Your definition of a 'cooperative game' which has apparently now expanded to games in which players agree to play in a GM dominated game, bares little resemblance to how you have described it before. Or the kind of game cantankerous is describing now. If you want to expand your definitions until it accepts everything go right ahead. But the question of 'who has authority' becomes meaningless under your distinctions.

Just to be absolutely clear, delegation of authority is just that. A delegation. You take your authority and assign it to someone else. Which means you no longer have it, that person does. When the players decide to delegate their authority to the GM, he then has more then they do. After all, they just gave it to him!


What more can you want from an open ended hypothetical question? Of course how I would react would depend upon the specifics of the situation. There are times I would bow to the will of the group, or a player, and there are times I would not. It would all depend upon the situation. What is really critical to the question at hand is not so much what, or why, a GM might decide, but if he decides. Is the decision his to make? In the case of my group. Yes, in most cases it IS mine to make. I listen to the feelings of the other members of course, but in the end we have decided the ultimate decision is mine to make.

Which means if I think that increasing the powerlevel of my game would be counterproductive to our fun, I do not allow it. Even if it goes against my players wishes. This example is especially true, because I have often had to make such decisions. My players have a strong tendancy towards Monty Hallisim, even though we all agree that it is often times counter productive to our fun. Which is one of the very reasons why we appoint someone to be GM, to thwart our desires which might otherwise get out of control.


Well if you think this was my point then you missed mine. What I meant was, groups will decide what level of GM authority is appropriate for them. For some groups, some levels will be more productive to fun then other levels. My group requires a GM with authority for the most fun. As a player I like a GM to have authority for the most fun.


The skill of a GM is in no way linked to the amount of authority he has. It depends upon the desires of a group. I could be playing with the greatest GM in the world, but if he puts to much of things like NPC, setting, and plot creation I will likely not have a good time as it will break the suspension of disbelief for my character. Indeed, my interest are probably best served by having the 'best GM in the world' not listen to my suggestion on how to rule. As I know for a fact that it would be difficult to impossible for me to rule fairly on the fate of my character, I would always be to tempted to biased in favor of my character. Even though I know in the end that not facing the consiquences of my characters actions is counter-productive to my fun.

I'm willing to belive there are players and groups out there that are able to rise above these issues. But me and my group are not it. We have decide that our fun is best served by an authitative GM.


Unless of course its not. In my group, players surrender the right to adjucate game calls to the GM. They surrender the right to stat up NPCs. To control the setting. To determine the course and direction of the game. To adjucate the results of many unusual actions. To adjucate the rules. And even to cheat and ignore the rules if it best serves the interest of the games. None of which the players can do. Because they have decided this is the best way to do it. Now, if this is equal athority, then you have a different definition of it than I do.


I never said that even strongly authoritative games don't have cooprative elements. Or that there is a spectrum of styles in which games can fall in. My contention is with the assumption that a fully cooperative style of game is necessarily the right way to play. Or that the groups decision to give the GM's voice more importance could be incorrect in any way.

Look, I know that political correctness dislikes admitting that anyone has less anything (except experience) than anyone else does and that a thing which makes us less capable (except lack of experience) at ANYTHING somehow makes us better people. The Handicapped are now Handicapable and "Short" People are simply, "Vertically Challenged" People. I despise putting adults in metaphorical diapers.

Some people ARE less skilled than others at this hobby. The name of it is Role Playing. That assumes that a Role is being Played. Doing so with less skill, or making mistakes while doing so lessenes the enjoyment for everybody else. So, identifying what might cause their to be less enjoyment over all is not "picking on" anyone. It is simply acknowledging that when a new person begins in the hobby they don't already somehow magically know everything. No big deal. No one expects them too. I wasn't an All State Defensive Lineman (Honorable Mention---I wasn't a BIG fish, but I'm still proud of it) the first time I touched a football either.

Hey, what about simply calling it:

Common Things that "Less Experienced" Role Players Do to Lessen the Enjoyment of the Game for the More Experienced Role Players

That should be politically correct enough.

This isn't a case of "badwrongfun" either. If it isn't lessening anyone else's enjoyment when the guys all have their noses shoved in the books instead of being "in the game" or when they constantly leave the room in the middle of combat and then complain that you went on without them, cool. If a newbie RPer doesn't want to know about ways that old timers use to make the game more involved and intense, fine. But that is like saying that everyone should be included in every pick up basketball game, simply because they showed up, even if you've got six guys who are playing at a collegiate level and two guys who don't know how to dribble want to join in.

Can the other six include them? Sure. Will they enjoy it? Maybe breifly, as a lark, but ultimately they aren't going to enjoy themselves for long, especially if no one wants to help the newbies learn the game and the newbies keep repeating the same gaffs over and over again. Oor at the dead least, they won't enjoy themselves nearly as much as they would have otherwise and if one or two of the original six insist, the others may well feel that they are being put upon and leave. Who could blame them?

Why do the newbies who don't want to learn or worse, have no one being allowed to tell them because then the person trying to help them to learn would be labeled "elitist", have more rights to enjoy themselves than the long time veterans?



Isshia

As an aside here: If the Players suddenly want to make all Panther Cannons cost Y1,000,000 and 100 karma to get they might be telling you something. You might be well advised to listen.

If the Players all want to do something one way and the GM doesn't, what is this telling us about the way things are going? It tells us that the Players are upset. It tells us that there is a BIG problem, if they are all in unison against what the GM wants. It is also very likely to be a strong sign that if things don't change the GM is going to be loosing Players.

We had, in D&D, way back when second edition D&D came out, a six person Group, four of which HATED the new initiative rules and wanted to keep the weird Gygaxian initiative rules from the earlier edition, but the DM, a true Unilateral type (He used to underline the word Master on the front of his DMs screens.) wouldn't hear of it. Now what happened next didn't happen because of that ruling solely, but because of his over all attitude. Those four just started packing their stuff up and walked out. Then one stuck his head back in and asked if I'd be willing to run a game under voted on rules. I told him to let me think about it and let Craig rant about how ungrateful they were. He was a good friend, even if he ran a shitty game.

I didn't like the way Craig ran his games either, so ultimately I said yes, and even got him involved as a Player. Neither one of us still wanted or liked the Initiative rule, but 4 to 2 the others carried the vote, so that was what we did. I had to put up with Gygaxian Initiative for almost two more years before I finally got that rule changed.

BTW: THIS and not hypothetical BS about changing the costs of Panther cannons is what REALLY gets discussed and altered by Cooperative Games. Never once, not ONCE have I seen the vote system abused more than it was in that first instance...and there it wasn't being abused, no matter how much I dislike the Gygaxian Initiative system, it was simply being exercised against my wishes and nothing more. Now we vote about any changes from the standard core rules and never once have I seen it abused. Never.

Why then is it so impossible to run that type of game?

I'll let you in on a little secret. It isn't impossible. It's easier, MORE fun and keeps everyone happier and having more fun.



Isshia

That is an idiotically sweeping statement. Do you really think that your ideal RP group is THE ideal RP group or at least strickly superior to all other forms of gaming?

Oh come on. You are the one taking a general statement and applying it universally.

Me --> Apples are red.

You --> How dare you say that all apples are red!

I've said time and again and again and again, there IS NO GOLDEN BULLET!

I've also stated, because it a fact, that neither in my own long experience with Gaming or with that of the many other GMs with their groups who have tried it out have I yet to hear even ONE dissenting opinion concerning how much easier it is for the GM and how much less combative it is for the Players and how much the method improved their enjoyment of the game. The only people I've heard your vociferous challenges from about how it won't work for them are from those who don't try it, but even still, I am completely aware that there WILL BE situations where it won't work ... I've simply yet to run in to even ONE out of likely more than 30 different GMs and groups who have tried it. It is too limited to be labeled even a sure fix, 30+ to 0 simply isn't a large enough sample to provide statistical certainty... but it sure as hell is EXTREMELY indicative.


Isshia

Silence does not necessarily mean agreement. I don't agree with most of what you are saying on this topic, and to tell the truth, I am slightly put out by the 'tone' of some of your posts, but I simply don't choose to argue the matter with you. I am sure there are probably others that feel the same way.

Fortune, I'm not saying that no one disagrees with me. I'm saying that no one I know of who has tried this method has had a negative outcome from it. I can't say that no one has, but rather that from the thirty plus groups I know of where it has been tried that this has been the case.

If you've got a case of where it didn't work, please tell me about it. I'd love to hear where the problems were so that they could be tweaked. Now, I'm not talking about: "No, I've never actually tried it but theoretically such and such could happen." That is blue skying and singularly non-productive. But for those who have done cooperative gaming and had it fail for them, God yes, please DO talk about it. I'd like to know where the REAL (as opposed to theoretical) faults lay so that it can be improved.



Isshia

I have tried it, numerous times, from both sides of the game, and didn't like it. The others that gamed with me on those occasions (several different groups) also didn't enjoy it, and chose to go back to other, more traditional systems and styles of play. As for anecdotal experiences, as I said, I choose not to argue the point with you (and Cain). I don't see anything to gain by it, as I am not going to change your mind(s) about the subject, and it is not important enough of an issue for me to put more effort into this debate than I am doing just by following it as I have done so far.

I don't get it? How the hell is reportage argument? How does anything ever get improved if the only end you hear about things are the successes?


Isshia

To what end? You are happy with your style of play, and I am happy with mine, and that is a Good Thingâ„¢. Nothing I could say would (or even should) make any kind of difference to your enjoyment, and I wouldn't even dream of trying to change the way you and your group(s) go about playing a role-playing game.

My argument has nothing at all to do with any amount of PC thought on my part, thanks. What it does have to do with is officious prigs saying that people who want a combat-oriented game aren't roleplaying. Or people who don't want to put as much effort into creating a three-dimensional, living breathing character with pages of backstory in the game as those who did put such effort into making aren't properly roleplaying. People are not making mistakes when they don't play a game your way, sorry. They are just playing it differently.

If certain players don't fit your playstyle, and that affects your level of enjoyment in a game, then just don't play with those persons and find a group that does fit your playstyle. Christ, could it be any more simple than that? But don't put your nose in the air and make obnoxiously ridiculous claims as to the veracity of these players' "skill level" in enjoying their hobby compared to your own. That IS elitism, plain and simple.

This is all a rather large difference of opinion I have with a lot of people in the hobby, and I make no aplogies for my opinion nor will I attempt to dress it up in "PC" garb.

As a most-times GM, I find myself accomodating quite a number of different playstyles all at the same table on the same night in the same game. If I can find a way to accomodate such, and my players all find enjoyment at said table, I'm pretty confident I am doing just fine.

But I won't put up with this sort of bullshit social elitism at my table, either.

I've even gone so far as to kick my ex-wife out of a game session once because she made a huge stink about a guy who was quiet and wanted to play the loner who says very little and carries a big gun and used it to solve his problems and speak for him. She caused the session to devolve into an argument about who could "roleplay better". She just could not shut her yap and let another player enjoy playing the game as he wanted to play it, and take what I was giving her and enjoy it for her own.

Thanks everyone for the replies. One thing I have learned from putting this list together (which was compiled from suggestions from dozens of other players) is that each player and group seems to have their own set of ideas on what is good and what is bad. I've received a TON of positive AND TONS of negative comments on three different websites.

My hope in compiling this list was that maybe it could help people have more fun out of roleplaying by helping make them better roleplayers. That's the bottom line. It's not to make someone think they suck at roleplaying, or pump up someone else's ego. It's just a list. And with any list on the internet or any print article, you'll have people who love it, people who hate it, or people who could care less about it.

For me the only thing that makes you a bad rollplayer is extremes. Any kind of extreme, but when anyone takes a good thing to the extent some people are willing to go it turns it into a bad thing. The people who rollplay so much that they lose sight of anything else, the people who will rules lawyer to the point of the game breaking down, the person who always wants everyones attention 24/7 and will never shut up about their personal life, the person who is the ultra munchkin. The problem is unless the entire group and GM is all of a certain type of extreme games do not work out.

A bad player more comes down to if they are a bad person in how extreme they act. Roll playing, people who pay attention to the rules, someone who occasionally makes a funny or interesting quip about their personal life without detracting from game too much, someone who makes an interesting character, and someone who makes good use of spotlight time but doesn't demand it constantly. These are all good aspects to have when gaming. Everyone gets hung up on the retoric and forgets that the key to being a good player character is to be a good player.

I remember playing some table top games where some of the people were going through some life issues (late middle school, early high school) and man did those games suck. Everyone bickered and nothing got done. People would metagame when it didn't suit the story, and others were just power hungry fools. I don't think I was probably any better as I once made my GM cry when I came up with a brilliantly evil scheme that totally wrecked all of his plans and the time he spent on that adventure. I took pleasure in doing that. Then I grew up and got engaged, got happy, and spent a long time on toning down my personality. I still need work but I think the people who I game with have done similar things and are all mature adults who just want to have some fun. We have a really good group.

Not everyone is like this though as I have left a table before the game even started just because one of the players was going on and on in a way that I considered to be a "spotlight hogging asshole." He took glee in breaking down the game and making everyone have to listen to his drivel and just hearing him tell me all of his pointless stories about other tables he had played with without ever listening to a single question I asked, or noticing how disinterested I was made me leave. It was like watching a really really big five year old spoiled brat talk endlessly about nothing.

All I have to say is I'm glad I went early to that session or I might have had to endure his behavior as he tromped over everyone else's fun, like Buba the love troll in "Hard Action ™." - when the going gets tough the tough get bizzay.

In closing:
Extremes = bad
Everyone else is pretty much fine

You've said it sure, but you don't mean it. The whole car metaphor goes against this sentiment as well as all "WILL NEVER" "WILL ALWAYS" "BETTER", style phrasings you use. If you really meant it you wouldn't still be arguing as the merits of our (yours and mine) play style has been well articulated a while ago.


More Comedy gold. Your saying that you know your way is categorically better than fortune's based on your years of experience and dozens of players. Fortune replies say that his years of experience and dozens of players doesn't match so you can't be categorically correct, or even "the more correct" one

Or it could be indicitive that players sometimes have cravings that run counter to their ultimate desires. For example, I desire to maintain my good health and acceptable body weight. Even so, I sometimes strongly crave McDonalds Double Quarter Pounder meals, even though I know eating them is counterproductive to my goal of good health. The same thing can happen in RPGs. I unfortunatly have seen it happen more than a time or two. Our group has a strong tendancies towards Monty Hallisim, even though we all agree that it is counterproductive to our fun. Thus they have appointed me GM in part, to thwart their desires in these respects.

I find it telling that when we look back and talk about our experiences that were most memeorable, it is often occurances where things went totally awry and counter to their desires. Now, at any point during these terribly disaterious sequences of events if I had asked the players what they thought the appropriate rulling in the situtation, they would have inveribly said that things should go in their characters favor. But looking back on it, it is often the situations in which I ruled against their desires that they found the most enjoyable.

[shameless plug] You can find some recordings of us recounting these (in)famous incidents on my podcast, links in the sig. [/shameless plug]

---

Edit: I should also note that while I certainly don't consider myself a perfect GM (by any means). I know all to well the areas of my GMing that need improvement upon. However, I have never had a 'player rebellion' of the sort you describe. Despite the fact that I rule against the players, and at times the whole groups, desires quite often. Indeed if anything our style of play has grown more authoritative as time has gone on, not less. In fact the only players that have ever left our group have been due to people either moving away, or the group as a whole deciding to kick a player out (against their wishes). I've never had a player get fed up with our authoritative play style and leave. And this is in about a decade of my gaming history and about 5 years with the same (basically) consistent group.

I've been a DM/GM/Keeper/Storyteller/YouNameIT since '76 and for about half that time was exactly the sort of GM you are. I made unilateral rulings against the entire group and had it accepted, I even on occassion had "waiting lsits", as I had too many players as it was with more wanting in...I ran a damned good game. Then during a D&D campaign run between myself and another guy (we traded off every year or so) we had the big blow up in one of John's games where two old friends, because (almost entirely) of the in character sniping almost came to blows. The situation I talked about where I took over from Craig was years before that and even after for a long time, I still usually ran Unilateral games and yes, they usually worked just fine.

Then I tried Cooperative Gaming. Man, it was, within a few weeks, like night and day. I spent HALF as much time in preparation and the quality of the game trebled. Actually, I was resistant to the idea when it first came up and was stunned at how well it worked.

Thinking back, I can't find a single situation when my groups, any of them, wanted something I went counter too that wouldn't, objectively, have worked just as well or better (if not in the same manner) if I had gone the way the group wanted it. They went ok my way, in that they didn't cause the groups to break apart, but it was a very clear sign to them that I thought I knew better than they did what was good for them and that was just solely and simply monstrous hubris on my part. I was, by ignoring their desires, putting them into metaphorical diapers.

It was at the point that I decided that I would accept that being done to me that I stopped doing it to others. It wasn't a level of trust thing, it was a level of respect thing. To truly earn respect you MUST show respect. Unilateralism does precisely the opposite at best. It demonstrates a clear and concise LACK of respect for the other participants. You have to have respect for your friends, and if you aren't playing the game with friends, why bother?

You have to at some point let the Players learn too. Let them have their Monty Haulism but when it becomes a bitch to prepare opponents: end the campaign. "Why man? We were having a blast?" "Because I wasn't. The characters were way too far over the top for it to be any fun any more. Someone else wants to run it, have a blast, just count me out."

It takes a level of self confidence to do that. What if they take you up on it? Well, what if they do? So what? My experience was that after three weeks the Players came back FAST, utterly bored with the Monty Haul game. But hey, they had to find that out for themselves. Self Confidence is always self rewarding if it is linked with self honesty.

Thanks Max, I'm enjoying this discussion greatly. As an aside, I'm not really trying to change your mind. Just talking. No one changes their mind until THEY are ready to do so, no matter what arguments are used, no matter how much the person presenting them believes in them, because the other person usually believes in what they are saying too, so please, don't feel this is meant to be argumentative. It isn't. I enjoy catching glimpses in to how other people think and why they think the way they do. next to gaming it may be my favorite pass time. So, really, thanks again for the conversation.


Isshia

Man, that may be the way YOU roll, but don't assign your traits willy nilly to others. The car metaphor is precisely what you just called it, a metaphor. Metaphors are only what the perceiver makes of them. Unless you read minds, you can claim you KNOW what others mean, but that is ALL you can really do. CLAIM it. Nothing more.

The reason I asked Fortune is because I LEARN here. I am not EVER so convinced of my own ideals that I stop thinking about what others say. I think and question and dissect and LEARN based on the experiences that not only I have, but that others have as well.

Which, Fortune, is the end to which a reportage would be helpful. It allows me to see things through other eyes so that the end product can be improved BEYOND my own experiences. My own game will NEVER be good enough. Anything you might say can and should be able to add to my own mindset. I am NOT a closed system and hope to god I never become one.



Isshia

Hey, if it's just different styles, that's another thing all together. But when you are talking about possible mistakes and level of experience (he called it skill, but it sure as hell seemed to me that he was talking about experience. To use his terms there certainly ARE different levels of SKILL at role playing at any given table. Identifying common mistakes that are made because of lack of experience (or skills) is COMPLETELY VALID if it doesn't go solely to style.

So, let's see if he was touting role playing and dissing combat orientation:

- Having a game master versus player mentality. Everyone at the table is telling a story together. Try to stay away from the attitude that you, as the player, are trying to defeat the game master. The game master is not your enemy (his little minions are!).
- Not giving the game master the benefit of the doubt. The game master is trying to tell a story. Trust that the game master will not abuse their power and they are trying to make the game good for everyone.
- Not allowing the game master a little leeway. The game master is responsible for every non-player character, their actions and reactions to players, and the overall story line. You are responsible for one character. If the game master makes a mistake, such as forgetting a rule, not remembering one particular detail about the adventure, or any other error in the game, give them a break. They have a lot going on!



You have to go a long way to get any touting of a single style there. The terminology sounds RP oriented more than combat oriented but it in NO MANNER disses Combat Oriented games and is as useful for those as for Story driven ones.

- Stopping the game session from being entertaining for everyone. Don’t let what you want to do kill everyone else’s fun. It’s not all about you… seriously.
- Putting a character quirk over the fun of the group. The phrase, “I am just playing my character,� has often been used to justify actions of a player that just damaged the fun for someone else.
- Not respecting other players’ time and the game master’s time.
- Creating a character this is opposed to a major aspect of another player or the entire group. This in itself is not a bad thing and can become a great source for roleplaying. But absolutely do not be surprised when this causes conflict between you and other players.

How about there? ANY of that not useful for a combat oriented game? It looks more cut to a general fit to me. I run both styles of games and there isn't a single one of those either that doesn't easily lend itself to the improvement of both styles.


- One player hears another player say or do something and then acts upon it, when there is no way their character would be aware of that knowledge. One example is when the characters are miles apart with no communications, yet are acting in sync as if they knew exactly what the other was thinking. This is a common mistake that pretty much every player falls prey to at some point.
- Playing a character beyond their ability level. Your character may be a meathead combat-monkey. He will most likely not know how to build a fusion reactor, even if you the player do.
- Using knowledge of a game mechanic specifically for advantage. One example might be a ranged character that always stays at the perfect distance to keep himself far away from his enemy, but close enough to not incur in-game penalties. If that character always attempts to fight at exactly fifty yards away from his opponent because it gives him a flawless advantage in combat that is not realistic.
- Employing a certain attack or defense against an enemy that your character would not know about. One example would be that you know a particular monster is weak against fire because of fighting against that monster in a different campaign another game master ran. If this character does not have knowledge of that, he most likely should not be using it.
- Reading a published adventure that the game master is running with the intention of using that information to beat the adventure. This is the closest thing on this list that is akin to cheating. Just don’t do it.

Any problems with any of those? Where do they promote RP OVER combat oriented? The ideas here are simply put, staying within the system and the abilities given. How the hell is that Elitist?

Complaining when something does not favor your character.

- Acting only during combat, but letting the other players or the game master carry you through the non-combat portions of the game.
- Becoming a dice thrower and not a roleplayer. This can be especially bad if the game contains a skill check for social skills. Don’t just say, “I lie to the guard. I’m rolling my con skill.� Tell the game master what your character says to try and con the guard, and then roll your skill. He may give you a bonus if your con is a particularly believable one!
- Not learning the rules after playing the game for a while. Do your best to keep the game moving by trying to learn the rules of the game. No one ever learns all the rules, but at least be familiar with the ones that are specific to your character.
- Trying to be involved in everything. If the group of characters is split up, don’t be that guy that moves from group to group just to stay in the action.
- Forgetting that bad rolls are part of the game. Remember, good luck and bad luck are both equally part of roleplaying. Try not to get upset if the dice aren’t rolling your way, it happens. Some games have functions that allow you to mitigate poor rolls, use them.
- Not paying attention. Don’t make everyone repeat themselves because you’re too busy reading the players handbook, or doing something else.
- Playing characters that are flawless. No person on earth is flawless. No character in a roleplaying game should be flawless.
- Treating a roleplaying game as something that can be won. Just like you can’t surf to the end of the internet, you can’t win a roleplaying game.

Here are a couple that don't apply nearly as much to Combat Oriented games as to RP orienented ones, but again, that doesn't damage their viability, it does not promote one type of game over the other. Too, most of them are as or more useful for Combat Oriented games as for RP oriented ones.

Screeching maniacally about how these promote or embody social elitism is ridiculous as is howling that a title as simple as "Common Mistakes Less-Skilled Roleplayers Make" does the same.

Ok, someone has done allot of that in the past with you it seems. That doesn't mean that EVERYONE is.




Isshia

I think the key issue we seem to be having, is (as WeaverMount says) you seemed to be convinced that your way of doing things is in all situations a superior way of doing things. I mean honestly, (as WeaverMount also said) we've made the case for our style of play, even though we really shouldn't half to. A 'hmm, your way of playing is nice, but we still perfer our own' should be sufficent to convince you that our style is working out well enough for us. What other assumption can we draw from your continued prositilsation of your styles supperority then the idea that you think your way of playing would be better for our groups then the ones we have already chosen?

Becaue, honestly, nobody here really cares how you choose to run your games. If it works well for you, then great, we are happy for you. But we take issue when you presume to know that your style would be better for our tables then the one we prefer to use. We are not morons over here. It is not as if we don't know of other ways of gaming, we just prefer not to use them. In my case my group has experimented with more cooperative style gaming in the past and it has been an unqualified disaster. I don't think we ever had a cooperative style game that ever got past 3 sessions. Which is why we have moved to a more authoritative style of play. It fits our needs better.

When you think about it, insinuating that you know better than us what style is right for our tables is pretty insulting. I mean you aren't sitting at our tables, and so you can't know our situation or the people and personalities involved. And you don't know the history of approaches we may have tried and there results. Yet you still seem convinced that doing things your way would be better for us, even after some of these facts have been revealed to you. I mean, dictatorial style gaming works well at my table, much better than cooperative gaming ever could. Yet you don't see me trying to convince you that my style is better, or that you are wrong for running your game in a different manner. And if I was your would be rightly furious with me. For the same reason what you say upsets me.

It would be one thing if we were coming here for advice on how to run our games. But we are not. I'm not to proud to ask for advice when I need it. I've done so in the past. Hell, I posted my runs online, in part, for that very reason. So that I could feed back from people about what they thought of them and how things could have gone better. If you want to take a listen and give me some concreate advice I would be thrilled. But, I don't at this time need your advice on how to combat Monty Hallisim at my table. Its an issue we have already got under control thank you very much. Yes, our solution is probably different than the one you propose. Frankly I think yours is far to disruptive to the group, and presumes that players can just get more mature in their desires for power esculation just by wanting to. Maybe it would work for your group. It sure as hell would not work for mine.

Hell, I've been fighitng my own tendancy towards Monty Hallisim in games I participate in as a player since I started RPG, years ago. And even though I know I don't like the results. It is still a struggle for me. A flaw in my personality perhaps, but for me the suductive call of power escelation is a hard lure to resist as a player. Progress on this front has been slow for me. So clearly, in some cases, just wanting to get more mature and overcome your desires is not always sufficent.

Yeah, the danger of a question about roleplaying "mistakes" is that sometimes it is hard to distinguish between mistakes and roleplaying styles. You have gritty pros vs. downtrodden distopians vs. pink mohawks. You have storytelling GMs vs. open campaigns. You have GMs who fudge vs. GMs who let the dice fall where they may. You have authoritative GMs vs. collaborative games.

No one way is bad, in and of itself. The problem is when someone thinks their way is the best, or even only, way. I personally think that one kind of metagaming is good - you should get an idea of what kind of table you're playing at, and make your character accordingly. Don't play your machinegun-toting troll tank with 4 IPs in a game of street punks in the Barrens. Don't play your ansty-Sue, low-dice-pool character in a game where everyone else is shooting up Lone Star cruisers with their Panther Cannons. Most of the advice for new players boils down to "Play nice with others," and the best start to that is getting on the same page with them. If your play style is going to clash too much with theirs, then it's better to find out before you join the group, rather than disrupting their game.

Who's providing the most comedy gold here?

I could quote quite a number of the posts in this thread pointing directly to what I was "screeching maniacally" about, including fully 50% of the opening post's points of interest (and of the other 50%, fully 100% of those are rather open to interpretation). But I won't. They are quite visible to those who can and will look, and they illustrate my point extremely well, I think.

My statements were specifically directed towards the playstyle choices which have been used to illustrate points which are, I feel, falsely attributed in an "inexperience vs. experience/unskilled vs. skilled" player behaviors thread.

In fact, the vast majority of the "points" posted in the entirety of this thread aren't really any sort of "skill level" or "experience level" restricted phenomenon at all, and I've seen all of them occur just as many if not more times in a "seasoned pro" than any "newbie" to gaming. The whole "skill/experience" argument is complete b.s., and this thread as titled is a bunch of bunk.

I hereby propose that the TRUE title of this thread SHOULD be: "Common Behaviors Among Gamers Which I Find Detract From My Fun At The Gaming Table And Make Baby Jesus Cry".

Oh, and of course you can win at an RPG. It's called "having fun".

This is exactly the worst of the sort of attitude we're talking about. You appointed yourself GM, and also El Presidente and Daddy Dearest, all for "the good of the group". I should make a bundle of political jokes right about now, but the last eight years shows us what that kind of attitude causes.

You just hit on a nerve, so I apologize if this gets a little rough. But for crying out loud, are you seriously saying that you Know Best, better than even your players? Geez, Dr. Phil, where did you learn to do that? This is essentially the same as saying: "I AM the GM, I AM God; I shall take care of my peons well as long as they worship me and do as I tell them." A GM isn't really "god" in the game, so thinking he's god out of the game means someone's got issues.

A GM's job is not to ride herd on his players. That sets up the adversarial GM-player relationship we all know causes problems. A GM's job is to make sure everyone has fun, and not to fulfill his own god complex.

This rides me. This thread has had a series of posts related to GMs. Gming shouldnt be a job. I may do all that your listing here. I may put a great deal of effort into these tasks. However, being a GM is for the good of the group. Being a GM is work, yes. However, sometimes the rules do not fit with the story and the GM needs to let everyone know he does this a bit different. As long as everything is up front, everyone understand how things will go in that person's game. Extending a scene by breaking the rules may be wrong to some but expecting every GM to operate like a a computer following programming is absurd.

Without a GM, you are Drek out of luck. Seven people sitting around a table all only willing to be players is pretty fragging useless. May as well whip out the bored games. If players have a problem with a GM, especially if he does have a god complex, they should walk.


/Normally, I can't help but agree with Cain's posts
//Guess there is a first time for everything.
/// Next your gonna tell me the host pays for his share of pizza too.
//// Speaking of resources, you realize a GM has to buy a greatly larger number of books (OK, only in systems that sell adventures so that doesn't apply here)

Not everyone thinks it is fun to keep trying to get something changed until one succeeds. Having one player nagging at something, trying to get the other "votes", can be very disruptive to a group.

And I do not believe even a second that those kind of discussions are not influenced by personal relations and by the amount of work/time/effort invested by a player into the game - if Joe "I created half the world, and three quarters of the NPCs, and run 90% of our games" wants something changed, he has - provided the game is fun for all - much more of a chance to get it changed than Jim "I attend the games, and play my character, and that's it".

You can call it cooperative, but in effect, most cooperative games will still have a heavy "GM influence" just because that's how politics work.

Agreed. This will be my only post in this thread. If it works for you, fine, if not, change it. Stop fucking arguing already. You've completely destroyed the potential usefulness of this thread for me.

@ Cantankerous

So out of personal interest I decided to look at how many words you use all in caps, excluding quoting others posts and the abbreviated terms (RP, GM, IMOP, ect.) You had 23 posts and 93 words used in caps. That is a little over four words all in caps a post. Now there are a few that have none and a few that have just a single one, BUT when you use caps to stress the point the way that I have seen your posts demonstrate (this is consistent may I just add) it just makes you seem... well kind of like an ass.

Just in case if you don't know caps on forums are used as a basic form of yelling or raising your voice to near the consistency of yelling and it changes the feel of a sentence.

For example:

1. It's your fault.

2. It's YOUR fault.

1. I never did that man.

2. I NEVER did that MAN.

Same sentence, but when you read it with the caps and stress those things it comes off as harsh. Maybe you wish to come off as harsh and authoritative, or maybe not. But someone can inflect broad overarching statements when reading your posts, when the only word one makes in all caps are a words like never, or always.

That NEVER works when a player does this.

It's ALWAYS best if you have cooperative group sessions.

Maybe you don't realize this, but it makes you sound preachy and give off the impression that you think you know whats best over everyone else (in an ass-ish kind of way.) If that is not what you intended then I'm sorry I made that inflection, but I don't think I'm the only one, and since you have posted that this is not your intent then I would cut it out with the NEVERs, and ALWAYS, and NO ONEs, and LOVEs. In that respect it doesn't make it seem like you wanted to listen to what Fortune had to say when the way you write it says a completely different thing altogether. That is why I believe Fortune did not want to even make his point, because he might have thought it would just be wasted on you. Some people won't bother with writing/posting if they know the other side is unwilling to listen.

I chose not to argue with you because I felt it would be wasted bites on the internet.

I've enjoyed this thread and a couple of the posts I read on page eight cleared things up. This "cooperative" gaming that was being described, well, that's how all of my games have been for the last 10 years or so, I just didn't think it was cooperative. I never saw players creating their own background as being cooperative, it was just something everyone had the option of doing. Some loved it, others didn't do it at all.

Same thing with rules. I never have unilaterally said this is how something would work...if something was vague, a few of us gave our opinion and I either rolled with mine or theirs until after the session where we could focus just on talking about the rule. I didn't view that as "cooperative" gaming, just common sense. We had a limited time to play the game, and we didn't want to waste it on a rule. As long as the rule was played the same way throughout the session, everyone was happy.

I have a hard time believing anyone runs a hard core unilateral game...the only way you could is if you created all your players characters and backgrounds and corrected them (or penalize their karma) every time they did something "out of character".

Sounds like both camps are playing the same games, with some different style and some call it unilateral and others call the same style cooperative... I fall back to games like wushu as being games that are really supporting the cooperative playstyle...

This isn't what I said. In fact, its pretty much the opposite of what I have been saying. Which is that the group as a whole decides what level of GM control is appropriate for them. But lets assume for a second that what you said was true. And that when playing a game I basically sat down and declared myself God, and treated all the players as my peons and source of amusement. It's not what I do when I play Shadowrun, but it is an attitude I have found appropriate for other games, such as Paranoia (after all, everyone know that arguing with friend computer is treason!). Is this necessarily a bad thing?

No it is not. What matters in RPG (or any game for that matter) is not the approach you take to playing it, but the results. For some games/groups a "I am GM and I am God" is exactly what is called for to ensure maximum fun. And for some games and some groups this is exactly what is called for. A consensus approach to Paranoia would totally destroy the game for most groups, its simply not designed to be played that way (knowledge of the rules is treason)! Now, I don't apply this attitude to Shadowrun, where I believe a little more moderation is called for. But the sweeping assumption that you can never have a fun game even when the GM plays 'El Presidente and Daddy Dearest' is incorrect. It very well can happen. In fact, in some cases it may be the best way.


Maybe you are a perfect player so you can't sympathise with this. But I personaly am not. When I'm a player in a game, I often have trouble controling my desires that run counter to my fun. Monty Hallisim is one of them, a biased look at the rules in favor of my character, a willingness to avoid the consiquences of some of my boneheaded actions is a third. Frankly as a player I don't always want what is best for me. I find my role as a player makes it hard for me to be objective about these things. Which is one reason why I perfer to have a GM who can overide my feelings. The GM isn't playing a character in the game, and thus can be more objective towards the campaign and my character than I can. Having a GM 'ride heard' on me can be very bennifical to the campaign for some groups. Now, maybe this approach would not work for you. Maybe your a good enough player not to need it. I'm not. And so it works better for me.

First of all, nice dodge. Congrats.

Second, a GM's one and only job is to make sure everyone has fun. Using the GM chair to fulfill your own power fantasies is not part of it.

You honestly don't think a GM doesn't have a horse in the race? I've seen all too many GM's get overly involved in telling their stories, reinterpreting the rules whenever they felt it'd serve their story better. They claim it'll make for more fun; but really, it's more fun for the GM, not necessarily the players. A GM is not any more objective than any other player-- if anything, he's worse, since he's biased towards an entire world.

The GM is no more important than any other player, and has the exact same right to have fun as any other player. "El Presidente and Daddy Dearest" might think he knows best; but the reality of the last eight years shows us that he's really out for himself.

So, to make it so you cannot dodge, do you honestly believe that you know what your players want better than they do? That you're guaranteed to create a fun game, while totally disregarding their wishes? Come on, Freud, are you some sort of super mind-reader or psychoanalyst, and can ferret out their hidden desires even when they're protesting the opposite? Cause if so, I've got a talk-show contract waiting for you.

I disagree. It's everyone's job to ensure that they, and everyone else has fun. It's the GM's job to run the game.

On Fark.com we would say
THIS!

Didn't say that it wasn't everyone else's job as well, did I?

At any event, "everyone" includes the GM. And if they're running the game but not having fun, wouldn't you say there's serious problems?

Sometimes this can very much be the case. I never meant to say that GM is totally unbiased. Simply that he is not biased in the same way that the players are. Its true that a GM can become biased in favor of the story he wants to tell. But it is certainly not guaranteed to do so. Just as players are not guaranteed to be biased in favor of there characters, though it may often be the case that it is so. In the end there probably is no objectively perfect system of governance for RPG games. Groups simply pick the system with the trade offs that best fit there needs. What so hard to understand about this? Is the concept that some groups might pick systems other than the one you like so impossible to grasp? Do you realy find it so impossible that other groups might find happness some other way? And even more so, even if we were somehow doing it wrong, but the result was a good time, what exactly is the problem here?


As I've said before, the question of "Is the GM more important than a player" is either "yes for some groups" or irrelevant. If you are speaking about the importance of his voice in making decisions, then many groups choose to make his voice more important. If you are talking about value of his presence at the table, the answer is personal to the players at that group and largely irrelevant.


Are we talking about RPG or insulting the president now?


What my example where certian games (specificaly paranoia) where disregarding the players wishes and input is an express part of the fun of the experience isn't enough for you? And that that is exactly the way I run those games when we are playing them? Fair enough. And just so I don't sound like I'm unfairly speaking on someone elses behalf, I'll speak for myself.

Yes, there are times, countless times, that the GM is probably better suited for seeing what will bring me an enjoyable game than I am. Hell it's not such an unsual situation, not just in RPG, but in life in general! Have you never been in a situation where a 3rd party was able to objectivly see what was better for you than you could? I know for sure that growing up my parents probably knew what was better for me than I did most of the time. Hell, the still probably do! Is it so strange that the other players in the group might feel the same way about this that I do?

As I pointed out before, probably the most telling to me on this issues are the responses I get from my players when I ask them about their favorite shadowrun memories. They are not all times when the went forth and kicked ass mightly. No, instead they are the occasions when things went horribly, horribly wrong. When things went expressedly the opposite of the way they intended them to. When I ruled against there desires in a sometimes arbitrary and cruel manner, and just generaly screwed them over. These are the incidents that keep coming back up as our fondest memories. Go figure huh?

I think what your issues is, despite all your talk of trust in respect, is that your not willing to trust or respect a GM enough to make these sort of decisions against your wishes. Which is fine really. There is nothing wrong with that. But don't you go telling me and my players that we are somehow in the wrong because we have built up a relationship to where these sorts of decisions are possible.

--

Also, just so were clear, and I don't let Cain's questions back me into a untrue corner. Total disregard for player input is not the level of authority I resort to in Shadowrun. Of course I still listen to their input on how things should be. But (and this is an important but) we have decided it should be the GM who makes the final decision on game matters. We have (for countless reasons) decided that his opinion on these matters is more important than those of any player, or even at times of the group as a whole. Thats simply the system that works best for us.

As a matter of fact, yes. I didn't game with my parents, knowing that if I disagreed with one of their rulings, they'd send me to bed with no supper! I can't see how that would fit anyone's definition of fun. You are not Daddy Dearest to your players, no matter how much you might like to think it. You are not Dr. Phil, Sigmund Freud, or Shirley MacLaine; you do not know them better than they know themselves.

You're also stuck on the concept of the GM as a "neutral third party", which, as you admitted, isn't always the case. Heck, it's seldom the case-- the GM has an agenda, just like everyone else. Don't try and tell me that you don't go into a game with your own ideas about where it should go. In fact, you've pretty much admitted it. You've said that you plan on doing things your way, regardless of what the players might say they want, trusting in the fact that You Know Best. Hate to break it to you, bucko, but no one is perfect, no one "knows best".

I'm a parent, and I like to think I know what's best for my child. But the one thing you learn by being a parent is, you're going to be wrong a lot. A good parent takes his or her best guess, and prepares to roll with the consequences. They don't just assume that they know what's right. A good GM assumes even less than that: they assume that they have a general idea, but the players will fill in the blanks as they see fit.

::Sigh:: Cain debating with you is a waste of my time. I say, 'hey look this is the way things are in my game.' Or hey, you know I like to have someone who can sometimes override my feelings on matters. You say "Nope! Your no Dr. Phil!" If my testimony as to how I like things. And the evidence I produce as to how it works in my games comes across as lies to you, well then, there really isn't much to debate is there? You have to be open to evidence that contradicts your point of view to have a debate. And you obviously aren't.


Really? Because just a minute ago, I was pretty sure you were asserting that players always knew what was best for them, and the GM could never be right about this and they be wrong? Was that assertion in error?

Of course I never stated GM are perfect. Of course there are traps that GMs can fall into. All I have been saying is that with the possible failures of both GM and players in mind, these are a some trade-offs that work for some groups. And yes, some of these trade-offs result in authortian style play. They trade the GMs strengths for the players weakness. You would perfer to trade the GM weakness for the players strength. Both style can probably work, but not every style is right for every group. You are the one who seems set, despite all the testimony to the contrary, that an authoritative trade-offs can never work.

But really, it's clear to me that no ones opinion could possibly be as important to you as your own. Which is why you refuse to listen to anyones who game experinces are different than yours. And is probably why you love your style of gaming so much. Which is fine, I'm not here to convince you to convert to my style of play, really. But if you aren't open to listening to others experiences in our games (hell you could actually LISTEN to my games), then I'm not sure why I'm wasting my breather (er fingers...) on it. I'm pretty sure my point has been made amply clear for anyone else still listening in.

So I'm out. Sigh... if only I had the wisdom to save my time and do this sooner.

And as we've been saying, those tradeoffs are not nearly as necessary as some would have you think. In fact, I think Cantankerous's decades of GMing experience shows that they might not be needed at all.

At any event, you're sidestepping the point. The fact is, you assert that you know what's best for your games, because you're the GM. That's patently not true. Being the GM does not automatically confer you with an omniscience in regards to what your players want, like, or desire, let alone what's "best" for them. I also don't have several hours to dedicate to someone else's "shameless plug"; so you could provide evidence in the form of shortened audio clips, demonstrating how you help everyone have fun by being authoritarian and trampling on their stated desires.

Here's the question you keep sidestepping: How do you automatically know what's best for their game? The answer, since you keep dodging the question, is that you don't. There's nothing magical about being a GM that confers special knowledge upon you. Like the rest of us, you just guess and hope.

Don´t worry, quite a few of us fell into the trap over time.

Cain, this is for you.
Compromise

Compromise?! Me? NEVER!! MUAH-HA-HA!!

MaxMahem, I understand what you are saying, and agree with you. Sometimes a game needs more GM "authority", some groups need more...and on the flip side, some games are better with less and some groups play better with less...pretty simple concepts here and you are right, no one size fits all.

Cain...wow, layoff a bit. I mean seriously, every reply you have made these last couple pages is taking one nugget of what MaxMahem wrote and twisting it into something he didn't mean. Just like I agree with MaxMahem's "one size does not fit all", I also agree with you that no one person always knows best, especially for other players. But I think the point that MaxMahem was making, that in a traditional game, a GM has "inside" and future information that the players don't, may actually know what's going to be better for a player, not always and forever, but in the small confines of a session or adventure, is not unrealistic.

I mean, if I know that the next encounter my group is going up against will have three panther cannons, then I will try and put a stop to the players spending the next four hours trying to legwork another place that has a panther cannon for them to set up a heist. Now granted, I may be able to redirect their legwork to the next encounter that I have planned, but its also possible to throw in a dead end, use my GM's iron fist to say, c'mon guys, this isn't going to happen, can we just move on, knowing that the object of their desire will fall into their laps if they just trust me and move forward with the game.

And I wouldn't call Cantankerous' model the end all, be all to prove your point. His "cooperative" gaming is something most of us more experienced GMs have been doing for years, we just didn't coin a name for it. Heck, I guarantee MaxMahem, even in his most "unilateral GMing" has a myriad of "cooperative" aspects to his games...he just doesn't view those as cooperative...

And really, why wouldn't MaxMahem know what is best for his game and his group? You say he doesn't. I say, why would you even make that comment? I guarantee that over 75% of the GMs out there know what is best for their game and group they play with, otherwise they wouldn't have a game or someone else would have taken their place...

Because I don't accept that 75% of all GM's know what's best for their games. I doubt even 25% know what's best. I'll grant you that over 75% take their best guess, and things don't usually turn out too badly, but that's not the same thing at all.

Maybe I've spent too much time larping, but I've seen an awful lot of GM's who made decisions based on what they found entertaining, and completely disregarded what the players wanted. Their logic went something like this: "I am the GM, the GM is god, god knows best, therefore I know best". There is *nothing* magical about being a GM that confers cosmic gaming wisdom upon you.

A good GM does not know what's best for his games, any more than he knows what his players will do. All they can di is take their best guess, and run with it.

Hey if someone else wanted to GM they would, but they don't. The truth is their is 1 gm capable person for every 10 players. Most players can't even be bothered to learn the rules let alone GM. So if some guy does learn the rules and has the creativity to GM, and the players have fun, what do you (anyone) care how they do it? Is their a right way? Yes, it is the way that is described in the rule book, the GM is in charge of the game his word is law, don't like it? GM yourself and do it your way. Just don't sit here and tell us your way is sooo much better than us UN-enlightened Neanderthals.

*plants tongue firmly in cheek*

"Maybe I've spent too much time larping", the name "cain", PTSD from abusive GMs. It all falls into place. You're a cam survivor!

It's ok, Cain, you're safe now. They can't get you any more.

Okay, I can see where you are coming from and we have a couple different biases and experiences working here. From my experience, a GM that is pissing off his players and/or running a game that the majority of the group doesn't enjoy, doesn't have a game for long. The players either leave the table or the suggest to the GM ways that s/he can improve and give it another try.

The numbers may be way off (i.e. the 25/75 split), but I don't mark someone as a "viable" GM if they can't do the job well enough to keep a group. I think everyone at the current table I play at has GM'd before. But I'd only consider two of us GMs. And these two GMs may not know best, per se, but they know better than most what it takes to run a successful game. Part of that comes from all of us being long-time friends and having a pretty darn good idea of what motivates each other to play and have fun.

Specifically, I don't have to "guess" if nick will love the hell out of anything that does high damage. I don't have to guess if joe would love it if I worked in some twist to an adventure that allows him to subtly screw another player over. I don't have to guess if I give george an extra 5 minutes of solo time that he will be fulfilled. Nor do I have to guess that rob is the only player at my table that really cares about the detail I describe each bullet and how it pierces his targets flesh...

And how do I know? Well, experience with the same group, for one. I play with these guys as a GM and as a player, and after someone has played the same kind of role, personality, etc so many times...you're really not guessing anymore...

Now I am not saying that I would automatically know all this stuff with a brand new group of players, but I bet after a few sessions I would have a pretty good idea of what works best at the table and I'd continue to fine-tune my "best" and make it pretty hard for someone else to come in and make the campaign better...

I don't know, whenever I have played with a GM that thought he knew best and was off the mark, the game dissolved pretty quickly. In fact, one of my close friends GM'd a lot, but we always got to the point after a short time where everyone quit. He knew what he enjoyed and tried to force that on all of us...and we didn't like it so left. He'd be in "my 25%" that didn't know what's best for his table.

Again, my numbers could be way off...but maybe there are actually a ton of games being run that all the players hate, but for some reason, keep coming back. I don't understand why anyone would do that, as I would rather not play a game at all than play one that I couldn't stand playing.

I keep coming back to that last sentence. A good GM does know what will work with his players, otherwise s/he is just the luckiest person on earth to have stumbled through randomly creating a session that works for every player all the time, or s/he has a bunch of players that keep coming back to play something the don't enjoy. A good GM should also know pretty well what his players will do most of the time. I mean, how can you not? If I put the group's arch-nemesis in a jail cell that they stumble upon in the basement, I bet I know better than anyone outside of our game how my players are going to react...and knowing better than anyone else can be referred to as knowing best:)

not bribing the GM

Those are actually just good guesses, not guarantees. Maybe Rob is is in a finicky mood, and so he just wants to see the other guy dead, while Nick's not liking the side effects of the massive cannon he just got. Maybe George needs more than five minutes this week, because he's had a crappy time at work.

Bottom line is, players are wonderfully unpredictable. That's what separates playing a RPG from telling a story: the player input, which you cannot ever adequately plan for.

most humorous evidence for the truth of this statement
http://griffjon.com/sr2/?latest

Okay, then maybe you are talking about gaming online while I am talking about playing with my friends at a table, face to face. I mean, I'd have to be completely blind to not notice if my friends are in a bad mood or deaf if they are not liking the gear they got...maybe its just my particular group of friends, but we talk outside of the game, meet up for lunch everyday, talk about what's going on in our lives, at work and our games...

While I'm not saying you can plan for every little excrutiating detail, to say you cannot every adequately plan for an RPG...well, I might as well just burn my hundreds of pages of adventures and GM notes I've used over the years cause they are worthless:) I agree, players are wonderfully unpredictable, but you can still plan and build a lot of stuf that will work quite well...

Oh, you can always plan for it. You just can't guarantee that it''ll actually get used.

Have you ever had a plot completely derailed by something your players did? I just did, last week. The players took an approach I simply hadn't considered, and this on an adventure I've run several times for different groups. It took some hasty reworking to make sure I even had an adventure for them after they came up with their new plan of attack.

And you know what? That's not a bad thing. Players should be surprising the GM's on a regular basis. It'd be boring if they just went from A to B to C, with no deviations. That's part of what players are supposed to bring to a game, part of what makes running a game fun.

True, true, no doubt about that. Of course, I have had plenty of plots derailed...happens almost every session whether I created it from scratch or running a pre-made. I suppose my "planning" is a little different for a session I am running. What I basically do is sketch out a handful of scenarios, maybe have a few NPC personalities ready in case I need them, so on and so forth. I might come to the table with an overarching plot (e.g. kill the mark) and then have a few locations sketched out where they players might go and some people they may run into during the session...possibly even a couple combat scenarios that I can toss in if I feel we need a little combat, etc.

Years ago, I may have been doing my planning different...actually written a whole adventure and yeah, then I was scrambling if said adventure either got off track or the players decided they didn't want to even run it...which is why I currently only plan a session or two at a time and then adjust that plan after every session depending on what my players have been doing and where their interest is moving...

I've always said, as a GM, I have just as much fun playing as I have no idea where my players will twist and turn the story...so I think we have similar thoughts on that...but, I still feel like I know my players and can successfully plan a session where there is a minimal amount of me scrambling for something to present.

And because my planning is modular, plug and play, if you will, I might have one that gets held for 3 or 4 sessions until we come back around to it or one that gets filed away never to see the light of day...but seeing it was a quick sketch and wasn't the only one I had available...its almost like I am throwing 100 darts at a dartboard. Sure, I may not hit the exact number you asked me to, but there are likely a few darts that are pretty close...