "good" GM's that don't read at all.

Is this anecdotal with the rest of you? Do your own reading habits inform what you consider good/great in your GMs? What about your playstyle?

I think a lot of GMs would benefit from reading less pop scifi/fantasy and more non-fiction. Especially history.

Quote from: RPGPundit;859482I think a lot of GMs would benefit from reading less pop scifi/fantasy and more non-fiction. Especially history.

In the past 30 years, I've had more come back to my tables when I've run (which has been mostly Fantasy games) than complain, and frankly, I'm barely knowledgeable in medieval weaponry.

I don't know, I'm thinking that it's less reading books and more reading people, and from that, able to figure out what your players want, then reaching a compromise between what you want and what they do.

I could, of course, be wrong.

Quote from: tenbones;858215So I was talking to some friends of mine back in LA. Things aren't going well. Their GM is a railroading combat-monkey that tries to tell the players how their PC's *should* be reacting to his self-circle-jerk world. The guy is a bit of a clod.

It got me thinking...

How much does one's reading habits matter for GMing? A few guys I know that I consider "great GM's" that are voracious readers of fiction and non-fiction.

I know a few GM's that I just consider "good" or "decent" - their reading habits are sporadic, but when they read anything, it's usually good material.

I know of *no* "good" GM's that don't read at all.

Is this anecdotal with the rest of you? Do your own reading habits inform what you consider good/great in your GMs? What about your playstyle?

My empirical experience matches with yours.
Which is rather unsurprising, really. Books require thinking over the material, unlike more visual mediums, and give you the time to try and guess possible developments, both of which are useful skills for any Referee!

Quote from: Skarg;858225I may be mis-interpreting, but it seems to me that over the last 25 years or so, both pop fiction and RPGs (and computer games) have taken a depressing dip in the direction of forced plots, exaggerated protagonist abilities with no reason, easy protagonist survival, things not needing to make sense, undeserved focus/significance on protagonist plots, etc., and I imagine that TV and Hollywood and Young Adult fiction have a lot to answer for. But maybe I'm just becoming a cantankerous old grump. ;-)

This is my opinion as well, for all it counts.

Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;858251Sometimes I think reading too much is a hindrance. (For me.) I'm a voracious reader of science fiction; I read the classics when I was younger, and now I'm hooked on modern SF, especially the new space opera.

But most of my players are TV/movie addicts, and that leads to a lot of disconnects when I'm running a game. They're completely lost when I explain to them which authors inspired my game; I usually get a chorus of variations on "Never heard of them" in response.

It's hard to run a good SF RPG when you can't find players who've read Iain Banks, Stephen Baxter, and Alastair Reynolds. But they've all heard of "The Fifth Element."  :banghead:

That's the players' problem, IMOE. If they aren't willing to learn, throw them in a science fiction sandbox with the plots of a few books running in the background.

Quote from: Bren;858264For anything beyond a very surface level of knowledge one will get from TV and film, I think you do need to read. Even the long documentaries like Ken Burns' Civil War are still only at a surface level of knowledge and in my experience, those are the exceptions not the norms for documentaries.

I agree completely:).

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;858268Some GMs are great at research and enhance their campaigns with it. Others take a lot of surface level knowledge and turn it into an exciting adventure. I certainly won't dispute you are probably going to learn more by reading books about the civil war than by watching documentaries (though reading the right books is just as important as how much you read). But I don't think GMing requires that kind of smarts. Again, I am not knocking being well read. I like to read a lot myself. And above all I like to read history books. But I have never really seen level of reading reflect quality in GMing in the groups I've been in. What seems to matter is that the person have sources of inspiration.

I think it does, unfortunately.

Quote from: nDervish;858303I haven't read fiction in years, although I do listen regularly to a handful of short-fiction podcasts, which may or may not count.  I do read a fair bit of non-fiction and (obviously) discussion forums, but I assume that's not the kind of "reading" you're talking about.

I also get the impression that the people I've played with consider me a good GM and enjoy my games.  And, in recent years, I've only been playing with strangers (moving halfway across the world tends to do that), so it's not just old friends humoring me to be nice.  There have been a few who have left because they wanted different things in their RPGs than what I was offering, but that's to be expected any time you're bringing new players in.

Perhaps relevant, though, is that I specifically aim for campaigns which feel like they could be taking place in the (or at least a) real world rather than a feeling of being in a story, which seems like it would be a good fit with my reality-heavy/fiction-light reading habits.

Yes, that's a good point. If you're going for a "being in a story" campaign, what you need is to have read lots of stories of this kind.
But-read, again. For reasons specified in my previous post. If you want to run an anime game, read manga. Or watch anime and read about anime.

Quote from: tenbones;858359This is exactly what crystallized the question for me. Do you agree that it's certainly possible to have a non-reading/consuming GM do a "good" game. But what about those really *great* campaigns? I guess this is an informal poll of sorts... has anyone had a truly WTF-awesome campaign from a GM that wasn't an avid reader (or whatever passes for that these days)?

Never had that happen;).

Quote from: Bren;858689I completely disagree. This depends far more on how much of an annoying pedant the GM is and how interested and willing to learn something new the Medievalists are.

The experiences of people who enjoy playing in and learning about Tekumel or Glorantha provide excellent counterexamples of your point. MAR Barker clearly was an expert on Tekumel, but from everything I've read and heard he was many things, but an annoying pedant was not one of them. Also players like Chirine and Gronan (and me) were happy to learn something new about Tekumel even though our expertises lie in other areas, just like my players (and players in many other games) have been happy over the years to learn about Glorantha.

That's my experience as well.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;858693Personal experience say otherwise.  Now, that was an extreme example, but my point was that if the players interests don't really align, then it doesn't matter how educated the crew is, it ain't going to go well.

Interests never coincide completely, even among voarcious readers. Everyone has to learn a bit, every time.
The GM just have to present it in a format where the reading can be done in smaller installments.

Quote from: RPGPundit;859482I think a lot of GMs would benefit from reading less pop scifi/fantasy and more non-fiction. Especially history.

Well, I obviously agree:D!

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;858381Our expectations as players may be different as well. What I've found is the guy who watches Kung Fu movies all day long can put together just as fun and exciting a campaign for me as the guy who does nothing but read books on Chinese history and culture. Those are going to likely be two very different campaigns, but they can both be just as fun and exciting (and informed in their own way). In reality though of course, few people are that extreme on either end. But I've definitely met folks who just don't read that much that can still run and manage a highly entertaining campaign.

yep this is extream but a good example

Quote from: Christopher Brady;859513In the past 30 years, I've had more come back to my tables when I've run (which has been mostly Fantasy games) than complain, and frankly, I'm barely knowledgeable in medieval weaponry.

I don't know, I'm thinking that it's less reading books and more reading people, and from that, able to figure out what your players want, then reaching a compromise between what you want and what they do.

I could, of course, be wrong.

as some one who has spent time reading on weaponry it can greatly help in the way you use them in a much more believable manner a good example is fire arms  and the rather rampant misrepresentation of there ability's in Media and im not talking about artistic license or game play concessions  
more when a show or book is trying to be the "real world" and uses a gun or round that simply could not do what the writers what it to cuz they used the wrong one

Quote from: kosmos1214;859641yep this is extream but a good example



as some one who has spent time reading on weaponry it can greatly help in the way you use them in a much more believable manner a good example is fire arms  and the rather rampant misrepresentation of there ability's in Media and im not talking about artistic license or game play concessions  
more when a show or book is trying to be the "real world" and uses a gun or round that simply could not do what the writers what it to cuz they used the wrong one

The problem is in my experience most players want something closer to Hollywood firearms. It is going to depend on the game of course but if the GM tailors treatment of firearms to the one guy in the group who wants detail and realism with firearms, you can lose the interest of the other four or five people. In the right group, that kind of realism could be handy. In practice I find most groups don't have that sort of expectation around firearms.

I also find this when I a player: sometimes you know more about a subject than the GM, when that happens you can choose to allow it to affect your suspension of disbelief or you can embrace the world the GM is presenting and choose not to have it impact your suspension of disbelief. If you find you still can't mentally adapt in that way, and your broken from your disbelief involuntarily, you still have the choice of whether you ruin things for the rest of the group or not. If it is just a bad GM and everyone is unhappy, that is different. If you are just the smartest guy in the room at that moment and want others to know it, the problem might be you if you disrupt the game to complain or point out an issue no one else is picking up on or cares about. Again, sometimes it is just the GM is bad. That is a different scenario. I am talking about when the GM is pleasing most of the players at the table, the game is going great, and that one guy has to lecture everyone on the rum trade in Colonial New England.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;859679I am talking about when the GM is pleasing most of the players at the table, the game is going great, and that one guy has to lecture everyone on the rum trade in Colonial New England.

Not everyone wants to know about the rum trade? I am shocked. Shocked I tell you.

EDIT: I may be biased since I've already used the precursor of the rum trade--the Dutch triangle trade route (http://www.africanculturalcenter.org/images/4_5slave_trade%20copy.gif).

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;859679The problem is in my experience most players want something closer to Hollywood firearms.

I find that this is a divide which applies to much more than firearms. You will not get your typical action movie if I apply normal police procedure, even if the rules support Hollywood firearms, unless the players take precautions that do not figure in most movies.
Thus, it must be stated clearly and unambiguously before the campaign begins where the game is going to lay. You might be defaulting to reality for one thing and to movies for another, but you must be clear.
You must also be clear on your sources, because if you're thinking "Fist of the North Star" or "Naruto" and I'm thinking "Chinese Hercules", "Killzone" and "Bourne identity" when talking about "dangerous martial artists", we're still going to have a clash of expectations despite both of us referring to fictional characters.

And if you agreed to refer to reality, the guy who tells you about the rum trade is doing you a favour, just like the Star Wars nut who's giving you a lecture on the history of the extended universe is right when we agree to refer to the Star Wars canon.

Quote from: AsenRG;859721And if you agreed to refer to reality, the guy who tells you about the rum trade is doing you a favour, just like the Star Wars nut who's giving you a lecture on the history of the extended universe is right when we agree to refer to the Star Wars canon.

I think reading the room is important here though. If people are open to the lecture and its going to improve the game for everyone, then sure. But I've seen gamers agree to refer to reality, then it becomes clear during play their notion of reality is not gritty super realistic firearms. In that situation, where it is clear people are content and not interested in what might have to say, giving the lecture isn't doing anyone any favors, it is just disrupting the game session. I only bring it up because in my experience, nine times out of ten, the guy giving such a lecture is the only one interested (and I've been that guy myself).

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;859749I think reading the room is important here though. If people are open to the lecture and its going to improve the game for everyone, then sure. But I've seen gamers agree to refer to reality, then it becomes clear during play their notion of reality is not gritty super realistic firearms. In that situation, where it is clear people are content and not interested in what might have to say, giving the lecture isn't doing anyone any favors, it is just disrupting the game session. I only bring it up because in my experience, nine times out of ten, the guy giving such a lecture is the only one interested (and I've been that guy myself).

Again, that depends:). Even if you weren't looking for a lecture, if you had agreed to refer to an area where this guy is more knowledgeable, he's still doing you a favour by sharing his expertise.
That's why I often try to make games that are covered by someone else's expertise, this way people have to ask someone else about the setting:D!

Quote from: AsenRG;859834Again, that depends:). Even if you weren't looking for a lecture, if you had agreed to refer to an area where this guy is more knowledgeable, he's still doing you a favour by sharing his expertise.
That's why I often try to make games that are covered by someone else's expertise, this way people have to ask someone else about the setting:D!

Again though it is about reading the room. That is the key. If people are clearly interested in the lecture, if people clearly want that in their game, then yes. But it doesn't matter what people agreed to or said at the start of the campaign if they are not really interested in it. People might say at the start they want realism, then the game starts and you realize they want something more like 24 or James Bond. They might also say "realism" and mean something completely different than what you think it means. You are not doing anyone a favor by giving them a lecture they have no interest in. That is my point. If you start talking and its clear from body language and other cues that folks really don't care, there is no point in going on about it. Again I only mention it because I've seen that guy in any number of games and most of the time he is bringing things to a halt, not helping. And like I said, I've even been that guy myself (which is one reason I am aware of the issue). When you have something to add to a campaign like that, first ask whether you are sharing it because people truly want it and would benefit, or if is just to show off your knowledge or have a chance to finally talk about something you've been studying forever.

There is also flow to consider. Let's say people want that kind of stuff in the game, but you have more knowledge than them and you notice something no one else picks up on. Do you stop the GM and say "Actually that shouldn't happen because of X" or do you let people enjoy the flow of the game and maybe bring it up with the GM after the session? I would say if no one else noticed and everyone is having fun, your better off waiting until after the game or until things slow down enough to bring it up because you are breaking everyone else's immersion if you stop things mid fight or at a particularly exciting moment.

Again, I only bring it up because I've seen the expert in the room bring things to a crashing halt too often.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;859837Again though it is about reading the room. That is the key. If people are clearly interested in the lecture, if people clearly want that in their game, then yes. But it doesn't matter what people agreed to or said at the start of the campaign if they are not really interested in it. People might say at the start they want realism, then the game starts and you realize they want something more like 24 or James Bond. They might also say "realism" and mean something completely different than what you think it means. You are not doing anyone a favor by giving them a lecture they have no interest in. That is my point. If you start talking and its clear from body language and other cues that folks really don't care, there is no point in going on about it. Again I only mention it because I've seen that guy in any number of games and most of the time he is bringing things to a halt, not helping. And like I said, I've even been that guy myself (which is one reason I am aware of the issue). When you have something to add to a campaign like that, first ask whether you are sharing it because people truly want it and would benefit, or if is just to show off your knowledge or have a chance to finally talk about something you've been studying forever.

There is also flow to consider. Let's say people want that kind of stuff in the game, but you have more knowledge than them and you notice something no one else picks up on. Do you stop the GM and say "Actually that shouldn't happen because of X" or do you let people enjoy the flow of the game and maybe bring it up with the GM after the session? I would say if no one else noticed and everyone is having fun, your better off waiting until after the game or until things slow down enough to bring it up because you are breaking everyone else's immersion if you stop things mid fight or at a particularly exciting moment.

Again, I only bring it up because I've seen the expert in the room bring things to a crashing halt too often.

I agree with all of this; it matches my experience as well.

Yes, I agree Brendan. It's good when we realism geeks can also read the room as players and use discretion about when to speak up. Which I'd say is generally only when:

* It's a whole group of realism geek players or we've agreed we'll stop for realism discussion, which I've almost never seen be the case except when designing, playtesting and/or wargaming.

* The GM has requested/invited me to correct/support them on technicalities during play.

* The game is not in immediate roleplay mode and such things are being discussed with interest and no one's tuning out.

* It's just a very quick adjustment and I think people will appreciate it and/or not mind at all.

* It's something that's a big error that will change an important outcome, and/or will seem glaring somehow (to others, not just to me) in retrospect. Even then, I might not speak up if it seems like pointing out the error will result in major disaster for a PC, especially if it's a conflated error where an earlier mistake I let slide led to a now-critical mistake that if corrected would likely directly cost a PC life or limb.

For most other issues / cases, I think it's almost always best to help the GM and game stay on the situation being played, even if we're getting surreal. If I have issues I think would help, or are messing with my enjoyment, I try to hold them for between-session discussion with the GM. I generally weigh for myself how interested I am in continuing playing, and stay and let the GM run how he/she runs, or leave, rather than trying to change how the GM or other players play.

And, as a realism nut GM, I also rarely want to stop playing and have a realism discussion. If a player stops playing in almost any way, I generally continue leading the game rather than joining their digression. If the digression persists, I call it out and get them to stop or leave. If it's a realism argument, as a compulsive realism nut I will hear it and consider it automatically, and decide if and how I want it to affect the game, and get on with the game (adjusted or not) right away, possibly acknowledging it if easy, but almost never getting into a discussion unless it can be done very quickly or if everyone's interested in it (which might be the case). That is, I read the room, but with a strong preference to keeping play going, and leaving any wanted discussion for after play.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;859837I would say if no one else noticed and everyone is having fun, your better off waiting until after the game or until things slow down enough to bring it up because you are breaking everyone else's immersion if you stop things mid fight or at a particularly exciting moment.

Again, I only bring it up because I've seen the expert in the room bring things to a crashing halt too often.

That's been my complaint over in the Traveller thread... guys who are experts, or just imagine they are, that are unable to hold their tongue on even the tiniest trespass into their vast storage of trivia.
I don't see it nearly as much in fantasy games but anything modern or scifi seems to ramp it up.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;859837Again though it is about reading the room. That is the key. If people are clearly interested in the lecture, if people clearly want that in their game, then yes. But it doesn't matter what people agreed to or said at the start of the campaign if they are not really interested in it. People might say at the start they want realism, then the game starts and you realize they want something more like 24 or James Bond. They might also say "realism" and mean something completely different than what you think it means. You are not doing anyone a favor by giving them a lecture they have no interest in. That is my point.

I understood your point the first time. I just happen to disagree with it, and no amount of clarification can make me accept a point that I knowingly rejected.
When I pitch a game, I'm always making it clear whether I intend to run it by story logic or purely by cause and effect logic. If people joined a realistic spy game and decided that they want something like 24, we'll have a talk. The talk will serve me to clarify whether there is still enough interest in the campaign for it to be worth continuing, or we are going to stop it. If not, I might offer a next campaign, it might be based on the story mode, but this one would be over and it's likely to be in a different setting.
Deciding they are not, after all, after what was initially on offer does not give players the right to expect me to change what I was offering. Same goes for GMs, for that matter.

Quote from: AsenRG;859888I understood your point the first time. I just happen to disagree with it, and no amount of clarification can make me accept a point that I knowingly rejected.
When I pitch a game, I'm always making it clear whether I intend to run it by story logic or purely by cause and effect logic. If people joined a realistic spy game and decided that they want something like 24, we'll have a talk. The talk will serve me to clarify whether there is still enough interest in the campaign for it to be worth continuing, or we are going to stop it. If not, I might offer a next campaign, it might be based on the story mode, but this one would be over and it's likely to be in a different setting.
Deciding they are not, after all, after what was initially on offer does not give players the right to expect me to change what I was offering. Same goes for GMs, for that matter.

I am not suggesting players have a right to demand a different kind of game from what you offered. I am not talking about the GM, I am talking about the players. When you have that one guy who pipes in regardless of whether people want to hear him lecture or not. This isn't about the GM being forced to run a different kind of game. It is about people who disrupt the flow of play to lecture everyone on realism or how things really were in history, when they don't want to hear it. That is why I keep emphasizing reading the room being important. If you want to run a particular kind of game, and people signed up but then want something different, that is a whole other type of problem.

By the way, if you don't agree with me that is fine. I am not overly concerned here about convincing everyone to agree with me. I am just happy to weigh in on one of the habits in our hobby that I find annoying and disruptive.

Quote from: Simlasa;859879That's been my complaint over in the Traveller thread... guys who are experts, or just imagine they are, that are unable to hold their tongue on even the tiniest trespass into their vast storage of trivia.
I don't see it nearly as much in fantasy games but anything modern or scifi seems to ramp it up.

I am a fan of hard science fiction and I think there is a lot of that in science fiction fandom. Some of it is fine. I don't mind having a long discussion with another fan about something like that. It is when I'm focused on playing a game or watching a movie that I don't want to hear it so much. I remember when I went to see I, Robot in the theater there was a row of super Asimov fans behind me. All they did the whole movie was loudly point out things they felt were wrong, implausible or misguided, or not in the spirit of the stories. It ruined the whole movie for me. I don't remember the film, I just remember hearing them go on and on.

It is about knowing when and where and reading the room. If someone wants to talk to me about how salt was extracted and processed during the Song Dynasty after the game, I am all open ears. Depending on how realistic I am trying to be about such things, I may incorporate their feedback (though experience has taught me to double check info provided by players who consider themselves experts). During play, I'd rather they keep that kind of trivia to themselves, even if it is an attempt to add some accuracy.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;859896I am a fan of hard science fiction

And that's the problem right there:  Calling it 'hard'.  Because to a lot of the fans, it's like they miss the second word 'Fiction' and only focus on the Science.  And frankly, although some Sci-Fi swings closer to the Science side, it's still no different between Star Wars and Star Trek or Space Odyssey 2001 and The Andromeda Strain.  They all work on the premise of 'What if X happened'.

What makes the arguments worse is that Science has a basis in real fact and they often boil down into people whipping out the e-Peen and spraying their information -some of which may be supposition or even incorrect and out of date but they're unwilling to let it go- all over the face of the conversation, getting into other people's points of view and creating a sticky mess that no one wanted in the first place.

Point is: Using the nomenclature of 'Hard Science Fiction' only precipitates those messes because most who discuss it only focus on the Science.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;859899And that's the problem right there:  Calling it 'hard'.  Because to a lot of the fans, it's like they miss the second word 'Fiction' and only focus on the Science.  And frankly, although some Sci-Fi swings closer to the Science side, it's still no different between Star Wars and Star Trek or Space Odyssey 2001 and The Andromeda Strain.  They all work on the premise of 'What if X happened'.

What makes the arguments worse is that Science has a basis in real fact and they often boil down into people whipping out the e-Peen and spraying their information -some of which may be supposition or even incorrect and out of date but they're unwilling to let it go- all over the face of the conversation, getting into other people's points of view and creating a sticky mess that no one wanted in the first place.

Point is: Using the nomenclature of 'Hard Science Fiction' only precipitates those messes because most who discuss it only focus on the Science.

I do think the category is useful. I think in gaming people might get caught up in splitting hairs on this stuff but when it comes to novels, I definitely see a guy like Clarke doing something very different from something like you had in Star Wars. I love both, but Clarke's definitely imposed limits on himself that are science based and that shapes the kinds of stories he can tell. For whatever reason that stuff really spoke to me as a kid and I had no problem identifying it as hard science fiction (and I am not much of science geek). I feel that the constraints these authors imposed on themselves by sticking with real world science, produced some interesting ideas and stories. They were the books I tended to enjoy more. That doesn't mean science fiction that hand waves explanations more or isn't as constrained by real world science is bad. I think that stuff is great too. They're just different and having that split as a category can be useful.

In gaming though, if the issue is people are playing an RPG like traveler and one group is trying to use Hard Science fiction as a bludgeon to say it can't be done another way, I'd have an issue with that. These categories are just good models for grouping like things together. I think when you start getting "oughts" or "shoulds" from such categories it isn't very productive. Just because I like Hard Science fiction for example, that doesn't mean I have any interest in dictating what a science fiction or hard science fiction campaign should look like to my group. As long as I can intuit and sense what people mean I am not that concerned with what words they use to get there.

Personally, Brendon, and I want to stress that this is just MY opinion after seeing several decades worth of arguments, is that it's one definition that often gets taken too far.

Science Fiction has some common tropes, and some lean way into the Fiction part (Star Wars, to use my examples again) and others go the nearly complete Science route (The original The Andromeda Strain), but they all have several things in common, a setting where technology and science dominate and often (but not always) are the driving force of a story.  Whether it's a new thing, or how it affects society and people in general.

We already got Fantasy chopped up into several different chunks that quite frankly invade each others supposed space on an hourly basis.  Science Fiction doesn't need it.  Especially given the amount of arguments the Hard umbrella seems to cause.

Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;859904Personally, Brendon, and I want to stress that this is just MY opinion after seeing several decades worth of arguments, is that it's one definition that often gets taken too far.

Science Fiction has some common tropes, and some lean way into the Fiction part (Star Wars, to use my examples again) and others go the nearly complete Science route (The original The Andromeda Strain), but they all have several things in common, a setting where technology and science dominate and often (but not always) are the driving force of a story.  Whether it's a new thing, or how it affects society and people in general.

We already got Fantasy chopped up into several different chunks that quite frankly invade each others supposed space on an hourly basis.  Science Fiction doesn't need it.  Especially given the amount of arguments the Hard umbrella seems to cause.

Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

I think what you are getting at is the issue of purity. That is something where I most likely agree with you. I am only interested in these kinds of categories for their ability to point me toward things I might like, or to just help me speak about them generally. I am not interested in using categories as a basis for how books, games, etc ought to be; for making sure things are pure expressions of a sub-genre. So if someone writes a book and slaps Hard Science fiction on the cover, or people refer to it as Hard Science fiction, but it has a few things you don't expect to see in such a book, I won't care as long as it is a good science fiction book (or just a good book). I am not interested in the purity of the label here any more than I am in the purity of musical categories. I think when folks obsess too much on that kind of purity genres start to wither a bit and decay. Still I find Hard Science Fiction a handy label, just like a find Doom Metal a handy label, even if there are a few jerks out there using such labels to create walls or shame people out of liking things.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;859894I am not suggesting players have a right to demand a different kind of game from what you offered. I am not talking about the GM, I am talking about the players.

I am talking about the GM and players. Doesn't matter which one is in need of a lecture, someone still needs it:).

QuoteWhen you have that one guy who pipes in regardless of whether people want to hear him lecture or not.

If you have such a guy, you have a problem. It might very well be a problem with the rest of the group, though.

QuoteThis isn't about the GM being forced to run a different kind of game.

Yes, I said it isn't in the post you quoted. The GM was an example, because I was the GM the last couple of times.

QuoteIt is about people who disrupt the flow of play to lecture everyone on realism or how things really were in history, when they don't want to hear it.

And if the game is meant to refer to "the way it was in history", the problem is with the guys that don't want to listen.
(Unless the guy just thinks he knows better. But that's not a problem with the lecture, it's a problem with false information or the lack of it, so I presume that's not what you're against).

QuoteThat is why I keep emphasizing reading the room being important. If you want to run a particular kind of game, and people signed up but then want something different, that is a whole other type of problem.

Actually no, it's a subset of the same problem.

QuoteBy the way, if you don't agree with me that is fine. I am not overly concerned here about convincing everyone to agree with me. I am just happy to weigh in on one of the habits in our hobby that I find annoying and disruptive.

Same here, including the annoying and disruptive part;).

Quote from: AsenRG;859960And if the game is meant to refer to "the way it was in history", the problem is with the guys that don't want to listen.
(Unless the guy just thinks he knows better. But that's not a problem with the lecture, it's a problem with false information or the lack of it, so I presume that's not what you're against).
.

I am sorry but this is the kind of attitude I pretty much wouldn't want at my table. If people are having fun and playing with the what they feel is the level of realism they want and expect, some guy trying to educate them when they don't want it, especially during play when things are moving smoothly, is disruption. You got to read the room. If you think its your job to fix people, and they don't want it, your the issue.

And I say that as someone who loves history and strives for some measure of historical accuracy in most of my campaigns. But I also know when lecturing people about that stuff makes me a dick.