I have been and played with many GMs. Some good, some bad, some okay, but they all fit into one of these two categories: The Explain-it-All and the Say-Nothing. These types are not static as GMs go from one extreme to the other...
I found it really hard to find a middle ground between these two extremes. Let's examine both before we try to rationalize.
Explain it All
Someone who is Explain-It-All, cannot stop himself from telling you all the wonderful thing an adventure contains. All the intricacies the players missed, read into, skimmed, ignored, or decided against. When the adventure is over and you step away from the game table, you know everything there is about it.
People who do that are often excited and enamored with the adventure that they want to showcase it all, make sure the players understand its awesomeness.
Say Nothing
The Say-Nothing is the GM who at the end of the adventure closes the book, smiles and says "see you next time". He is a bank vault about what you missed or ignored in his work.
What you experienced is all there is.
The Say-Nothing GM can also be very excited about the adventure, but his excitement lies in the surprise of the follow-up. That time when he slaps you with "that NPC you completely forgot about who now seeks revenge..."
Who am I?
Adventure writers and GMs are an odd bunch. Differently odd. Opposite odd in many ways. Adventure writers have to be Explain It All while GMs should be Say Nothing. Why? Because their goals are different.
The writer HAS to put everything in his product so the GM can make correct rulings and understand what is going on and focusing only on the absolute essentials. That is one of the reason that playing with the author is so great: because you learn all the secrets behind the adventure, some of the secret bolts the "random" GM has little way of knowing.
As a GM (of other people's stuff), I lean towards the Say-Nothing type, letting the game be the source of record. However as an author, I want to get people excited about all the possible secret links they did not experience in the adventure.
Which is best?
That is the big question. I do not think there is anything wrong with either of these styles or approach. What type of game I play - and run - impacts my personal taste both as a player and as a GM.
As I play a lot of organized play games, I like knowing what elements our table missed as the GM is rarely in charge of what comes next and important plot elements may be needed to understand what is happening next. So, Explain-it-All. Now I no longer run organized play from others, so this one for me is only on the player side.
In the few home games I play, I prefer the Say-Nothing approach so the GM can pick and choose threads he will expand upon going forward.
No comments:
Post a Comment