More is More

On one occasion, Mike did the unthinkable. Long before 3e, and long before epic level gear, he would say" ok, campaign starts at 8th level, and you can bring any three magic items, no artifacts please." One might think he was Monty Hall. Or Wink Martindale. But to those scoffers I would say, you were not there, you would not know the levels of horrors real or imagined we faced.

It also gave us a chance to play characters, races, classes, and use magicks that we would not normally have tried, or do not play due to lack of survivability, and or party needs and make-up.
The party itself cooperated more in creation stages hoping to have an answer for the demons and or Big Nasties we might face, from level draining, to vorpal lopping, you name it.

It really didnt help much, in the long run, some of us did perish, regardless of how we thought we covered every base, but we did enjoy the game for as long as it lasted. The sphere of annihilation, and the staff of the magi not withstanding, our players tried to tackle the the ups and downs of all the magical goodness, charges, anti-magic, spell turning and spell storing.

We fought monsters mostly unheard of and or rarely seen. Soon all of GM-FU masters were calling down the thunder for high level adventures, yours truly included. I am more of a mid level guy, were PCs are still vulnerable, but can do many things, and you can dip into monsters above or below level that do not kill in one blow. I like 4-8, and usually start play at two, much in the face of traditionalists.

Our game became more war gaming at that point, a party of five against one in terms of trying to outsmart the other, come up with new applications like polymorphing into a bat so we could see in magical darkness with the use of sonar. Outside the box thinking here, and nothing is as it seems.

Sometimes we are just the smash and grab, hack and slash players, who love their piles of dice like everyone else, killing monsters looting their treasures, going there and back again, with nary a campaign, just non connected adventure arcs that take glory in the killing of the wicked, and reward the righteous.

But this way and every way, I think it puts the players centerstage. Its a simple analogy really. The director (GM) has cues for what bounds on stage, the coming of acts, the climax, and so on. He remains offstage as it should be, and the needs of his players (actors) challenge him with improvisation, and "going off script", but he is only playing with himself if he has no cast.
He has a loose idea of where he is going, a couple of scenes that move his plot, but like Altman, he lets them fabricate the story as much as he does. The story writes itself.

I do the same, a couple of set encounters, some subplots here and there, and I build on what happens in gameplay, and more often than not, a player does or says something I can spin into something cool, or he whispers his greatest fear about a villian, monster or plot complication, and I incorporate it on the fly, and hopefully with some success.

I like the Rackham concept art for their minis. I also love their minis, and always have. I have used these pics to describe monsters like goblins, and what have you. It gives the PC's something to think about when battling little things, cause sometimes they do more than just nip at your heels. Creepy. A shout out to Rackham minis here at http://www.rackham-store.com

Players Vs. GM

I am somewhat aware that occassionally players and GMs battle, on issues, on gameplay, on metaphorically and or literal applications of player speech and action, and so on. We used to think our GM was arbitrary, since two of us would die, two would get permanent limps, and the rest would reap the spoils with nary a scratch. He GMed alot "off the top of his head", which was good from a player standpoint and lateral thinkers, but if you are frequently singled out or the human target... you suspect the worst.

We did raise the question often, and changed our methods of play, to avoid the Ultimate Dagger of Doom, but to no avail. It became a one-upmanship, with us trying to get his best of him, as he was of us.

Anywho... we did try to list equipment and or buy items, so he could not prepare for what we were going to do, and in his mind spoil his campaign. We frequently made potions that we mixed innocuous ingredients together like milk and brandy and lime. We would take captives and give them the "truth serum". Our characters would argue that it "killed the last one", and we should use half the regular dose, because he must have been thinking about lying and that is why he died without even speaking.

Soon our relationship blossomed as he looked forward to what we would do with ten foot poles, and how he could keep the adventure going with as much vigor as we. What could have split the group later became the hook that drug us back for more. Everyone got involved, as more players began to think in other less obvious terms. Very fun times it was.

Gm styles vary, as do the way they dole out the magic. Recently I have seen the arguments on this topic that sound like blah blah blah. None of it really matters in the long run as long as players and GM are happy. Players get what they want in a campaign, and the GM gets what he wants. I dont crap on anyone's idea of a good time. Who am I to judge?