![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
GMing - deprotagonising
Jul. 8th, 2006 09:00 pmFound this link in Coridan's LJ.
An interesting discussion, and made me think about my own GMing (and what I've objected to in other GMs in the past).
I don't think I deprotagonise my players. At least, I think I'm aware of the danger and try not to do so, even if I hadn't formulated the concept in so many words. By the standards of that discussion, I think I'm an extremely "soft" GM - I'm happy to hand NPCs over to player control, let them decide setting details and so on.
Given the Swords setting (they're fairly junior members of a military organisation), it can be hard to avoid NPCs being more competent than them and giving them orders, but we usually seem to avoid having PCs upstaged. And the orders given can be arranged OOC: "what orders would you like your character to be given?.... fine, just add this bit, then go ahead and write the dialogue."
I do like my NPCs. I try not to have cardboard cut-outs, and making them fully interesting and 3D means they do need some screen time, but I hope I'm not overdoing it. Hope. I'm a writer, maybe I get carried away.
What worries me is the repeated comment in the thread that if players don't like something, they often don't say so, they just drift away. And this game keeps going awfully quiet...
At least I'm sure I'm not altering character concept on players without permission. Anything like that, we discuss in advance. Like now, when Egil (Adrian) needs some stimulus to push him towards going Devotee, but isn't sure what, and has given me permission to forcibly fail him in a contest so as to drive him into a suitable situation. What I've got in mind isn't something I'd have necessarily done without that permission, and once he's up the creek and paddle-less I'll give him a very free hand in whatever he tries to get out of it again.
An interesting discussion, and made me think about my own GMing (and what I've objected to in other GMs in the past).
I don't think I deprotagonise my players. At least, I think I'm aware of the danger and try not to do so, even if I hadn't formulated the concept in so many words. By the standards of that discussion, I think I'm an extremely "soft" GM - I'm happy to hand NPCs over to player control, let them decide setting details and so on.
Given the Swords setting (they're fairly junior members of a military organisation), it can be hard to avoid NPCs being more competent than them and giving them orders, but we usually seem to avoid having PCs upstaged. And the orders given can be arranged OOC: "what orders would you like your character to be given?.... fine, just add this bit, then go ahead and write the dialogue."
I do like my NPCs. I try not to have cardboard cut-outs, and making them fully interesting and 3D means they do need some screen time, but I hope I'm not overdoing it. Hope. I'm a writer, maybe I get carried away.
What worries me is the repeated comment in the thread that if players don't like something, they often don't say so, they just drift away. And this game keeps going awfully quiet...
At least I'm sure I'm not altering character concept on players without permission. Anything like that, we discuss in advance. Like now, when Egil (Adrian) needs some stimulus to push him towards going Devotee, but isn't sure what, and has given me permission to forcibly fail him in a contest so as to drive him into a suitable situation. What I've got in mind isn't something I'd have necessarily done without that permission, and once he's up the creek and paddle-less I'll give him a very free hand in whatever he tries to get out of it again.
