After much discussion, advice, research, devil's advocacy and contemplation, I feel that I will be ready to offer one-on-one classes in How to DM starting no later than a week today. I feel that there is a marketable demand for this service. I feel that I am up to the task and that I'm perfectly capable of teaching such a course. And I feel that a reasonable price for such a course would be somewhere between $45 and $60 per class (three classes would be three times that amount).
Sessions would be enabled through Skype. I've used Skype before, though not for a long time, so part of my task this week will be to take a refresher course. I foresee sessions would run between 60 and 90 minutes, in order to allow flexibility regarding the end of a session. At this point I'm going to offer three classes (and undoubtedly with some sort of deal if the DM wants to buy three sessions in advance). For the moment I want to concentrate on three things: presentation, communication and adventure planning. I'll be more specific about these in a moment.
I could talk about other things, but for the moment I feel these are universal and don't require any discussion of rule systems or specific character design. Like the book I wrote, I would rather approach the material from a genre-free perspective, since how the DM acts, speaks or creates drama is a universal condition based upon our being human beings, not based on what system we play.
For the moment, I feel it would be wisest for me to offer a few well-considered subjects until I get my legs under me. This is a learning curve for me as well, for while I have given advice now on the blog for 8 years, I have answered hundreds of direct questions about games and I have been there to counsel other players and DMs in role-playing games for more than three decades, I need to integrate these skills into a lengthy, personal approach that will work with people through the internet who are unfamiliar to me. I am glad that I had the experiences I've had with fans of RPGs in Toronto and Edmonton recently. I do believe, from talking to literally hundreds of strangers at those events, that the chances of meeting someone toxic (and willing to pay money upfront for the privilege of being such) is virtually zero.
There are some who will be against this; and some who will feel that I'm not the person they'd want to get advice from. However, the response and the numbers of people who have expressed interest has been very encouraging. The rest is up to me. As I said before the weekend, I have a firm belief that the solution is not to preach an ideal but to promote investigation into each DM's individual challenges and to find solutions that will work for them. To this, I'll add that a very strong part of the lesson plan will be to help create confidence and assurance in the DM, to encourage a greater willingness to run and to run well.
I feel I am able to teach DMs how to turn left when they say right.
Here is a breakdown of the three classes:
Class 1: Presentation:
Many will feel that this is their biggest hurdle, for many DMs are over-aware of their own failings where it comes to engaging their players, gaining their focus, delivering descriptions and ideas that are compelling, creating a positive impression and worst of all, learning to "think on our feet." Obviously, no one should expect miracles after an hour or so of evaluation. However, having a voice that can deconstruct what we're doing, encourage our ability to speak more passionately and with greater energy, while enabling us to "hear" how we sound from another person's perspective can put us on the right path in finding out what we need to do in the future. It isn't that we can solve problems overnight, but we can gain insight into how to solve those problems. We are each one of us different - but an ear other than our own, unafraid to give us real perspective and offer real direction, that is something everyone can gain from.
Class 2: Communication:
The way that DMs and Players interact is so often presented in the worst possible light in our hobby, with one side claiming that DMs are absolute rulers and the other that DMs take the game way too seriously. It's very important that we understand that it is not the DM's role to impose our will upon the players or to use our title as DM to win an argument. At the same time, Players must be guided to understand that we have limitations, that we are operating within those limitations and that the underlying principles of a successful role-playing game demands that we are all on the same page. This class wants to help DMs better connect with their players, producing a symbiosis in the game that enables both DM and Players together to move towards a common goal: DM as facilitator and Players as participants. A substantial part of this class would revolve around the student "running their world," supported by propositions on how we, together, feel that we could improve the message that has been given.
Class 3: Adventure Building:
Here we are speaking of creating the adventure that the players will run on, not the world that Players will run in. First and foremost, I will focus on the DM's role in these adventures: how the DM 'fits' into what's happening, what elements we will want to include - and most important, how we should not be bullied by the expectations of the Players and ourselves to make bigger, better, greater, more imaginative games. All too often, we bite off more than we can choose, trying to 'impress' in order not to fail, only to build adventures that fail catastrophically. Here I can offer considerable insight on what Players really want from a campaign, what they can expect and how we can train ourselves to start easy and build confidence and ability before asking ourselves to build the moon.
--
Let me say as a placeholder that the exact means of how payment is delivered will be left for the next post that I right. For this post, it is best that we limit any consideration to content alone.
Comments, please. I strongly recommend that readers ask me to better explain any element in the above three classes that seems doubtful - not only for me, but for everyone else who might be reading who may not think to ask such a question. I have no doubts whatsoever about my ability to deliver on these three tutorials - the more I talk about them, the stronger I will be on how to communicate the prospects that others will gain from each tutorial.
I think this is going to be a lot of fun, that it will be powerfully enlightening and that it could be the start that brings an end to many a new DM's frustrations.
Showing posts with label Tutoring. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tutoring. Show all posts
Monday, May 9, 2016
Friday, May 6, 2016
Open to Change
Two days ago I described myself denouncing a t-shirt and asking the question, would this approach succeed? I received no answers to this question - neither yes or no - so I must presume the reader just doesn't know. In film it makes sense but in reality it is hard to accept that the first experience we're going to have with a 'serious' critic of our lifestyle and approach to things is going to be unpleasant.
However, we usually enter into things with misconceptions and it is common for those misconceptions to meet with disapproval. So went my first experiences with cooking, so went my first experiences on stage, so went my first experiences with writing papers for university and so on. Like the podcast said, we learn from our mistakes - but most dramatically when we don't realize we are making mistakes. In those instances, it is our tendency to push back and resist against learning.
Keeping on topic with the art of presentation, I have long witnessed a pattern with DMs that centers around the need to impress players. The DM creates a big speech that the leader of the town gives, or gives maximum description through every combat of the way the swords swing or the amount of blood that gushes forth from the slain enemy:
And so on.
Do these efforts really impress people? Personally, I have a strong radar for people trying to impress me and my first thought is, "What are they trying to make me buy?" I inherently don't trust people who try too hard with such things. It's a tactic and a pretty piss-poor tactic at that . . . and I wonder why DMs feel it is such an important part of the game to impress the players.
Is this really the point of the game? Or is the point to facilitate play by describing things sufficiently? Presentation, I believe, is about communication, not pandering for respect: if players are going to impressed by a DM it will more likely come from the DM's cool, confident temperament than from the number of adjectives the DM can string together to describe things.
A class would want to emphasize this. A tutor would need to approach the resistance to this idea of needing to make things 'bigger' in order to be 'better' by communicating with the student and not at the student. This is what I tried to convey in the previous post: that while I did want the fellow to understand that his t-shirt wasn't winning any contests at the table, I wanted him to understand that from the point of view of someone that was self-aware - not someone who was shamed into a different behaviour.
Education must derive from two persons working together to solve a given problem - in the case given, the problem of presenting to the players to gain respect and legitimacy as a DM. Education should be a collaboration. The first step is to agree on the problem and the next, to solve that problem. So often, the difficulty is to be found in the first step, as the student enters the classroom with a sense that they already know what the problem is - "I don't know what I need to know" - and that the educator will somehow wave a magic wand and make that lack of knowledge go away.
With something like DMing, a thing that is deeply personal and deeply entrenched in one's prejudices, it isn't a matter of 'knowing' how to DM. It is much more a matter of recognizing how something tried and tried is or isn't working. I said this at the beginning of How to Run - it is a major theme in the book. In the beginning, I had some handle on when I was doing well as a DM; but I couldn't explain why I was doing well and I couldn't reproduce that effect when desired. DMing was totally hit or miss. It took writing the book to truly nail down why I could manage a table well and why players enjoyed my DMing.
That would be the purpose of every class I would give: Tell me what you're doing and I'll explain why this is working and why this isn't. If the student can then accept that (largely on faith, as one would from an instructor), then we can work to change to a strategy that will work, every time.
That's not easy. It requires a willingness to break with past behaviour. That is why the most esoteric of classes cost so much money: it is always presumed that the more open your wallet is, the more open your mind is probably going to be.
However, we usually enter into things with misconceptions and it is common for those misconceptions to meet with disapproval. So went my first experiences with cooking, so went my first experiences on stage, so went my first experiences with writing papers for university and so on. Like the podcast said, we learn from our mistakes - but most dramatically when we don't realize we are making mistakes. In those instances, it is our tendency to push back and resist against learning.
Keeping on topic with the art of presentation, I have long witnessed a pattern with DMs that centers around the need to impress players. The DM creates a big speech that the leader of the town gives, or gives maximum description through every combat of the way the swords swing or the amount of blood that gushes forth from the slain enemy:
Player: "I roll to hit."
DM: "You draw back your sword and with immense power you bring it CRASHING down on the head of the orc, causing the creature to scream in agony and sink to the ground, it's hands dropping its weapon as it cries out, 'Oh why did I try to fight against such magnificent heroes?' . . ."
And so on.
Do these efforts really impress people? Personally, I have a strong radar for people trying to impress me and my first thought is, "What are they trying to make me buy?" I inherently don't trust people who try too hard with such things. It's a tactic and a pretty piss-poor tactic at that . . . and I wonder why DMs feel it is such an important part of the game to impress the players.
Is this really the point of the game? Or is the point to facilitate play by describing things sufficiently? Presentation, I believe, is about communication, not pandering for respect: if players are going to impressed by a DM it will more likely come from the DM's cool, confident temperament than from the number of adjectives the DM can string together to describe things.
A class would want to emphasize this. A tutor would need to approach the resistance to this idea of needing to make things 'bigger' in order to be 'better' by communicating with the student and not at the student. This is what I tried to convey in the previous post: that while I did want the fellow to understand that his t-shirt wasn't winning any contests at the table, I wanted him to understand that from the point of view of someone that was self-aware - not someone who was shamed into a different behaviour.
Education must derive from two persons working together to solve a given problem - in the case given, the problem of presenting to the players to gain respect and legitimacy as a DM. Education should be a collaboration. The first step is to agree on the problem and the next, to solve that problem. So often, the difficulty is to be found in the first step, as the student enters the classroom with a sense that they already know what the problem is - "I don't know what I need to know" - and that the educator will somehow wave a magic wand and make that lack of knowledge go away.
With something like DMing, a thing that is deeply personal and deeply entrenched in one's prejudices, it isn't a matter of 'knowing' how to DM. It is much more a matter of recognizing how something tried and tried is or isn't working. I said this at the beginning of How to Run - it is a major theme in the book. In the beginning, I had some handle on when I was doing well as a DM; but I couldn't explain why I was doing well and I couldn't reproduce that effect when desired. DMing was totally hit or miss. It took writing the book to truly nail down why I could manage a table well and why players enjoyed my DMing.
That would be the purpose of every class I would give: Tell me what you're doing and I'll explain why this is working and why this isn't. If the student can then accept that (largely on faith, as one would from an instructor), then we can work to change to a strategy that will work, every time.
That's not easy. It requires a willingness to break with past behaviour. That is why the most esoteric of classes cost so much money: it is always presumed that the more open your wallet is, the more open your mind is probably going to be.
Wednesday, May 4, 2016
Class 1: Presentation
Goal: to improve DM presentation skills in order to better communicate ideas, concepts and narration to participants (the party); to use presentation to create a more focused, immersive campaign.
Preparations:
Preparations:
- Read Chapter Six of How to Run: an Advanced Guide to Managing Role-playing Games.
- Read those blog entries from my blog pertaining to classes on the internet (list pending).
- Be sure to arrange our Skype talk so that you are alone and free of distractions; turn off your phone and reduce your internet availability.
- Come prepared to run your world. DMs should be prepared to run a player who has never participated in their campaign before.
- Have room to move about on camera; don't be in a very tight enclosed space. You will be asked to communicate on camera from a standing position.
Here are the bare bones of where I would start as a tutor - and as I write this, I am already thinking of at least one difficult conversation that would come about. It is cruel and abusive, but for the purpose of this post I'm going to refer to the pupil/student as the 'payer' - I want this to be firmly in the reader's mind.
(Camera comes on; greetings and pleasantries are exchanged, I encourage the payer to feel free to be honest and direct, to ask questions, to ask for a rest if they are feeling pressured, to not worry about the clock and to feel that we have plenty of time to address the issues at hand. Then I explain that, just to be sure we get to all those issues, we will occasionally have to drop a discussion, even if it's interesting, to ensure we can get through the lesson.
Payer is wearing a ratty, Star Wars shirt and is slumped comfortably in their chair)
Me: Do you feel ready to begin?
Payer: Sure.
Me: I'd like to start with what you're wearing.
Payer: Sorry?
Me: The shirt you're wearing. I'd like to talk about it. Can you tell me why you chose to wear that particular shirt.
Payer: Uh, it's comfortable.
Me: Of course. I understand. My point would be, what is the message it gives to your players when you wear that shirt?
Payer (annoyed): That I like Star Wars.
Me: That's fair. But the purpose in learning how to better present is to convey a sense that your privilege as DM is deserved. That is not to say you are not a great DM - you may very well be. But the communication between us and other people is not based on what you are but upon what you are perceived to be. When someone sees you in that shirt, what message does that send?
Payer: I don't see how that matters. I'm me. I don't want to pretend to be someone else.
Me: It isn't a matter of pretending. It is a question of presentation. In a sense, you are already adopting a pretense. You're conveying a message with your clothing that says you're a friendly fellow, pleasant, easy to get along with and so on. The question is, does that help you DM your players. Players who think the DM is "easy to get along with" also think that the DM is "easy to get around" or "won't hassle me if I goof off." Which is precisely the sort of relationship you'd want to have with your friends at the bar, since you wouldn't hassle them and you wouldn't mind being gotten around because these are your friends and its fun. The problem is that as a DM, you're adopting a role of authority and that role means you have to make judgments and give instructions and be obeyed when you ask for silence and such. That shirt doesn't send the message, "Listen to me, I have something to say." That shirt sends the message, "I don't really care what's happening. We're just goofing off here." You may not be aware of that message; I presume you're not because you're here to better learn how to get control over your group and impress them. If you want to impress people, you have to dress in a way that people identify with someone that is impressive. That's not pretending: that's taking advantage of a pre-made stereotype that people obey and using it to help them obey YOU.
There.
The question remains, how well will this approach succeed? I fully expect that some people will be highly resistant to this sort of analysis. Some readers will feel very strongly that I'm arguing from the position of an old man with an old man's prejudices. However, it remains true that, despite the gross inaccuracy that results from trying to judge someone by their appearance, we continue to judge others by their appearance. And this, disappointing as it is to believe, applies just as much to our friends as it does to strangers. If Jonathan, who has been a notorious slob since high school, suddenly starts wearing dress pants and a button shirt everyday to his new job, his friends will applaud him. If Jonathan then starts showing up at the bar in the evening still in his fine shirt and pants, because he hasn't had time to go home and dress in a sweatshirt and stretch pants, his friends will remark on how 'respectable' and 'responsible' he's become since the "Old Jonathan." If this continues to the point where Jonathan starts coming to the cook-outs and camping trips in polo shirts and nylon gear, because can afford these now, his friends will joke and laugh about how Jonathan "used to be," with a distinct tone that the New Jonathan is much more pleasant now that he's using deodorant. The New Jonathan may hate it; he may wish he could quit his lousy job and go back to those relaxed days in the old apartment that didn't cost him $1500 a month - but he doesn't because he likes the respect.
Presentation is not about being YOU. It is about obtaining respect. The respect needed to get the attention of your players and make them focus on your game. I would be doing you a disservice, giving you the Type I lesson, if I told you the drab, ratty, cruddy clothing you're wearing is "just fine."
Tuesday, May 3, 2016
What Sort of Class?
Gathering my thoughts . . .
I have taken all kinds of education classes in my years. Some through university, some through my place of employment, some from a desire to be employed, some extra classes to study subjects that were of interest and once by court order (the reason can be read on this post). In retrospect, these fall into three categories:
The first type is designed to make us feel good about ourselves. The classes are heavy on participation and building better social relationships in which oxytocin manufacture is a key component. The class is encouraged to communicate as much as possible in short doses, speak of and listen to others with a positive outlook, move about physically and on the whole keep as busy as possible to hide the fact that nothing is actually being taught. These classes are very popular, as they allow both popular and lonely people to reach a consensus of good will, friendship and the strong sense that something has been accomplished. If nothing else is gained from these classes, they are a good experience.
The second type tends to be very dry and almost useless. Here I am speaking of the "required courses" that I took in university or the "orientation" classes that I attended on behalf of business or so-called teambuilding activities. The primary purpose of these classes is to prove commitment to our authoritarian masters (who, in some cases having to do with university, need this in order to stay employed) while surviving the course without any expression of emotion whatsoever. The best way to pass muster on these courses is to attend with rigid faithfulness, speak civilly and as little as possible, sit at the back and hide behind as much crowd as can be found. Oh, and lie. Never, ever, give a sincere opinion.
The third type came with demands that were so hard to meet as to deserve the appellation "brutal." Drama courses where we were expected to perform publicly on stage once a month, science classes with weekly coursework and labs, immersive language classes, physical classes meant to prepare for competitive contests and so on. Classes that we took because these, too, were required courses but were deliberately designed to weed out the participants rather than pay homage to beings with tenure. I still occasionally have dreams about failing these courses, where I get up and tell my other half unhappily, "I had the university dream again." I had it this morning, in fact.
Business success is found in Type I. Even the managers don't like Type II, but they think it is necessary. We can ignore Type II. Type III makes the world happen.
Looking at one-on-one consultation, I could make money by conning people with Type I: listening to them talk about their worlds, they're plans, giving them 'popular' and empty advice designed to make them feel really good about themselves, like they could take on the world. Basically, sugar pills. "Really, you're a great DM. Believe in yourself, relax, you'll get it, just think good thoughts, you make your own reality, if you want to succeed, you will, if you understand the 'why' the 'how' will be obvious, knowledge is power, you already know all you need to know, just learn to ask for what you want, ask and it will be received, you can achieve anything that you aspire to achieve, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah . . ."
People eat this stuff up.
Type III inherently contains a guarantee that isn't a promise - it is a fact. People are able to vertically climb apparently-impossible surfaces: if you are willing to commit and break your body in that commitment, forcing your body and consciousness to transform, logically you will also be able to do this. All that is asked is that you don't waste your time training in ways that don't achieve your goals.
Can DMing be taught this way? That is the question I've been trying to crack.
Think of it this way: Type I education is designed to cope with the problem, You are already uncomfortable. Come join and we will make you more comfortable about . . . whatever.
Type III education says, You think you're uncomfortable now? Just wait. Type III implies an expectation that you are prepared to make yourself more uncomfortable because, damn it, the end result matters to you so much that pain and discomfort right now do not mean fuck.
I do have a premise where it comes to problem solving: if I'm not feeling a "cost" in the application of the solution, there's probably a better solution that will cover more contingencies. In other words, this solution is easy because I am super-simplifying the problem.
I have a premise where it comes to problem solving: if I'm not feeling a "cost" in the application of the solution, something is wrong. Most likely, I am ignoring most elements of the problem so that a real solution is no longer necessary.
For example, my father journeyed to Russia in and around the time of Glasnost, just before the wall came down, as a petroleum engineering consultant. He described the elevator in the building where he stayed that was broken. It had been broken for months, as was obvious from the condition of the exterior. But the problem had been 'solved.' The management had put a sign on the elevator: "Reserved."
I am forever making more complicated solutions because I'm acknowledging that the problems are more complicated than I've solved for, so far. This applies to the trade system, to my maps, to the combat system, to character development, to my world's structure, to climate and to anything else I can think of. That is why I keep inventing new solutions to replace solutions that are already working; the working solutions are not yet solving enough of the actual problem to suit me.
Want to learn to DM? Or do you just want to pretend to learn to be a DM? Do you want the Type III class that will, after a lot of pain, make you a better DM? Or do you want the Type I class that will make you feel like you're a better DM?
Let's experiment. Let's try a Type III solution. Let's try homework. Here is what I propose: and anyone can do this, regardless of what genre you play, regardless of how long you've run, regardless of how you came to be a DM or what you hope to accomplish with your world building. It won't matter if you run your own world or if you run modules you buy. It won't matter if your world is serious or 'fun.' But it will make you a better DM if you follow through. Fair warning: following through is going to be a bitch.
Sorry, this isn't going to work if you haven't any players. And it will work better if you have players with whom you've played more than five or six times.
Sit down and draft out a serious description of each player in your world as a human being. Be honest, get into details, give at least two examples for every point you try to make about them and be as complete as possible. Explain why you think they play in your world, what they get out of playing in your world, what they would get out of playing in someone else's world, what their goals are (both in game and out of game), what it would take to make them quit and whether or not you feel they contribute a little, a moderate amount or a lot to the general welfare of your campaign. Write down any guesses you have about what your campaign would be like if this player stopped playing. Do it for every player. Take your time. Write at least a thousand words for each player. Two thousand would be better. Four thousand and you're probably repeating yourself now. Don't stop until you've written at least a thousand words.
I don't want to read it. I don't want to see it. I don't care if you write it down; turn on a cam and record your feelings about each player by voice. The only important thing is that when you're done, go back and read it or listen to it the next day. Then you can burn it or delete it, making sure your friends and players never, ever, ever see it.
Don't gripe. Don't bitch about the amount of work. You want to be a better DM? You have to address this issue - because it is the hardest, least pleasant issue you will ever have to address as a gamer. You play with these people. What do you really think about them. What do you think about yourself when you read your opinions the next day? Do you still like yourself? Can you look at yourself in the mirror? Are you up to meeting these expectations and needs and desires that your players have? Can you be?
I think probably you're afraid to even begin to contemplate doing this. Christ, just starting is going to take you a week or a month. That's because you don't really want to be a better DM. You just want someone to say you are.
Is that the sort of class you want me to run? Or are you ready to bleed?
I have taken all kinds of education classes in my years. Some through university, some through my place of employment, some from a desire to be employed, some extra classes to study subjects that were of interest and once by court order (the reason can be read on this post). In retrospect, these fall into three categories:
The first type is designed to make us feel good about ourselves. The classes are heavy on participation and building better social relationships in which oxytocin manufacture is a key component. The class is encouraged to communicate as much as possible in short doses, speak of and listen to others with a positive outlook, move about physically and on the whole keep as busy as possible to hide the fact that nothing is actually being taught. These classes are very popular, as they allow both popular and lonely people to reach a consensus of good will, friendship and the strong sense that something has been accomplished. If nothing else is gained from these classes, they are a good experience.
The second type tends to be very dry and almost useless. Here I am speaking of the "required courses" that I took in university or the "orientation" classes that I attended on behalf of business or so-called teambuilding activities. The primary purpose of these classes is to prove commitment to our authoritarian masters (who, in some cases having to do with university, need this in order to stay employed) while surviving the course without any expression of emotion whatsoever. The best way to pass muster on these courses is to attend with rigid faithfulness, speak civilly and as little as possible, sit at the back and hide behind as much crowd as can be found. Oh, and lie. Never, ever, give a sincere opinion.
The third type came with demands that were so hard to meet as to deserve the appellation "brutal." Drama courses where we were expected to perform publicly on stage once a month, science classes with weekly coursework and labs, immersive language classes, physical classes meant to prepare for competitive contests and so on. Classes that we took because these, too, were required courses but were deliberately designed to weed out the participants rather than pay homage to beings with tenure. I still occasionally have dreams about failing these courses, where I get up and tell my other half unhappily, "I had the university dream again." I had it this morning, in fact.
Business success is found in Type I. Even the managers don't like Type II, but they think it is necessary. We can ignore Type II. Type III makes the world happen.
Looking at one-on-one consultation, I could make money by conning people with Type I: listening to them talk about their worlds, they're plans, giving them 'popular' and empty advice designed to make them feel really good about themselves, like they could take on the world. Basically, sugar pills. "Really, you're a great DM. Believe in yourself, relax, you'll get it, just think good thoughts, you make your own reality, if you want to succeed, you will, if you understand the 'why' the 'how' will be obvious, knowledge is power, you already know all you need to know, just learn to ask for what you want, ask and it will be received, you can achieve anything that you aspire to achieve, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah . . ."
People eat this stuff up.
Type III inherently contains a guarantee that isn't a promise - it is a fact. People are able to vertically climb apparently-impossible surfaces: if you are willing to commit and break your body in that commitment, forcing your body and consciousness to transform, logically you will also be able to do this. All that is asked is that you don't waste your time training in ways that don't achieve your goals.
Can DMing be taught this way? That is the question I've been trying to crack.
Think of it this way: Type I education is designed to cope with the problem, You are already uncomfortable. Come join and we will make you more comfortable about . . . whatever.
Type III education says, You think you're uncomfortable now? Just wait. Type III implies an expectation that you are prepared to make yourself more uncomfortable because, damn it, the end result matters to you so much that pain and discomfort right now do not mean fuck.
I do have a premise where it comes to problem solving: if I'm not feeling a "cost" in the application of the solution, there's probably a better solution that will cover more contingencies. In other words, this solution is easy because I am super-simplifying the problem.
I have a premise where it comes to problem solving: if I'm not feeling a "cost" in the application of the solution, something is wrong. Most likely, I am ignoring most elements of the problem so that a real solution is no longer necessary.
For example, my father journeyed to Russia in and around the time of Glasnost, just before the wall came down, as a petroleum engineering consultant. He described the elevator in the building where he stayed that was broken. It had been broken for months, as was obvious from the condition of the exterior. But the problem had been 'solved.' The management had put a sign on the elevator: "Reserved."
I am forever making more complicated solutions because I'm acknowledging that the problems are more complicated than I've solved for, so far. This applies to the trade system, to my maps, to the combat system, to character development, to my world's structure, to climate and to anything else I can think of. That is why I keep inventing new solutions to replace solutions that are already working; the working solutions are not yet solving enough of the actual problem to suit me.
Want to learn to DM? Or do you just want to pretend to learn to be a DM? Do you want the Type III class that will, after a lot of pain, make you a better DM? Or do you want the Type I class that will make you feel like you're a better DM?
Let's experiment. Let's try a Type III solution. Let's try homework. Here is what I propose: and anyone can do this, regardless of what genre you play, regardless of how long you've run, regardless of how you came to be a DM or what you hope to accomplish with your world building. It won't matter if you run your own world or if you run modules you buy. It won't matter if your world is serious or 'fun.' But it will make you a better DM if you follow through. Fair warning: following through is going to be a bitch.
Sorry, this isn't going to work if you haven't any players. And it will work better if you have players with whom you've played more than five or six times.
Sit down and draft out a serious description of each player in your world as a human being. Be honest, get into details, give at least two examples for every point you try to make about them and be as complete as possible. Explain why you think they play in your world, what they get out of playing in your world, what they would get out of playing in someone else's world, what their goals are (both in game and out of game), what it would take to make them quit and whether or not you feel they contribute a little, a moderate amount or a lot to the general welfare of your campaign. Write down any guesses you have about what your campaign would be like if this player stopped playing. Do it for every player. Take your time. Write at least a thousand words for each player. Two thousand would be better. Four thousand and you're probably repeating yourself now. Don't stop until you've written at least a thousand words.
I don't want to read it. I don't want to see it. I don't care if you write it down; turn on a cam and record your feelings about each player by voice. The only important thing is that when you're done, go back and read it or listen to it the next day. Then you can burn it or delete it, making sure your friends and players never, ever, ever see it.
Don't gripe. Don't bitch about the amount of work. You want to be a better DM? You have to address this issue - because it is the hardest, least pleasant issue you will ever have to address as a gamer. You play with these people. What do you really think about them. What do you think about yourself when you read your opinions the next day? Do you still like yourself? Can you look at yourself in the mirror? Are you up to meeting these expectations and needs and desires that your players have? Can you be?
I think probably you're afraid to even begin to contemplate doing this. Christ, just starting is going to take you a week or a month. That's because you don't really want to be a better DM. You just want someone to say you are.
Is that the sort of class you want me to run? Or are you ready to bleed?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)