http://theangrygm.com/the-art-of-the-recap/
>The recap is a tool the GM needs to use to get players into the game and set the tone and pace of the game
>Letting players do recaps is stupid because this squanders this most valuable of tools and doesn't provide anything useful in return
Do you agree, /tg/?
>>47840772
I couldn't make it though his writing. Of what I got through, nothing was wrong, but dear god it felt like he was fifteen, or at the very least, writing to fifteen year olds.
>>47840988
>I didn't read the article and I won't address the summary but I'm going to post anyway
ok
>>47841113
The author can't communicate his idea. Why should I be bothered to wade through his ham fisted argument?
Anyone who thinks that the GM should control every aspect of the tone and pace is probably a railroading control freak.
>>47841402
>I'm too lazy to read the article and I still won't address the summary but I'm going to keep posting anyway
alright
In the case of my group, letting the players do recaps is stupid because they forgot half the things that were going on last session.
>Angry GM
Stopped reading right here. He's a piece of shit, his ideas are bad and you should feel bad for posting this shit thread
>>47841432
Which of his ideas do you disagree with?
>>47841441
The idea that if you convey anger through censored swear words it gives your opinion validity
>>47841456
What about the arguments he uses to provide validity for his opinions?
For instance, in this case,
>The recap is part of the game, easing players into the game and setting the tone and the pace of the present adventure, much like a "Previously on [TV show]" recap helps sets things up for the present episode of a TV show
>Players can't be trusted with this power and responsibility because they won't emphasize the relevant things, only the things they happen to remember, and contrary to popular opinion, it does not actually improve investment with the game
Do you wish to continue to tone police or do you intend to discuss the subject at hand?
>>47841539
I don't know anything about this guy. Until you convince me that I should care what he has to say, I don't. If you want me to consider his opinion then present it like I am an adult and you respect my intelligence as a reader.
>do you intend to discuss the subject at hand
>>47841402
>>47841632
>then present it like I am an adult and you respect my intelligence as a reader.
I am literally summarizing the points of his article, which you continue to ignore in favor of crying about his tone.
At this point, I do not think you have intelligence as a reader, merely a hateboner for some random faggot on the internet.
>look at me, I can swear!
>>47842003
Gotta admit, yeah, this "angry X" gimmick is fucking annoying. He doesn't even swear properly and most of the time he doesn't even sound angry. It's dumb and he doesn't need it.
I read a few of this guy's articles, specifically the ones on how to make good combats, and he really did have some good ideas about how to design encounters that I've since taken to heart. I think he has a serious problem with being concise, though, because the information I gleaned from those articles could have been just as well transmitted in one, well-edited article. I'm relatively confident from that that he doesn't edit his stuff, which is a serious liability in anybody whose writing is supposed to be readable.
lol fucking beggars these days
>>47841113
f$&% you
>>47841539
>only the things they happen to remember
If they remember it, it's important to them. Even the most railroady of GMs can benefit from knowing what ideas the players have latched onto and what they haven't.
Also my campaigns tend to feature a lot of mystery. If I recap the last session myself, I might let slip some conclusion they hadn't drawn yet, or the players may think I'm focusing on something and run away with it.
Besides you can always just give your own recap after your players mention what they remember, which gives you the best of both worlds.
>>47840772
I disagree wholeheartedly.
Not everything has to always be the GM's job, and it's not like player participation can't add to the enjoyment of the game in various ways anyhow.
If the GM wants to do every odd job just because they're an opportunity to "set the tone and pace of the game" then
1) He's sure doing a shitload of tone/pace setting; probably more than is even necessary.
2) He's doing an even more thankless job than he would otherwise be doing in a group with a bit more cooperation and work delegation.
>>47841431
In my group, there's a player whose job it is to "write chronicle": a very short summary of each session.
All of us have really shitty memories, so it may be more helpful in our group than in others.
>>47843226
>it's not like player participation can't add to the enjoyment of the game in various ways anyhow.
But that's what actually playing the game is.
>f$&%ing
>f$&%
>s$&%
>dumba%&
>bulls$&%
This is extremely hard to get through when I'm cringing from second-hand embarassment every paragraph
>>47841539
Not the same anon, but here's what i think
>because they won't emphasize the relevant things
Presumably they'll emphasize what they think is relevant, which is an extremely helpful tool for the GM.
>only the things they happen to remember
The GM and other players are not mute, and thus fully capable of adding anything otherwise important that seems to be missing.
This is a desperate attempt at parading a non-issue around as if it lends his case credibility.
>contrary to popular opinion, it does not actually improve investment with the game
I neither agree, disagree, or even care about this opinion on the matter.
There's no good reason to think strongly for or against; it seems to me that in some cases it might, whereas in other cases it might not, but my word's no better than his.
Either way, it barely matters as it's too minor to give a shit about: there's a 3-4 hour session coming, and if it, or any previous sessions, don't manage to get the player invested then that blows this summary talk out of the water.
>>47843270
I don't in the slightest see where you're going with this comment.
>>47843424
I'm saying you're a dumbass for claiming that a GM doing the recap is denying player participation. Player participation is what happens when players... play the game.
Are you following me yet or do I need to speak in simpler terms?
I use recaps because we only play once a month and I think a quick refresher is helpful to establish continuity of events.
>>47843451
I didn't say it was "denying" player participation.
I said that player participation can add enjoyment to the game in various ways, and that the GM has plenty of opportunities to "set the tone and pace of the game".
Someone has trouble with reading comprehension.
>>47843501
The implication that allowing player recap means you have player participation means exactly that, friendo, because of the very obvious fact that if it's player participation, not allowing player recaps means you're not allowing player participation.
Perhaps you should apply some critical thinking here.
Letting the player do the recap allows the GM to see, not only, what they enjoy or find more important, but also if they misunderstood or missed some crucial point on the story. In which case you can either correct them or adapt to what they said and avoid a future conflict.
>>47840772
I think, as is the case with most of the advice any GM gives, that it is entirely dependent on the game at hand.
Like in the case of >>47843137, running a mystery game (or a horror game or some other game with mystery elements) it's more important to have the players give the recap, because it shows the GM what the player's current thought processes are in the game. You can correct them if they remembered something incorrectly, like if they think that the Herring is red you can say "well, it might've been pink, remember there was no clear consensus." It can also be used to increase tension if two player's remember details differently.
In a much more clear-cut or linear story, the GM giving the recap is a better idea because it keeps the party on track and it helps them all be on the same page, which is what you typically want in those situations.
Basically, whenever you give the players control of anything you typically give it some ambiguity because players, unlike the GM, do not have perfect memories and they are not omniscient. You can use that to your advantage where you WANT something to have ambiguity (like recaps), but when you want something to be assured to the players, keep it under the GMs control where there is no ambiguity.
>>47843733
>unlike the GM, do not have perfect memories and they are not omniscient
u wot m8?
>>47843982
Not literally, but in the context of the game as at the end of the day Rule Zero is always in effect. Whatever the GM decides happens or happened is as good as an act of god. The player's can petition the GM to not do that, but it's always the GMs decision in the end.
>>47840988
I actually agree with this guy.
I actually stuck through the first few paragraphs and got tired of his angry tone.
I can still discuss the subject, though.
While a recap certainly can set the tone and pace of the beginning of a session, it doesn't seem to make or break a game.
It depends solely on the skill with which the GM can write a good recap that not only informs the players, but grabs their attention.
I'm not certain in what situation a player would be doing a review of recent events. But it could be interesting to hear the events of the last session through the eyes of a specific character.
>>47840772
This is not a place to advertise your blog.
>>47843999
I could buy the omniscient one, but GMs can fail to remember things, things that happened, things important and things that the players can remember. Who has more power the past GM or the future GM? What you say today is no more tomorrow if you forget it?
>>47844143
Chill Winston, I didn't mean it to be taken so seriously. My only intention with saying they have perfect memories and/or are omniscient is to emphasize that giving players control brings in ambiguity.
In the case of the Mystery Game, if the GM recaps the last session or two, most of the time the players are going to take what the GM says as gospel. Obviously there will be cases where disagreements occur, but the GM will decide which interpretation of events is "fact," as in which one actually happened. Whoever was right in this case doesn't matter as the GM has the power to retcon. Doesn't make them a good or bad GM if they do, it's just a power they have. In that sense a GM has "perfect memory" because whatever they think happened last session is usually what happened. The players can disagree and go "no no no here's what WE remembered happening," and the GM can think back and realize they are right, or they can look back and go "okay, if that's what you THINK happened that's fine."
>>47841113
>>47841426
Firstly, presentation matters.
Secondly, one can comment on this subject without having read that shitty article because we have our own experiences of it.
My own experience is that I don't have the same contempt for my players that The Angry GM seems to have. His underlying idea seems to be that sessions needs to be carefully stage-managed, and I think that doing it to this degree is melodramatic.
If The Angry GM rambles on in his recaps the way he does in his articles then I'd say he should probably leave it to his players instead.
>>47840772
Get the players to do a joint recap while the GM takes notes about what interested the players. GM glances at his notes for the recap and finishes with any alterations or emphasis required.
>>47844788
What benefit is there in involving players in the recap process?
>>47844798
Involving others is usually better than sitting at the head of the table lecturing them.
Rather than the first anon's approach here >>47844788 , I'd prompt them rather than mop up afterwards.
>>47844878
So: Prompt, Players & GM-as-equal-or-agent-provocateur Recap, GM finishing touches.
>>47844875
He didn't actually list any benefits though, hence the question.
>>47844878
>Involving others is usually better than sitting at the head of the table lecturing them.
What? How is a brief recap a lecture?
If your players have too little attention span to go fifteen seconds without saying something, they probably wouldn't like someone else doing the recap either, so it's a moot point to begin with.
Again, what benefits are there to players doing the recap?
>>47844798
Seeing what they actually gave a fuck about.
If they found something so insignificant that they don't remember it happened, then you can adjust accordingly.
>the session had three encounters with a variety of monsters
>Party A raves about the encounters and the monsters in their recap
>Party B says "we killed some shit" but then goes into lengthy recap about the port city and sailing and some dumb PC Ponzi scheme they cooked up
>>47844932
>GM takes notes about what interested the players
>>47844960
>Seeing what they actually gave a fuck about.
Why is this valuable information unable to be obtained by asking them what they gave a fuck about? Why do they need to do the recap for you to figure that out?
>>47844976
>unable to be obtained by asking them
That's what asking them to do the recap IS doing.
>>47845003
No it isn't, Anon, it's asking them to recap what happened in a previous session so it can be fresh in everyone's minds.
Are you sure you speak English?
>>47844976
Version 1: What did you care about? Uh... (much waiting) (starts thinking about gaming the system) Uh... (much waiting) Uh... (much waiting) (Gaming the system answer that doesn't answer the question.)
Version 2: Have the players recap the session. List to what and how they say things and their expressions. Get answers.
>>47845040
Oh, and the session got recapped while getting the answers, too.
>>47845023
Maybe you need a lesson in first-order logic:
"What happened last time?" by its very nature is also asking "What did you give a fuck about?" because if they didn't give a fuck about event X, they won't remember X happened, and thus, they won't recount it.
Doing the recap yourself and separately asking them what they give a fuck about is making two tasks where one will do.
![4HgSpk3[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/R17xCaW.jpg "4HgSpk3[1].jpg")
>>47845040
Version one: What did you care about? Oh, I really liked that mystery in the town square we had to solve to find the secret entrance to the warehouse. It was fun and entertaining.
Version two: Have the players recap the session. Uhhh... (much waiting) (starts thinking about what happened a solid week ago when he can't remember what he ate last night) Uh... (more waiting) Uh... You know, stuff.
>>47845092
If your players can't remember the events between sessions, that's a sign of something more wrong with your group than any GM advice can fix. Like the fact that nobody is actually having any fun.
>>47844958
So that the GM can see what caught the player's attention and react accordingly. So he can adjust the campaign to be more in line with what the players want.
>>47845068
Maybe you need a lesson in how to run game sessions:
>A recap is not a pop quiz to see how good your players are at GUESSING what’s useful. It’s a tool for YOU to reinforce the information the players NEED to remember.
It is literally setting the stage for the scenario you are currently playing. So you're misusing the power of the recap to begin with by thinking all we're doing is refreshing ourselves on what happened before; it's more about setting the stage by using information from the past insofar as it's going to be relevant NOW.
>>47845119
>I don't have an argument and I'm not afraid to show it
I'm merely illustrating that your posts are shit.
>>47845092
/tg/ is full of stories of games falling apart because players gave inadequate or even inaccurate feedback. Similarly, the field of psychology is full of studies of people not giving straight answers to simple questions.
Have you really never heard "the customer doesn't know what they want?"
>>47845177
>>A recap is not a pop quiz to see how good your players are at GUESSING what’s useful. It’s a tool for YOU to reinforce the information the players NEED to remember.
You misunderstand.
The point of having the players recap isn't to see if they remember what you think it's important, it's for THEM to tell YOU what is important, by highlighting the things they remember and give a fuck about.
>>47845228
Are you aware that you are more or less arguing that player feedback does not matter, and subsequently soliciting it, even in the form of asking them to do your recaps for you, is pointless, and that it's much better to just give them what they didn't know they wanted?
Because I agree with that 100%, but I don't think you do, which is why it's surprising to see you make my argument for me.
>>47845252
Which, as we've addressed thanks to our friend above, doesn't really matter much at all.
>>47845283
Looks like you disagree with the people who disagree with your blog, OP, what a surprise.
>it's much better to just give them what they didn't know they wanted?
If you ask them "What do you remember about last time's session" you ARE going to get a more informative answer out of your players compared to if you ask them "What did you enjoy best last week?"
Stop trying to put words in anon's mouths.
>>47843569
I still don't follow your line of thought.
My original point was that the GM already has plenty of opportunities to set the pacing and tone, and already does a ton of work, so why not then let the players do the recaps, because players are completely capable of adding value to the game experience in their own ways anyway.
What you seem to be saying is "players participate when they play!" to which my only answer can be: Okay, yes, that's obvious, but why do you mention that as if it proves a point?
I understood what you were saying the first time, and all the subsequent repetitions. What I don't understand is where you're going with it.
>>47845357
How is it putting words in your mouth? You stated that the customer doesn't know what they want.
If you ask the customer what he remembers about your store the last time he was inside of it, do you honestly think you're going to get relevant information to what he wants to buy? Because I think he's more likely to remember a rude cashier, a flaw on some packaging, or perhaps nothing significant at all.
You're just trying to ask the same question in some roundabout stupid beta way and hoping it's more informative while conveniently ignoring your own arguments against the accuracy or relevance of people's feedback.
This is, of course, ignoring the fact that it's much more useful to look at the recap as another tool in a GM's arsenal to focus the session and bring up information that is going to be relevant now, not merely whatever random things the players clung onto.
>>47845283
Fuck off and learn to read. Just straight asking a player "what's important" isn't reliable. Maybe they struggle to articulate what parts they enjoy the most. Maybe they'll try and guess what you "want" them to say, because they think you're fishing for an answer. Maybe they'll say what they think the other players will say because they don't want to "steal" the game.
If you ask them INDIRECTLY then you remove the baggage. There's no "right" answer to "what do you remember." They can't remember things that didn't happen. From this, you infer their feedback, without their bias and politics slanting the data. They're telling you what they want, even if they don't know what that is.
>>47845545
Adding onto this, because I forgot the most common and most important one: Maybe they aren't having fun at all and don't want to tell because they don't want to hurt your feelings.
>>47845545
>If you ask them INDIRECTLY then you remove the baggage. There's no "right" answer to "what do you remember." They can't remember things that didn't happen. From this, you infer their feedback, without their bias and politics slanting the data. They're telling you what they want, even if they don't know what that is.
Which we've established isn't even valuable information. Customers don't know what they want.
So, yeah.
>>47840772
Isn't this the same guy who had an autistic shit fit on a podcast when somebody told him their players role-played and withheld knowledge their characters wouldn't know and everyone had fun, only because he's upset over differentiating in-character knowledge with OOC knowledge?
if it is, then fuck this guy, his opinion on GMing is completely worthless to me. He literally got angry people had fun because it wasn't the way he wanted them to have fun.
>Some GMs give don’t bother with recaps at all.
actual sentence from his article
i think he may actually be 15
>>47845684
So you're either trolling or retarded. Glad we've managed to piece this mystery together.
I've got to admit, I'm getting a lot of "my way is the only possible right way to play the game, and anyone who says otherwise is misguided" from OP.
>Do you agree
No, I don't.
And I'm not reading his shit, either, because his GMing style isn't something that I either like nor works for my group. The only thing of worth that I took from him was his needlessly complex "give a monster two forms" article, a lot of which I ended up throwing out of the window in favour of direct rip-offs from games like Dark Souls and Bloodborne.
He's also really fucking shit at Bloodborne.
>>47846201
That's basically it yeah.
![R1Vulr4m_400x400[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/5bawCVh.jpg "R1Vulr4m_400x400[1].jpg")
>>47845788
>404: Argument not found
>>47846201
Would you agree that there's better and worse ways to run games?
Would you further agree that if people cannot articulate why their actions are beneficial to the session, then it's quite possible that their actions are not beneficial to it?
It's all well and good to hide under the nice warm blanket of the "badwrongfun" meme, but is it not worth scrutinizing GMing techniques to further refine our craft?
>>47846271
Oh okay hold on.
>Which we've established isn't even valuable information. Customers don't know what they want.
>They're telling you what they want, even if they don't know what that is.
Like, you even greentexted it. Are you actually reading, or did you select a line at random?
>>47840772
>An "I'm angry" gimmick
Ugh. I'll pass.
>>47846436
A: No they're not, they're telling you what they remember. I remember plenty of things I hate. Especially things I hate, in fact. Conflating what I remember and what I like is foolishness.
B: The point is that the customer's input isn't valuable to begin with. They don't know what they want, so you shouldn't cater to what they "say" they want, even stupid passive ways of wriggling that information out of them. You should give them what they don't know they want.
>>47846492
If only there were some way to infer people's thoughts on topics based on their descriptions and reactions! Man, what a world that would be!
>>47846271
Yes, there are flat-out bad things to do when running a game. This is nowhere near that stuff, here is where we're getting into differences in style when running games, and ultimately at this point it's down to preference and what works better for your game.
Yes, the GM dictating the whole recap is useful if you want to get an efficient infodump along, particularly when you have a long delay between games and the players may not be the best at keeping notes - you just need to make sure that you're...effecient/concise at getting it across, I guess, so it doesn't come across as a regurgitated boring wall of text.
On the other hand, asking the players to recap has a few benefits - while I don't quite value the whole seeing what's important thing as much as others here (although it is fun to see what sticks out in their minds between sessions), it strikes me as a useful starting point to get players thinking about what happened before and how that links to the current situation, helps with engagement. Naturally, though, you'll find yourself having to supplement their accounts or remind them of cases where they forgot things, so really you'd be doing a bit of the first option anyway.
So...eh, I don't feel like one is strictly superior to the other and people doing the other option are objectively bad at running games or something, I think it depends on your game situation (your style as a GM, the kind of players you have, time between games and whatnot) and well, what works at the time I guess.
To be honest before this thread I've never really thought specifically about how to do recaps, they just kinda happen with whatever balance of player and GM input as fits. Sorry if this is a bit rambly, I'm not very good at the whole being concise/efficient with information thing I mentioned earlier.
>>47846638
Which doesn't address point B in the slightest.
>>47846643
>Engagement
How does being forced into the spotlight and trying to hastily regurgitate prior session events, which may or may not actually relate to what is going to happen THIS session, improve a player's engagement? That's like saying a popquiz on the setting's lore improves a player's engagement. It doesn't.
You as the GM know have a solid idea of what's going to happen this session, and a recap provides you a tool to emphasize what they need to know to play through it. Much like a TV series will recap some half-remembered character arc that wasn't particularly relevant until THIS episode in its "Previously, on Generic TV Show," it is not used merely as a tool to retell what's already been told, it is a tool to put a spotlight on what's going to be relevant here and now.
The best summary comes from the OP's article;
>The real takeaway here, apart from a very simple recap formula you can follow is this: a recap is not a reminder of what happened last time. Not in any way. A recap is a tool the GM uses to set up the CURRENT session. If you think of a recap only in terms of telling people what happened last session, you’re doing it wrong. The recap is about information management, it’s about emphasizing details and shining a light on certain events to put the current game session in context. It also warms up the players’ brains for the current game. It’s just another tool in your arsenal. . .
Using a recap to "prep" the players for the game, both mentally and information-wise, is a far better use of the session time than trying to peer through the murky veil of player's memories and facial expressions to divine what they want more of, which, as established, relies on his input being valuable to begin with, which it isn't.
Making the players give recaps is, at its best, an awkward, pointless mess that doesn't actually help focus or start the game at all. At absolute best.
>>47846934
You mean the point B where you assume you'll somehow magically know "what they don't know they want" without any input at all? As if you could throw darts at your notes and come out with a good campaign? That point B?
>>47847069
>You mean the point B where you assume you'll somehow magically know "what they don't know they want" without any input at all?
Frankly, players rarely want more than a consistent, well designed campaign. I don't know how you've gone this long without noticing this>implying you actually GM and don't just meme on /tg/, but players do not require tailoring to.
If you build it, they will come.
>>47842761
You are, of course, referring to those entitled little shits that get offended by a voluntary donation button because they think they should get everything for free, right? The kind of asshole that doesn't understand that it's perfectly fine to ask for money in return for the time and effort you put into something? Because I don't really see who else you could be referring to by that statement.
Fuck, I don't even like that author and I think he's perfectly justified in asking to be compensated for his work.
>>47845684
...you don't actually have any idea what 'customer's don't know what they want' means, do you?
>>47847126
Wow.
Okay, so, this attitude here? This is where That Guy stories come from. This is where "Man I fucking hate John and Dave but they're the only people I know who will play with me" comes from. Not engaging with your players, not figuring out what engaged or didn't engage them, and simply assuming "if I run a campaign, I will have players, but beyond that, fuck 'em" will get you lukewarm results at best.
The GM is not some adversarial demagogue, bent on clipping the ribbon on his magnum opus for his players to be escorted through, carefully and pointedly guided from plot point to plot point. He's just another player in the game who is playing from a different point of view, in a very different role.
![maxresdefault[2].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/qbzb7Ex.jpg "maxresdefault[2].jpg")
>>47847378
Not an argument.
>>47847501
>adversarial demogogue
>clipping the ribbon on his magnum opus for his players to be escorted through
Alright, so, since you've failed to successfully debate my points, your fallback position is to invent a new person to argue against, which you're going to take to be me. This conversation is definitely going places.
It's easy to tell that the GM giving the recap is the wrong method, since this guy is arguing for it on his blog, and everything he says is kind of retarded. It's a pretty simple test.
>>47840772
Worrying about who does session recaps is stupid. That post is stupid, this thread is stupid, and you're stupid.I am also stupid.
>>47847562
You presented an opinion piece. People told you they disagreed, and why (many of them in very polite, well-reasoned tones). This thread is already over. Mine were the first two posts to relate to the actual subject in about half an hour. People didn't wander off because they they think you're right, they wandered off because they said their piece, realized you were intractable, and decided debating with you was a waste of time. Everyone else has already said they didn't like your article, and that they don't think it's accurate, and they disagree with your point of view. I've got nothing to add to the dozens of articulate posts already in this thread, and no new argument to present. I'm just saying you're also an asshole.
>>47847795
>Everyone who explains why my deeply held belief is wrong is an asshole
Alright, thanks for coming by chap.
i like player recap
then i fill the blank so that everyone is on the same page
but i must say, its a lot of work to GM a game and i think its not unfair to ask players to at least remember why they are now hiding in a forest with a burning city in the horizon
i never ask my players to have perfect recollection, but i dont want players who are just here to swing a sword and fling numbers in a void.
Players who cant even expend one neuron on remembering who they are murdering in an alley are not worth it
OP's article look like it was made by a lazy player and not a GM
>>47847857
Not everyone who disagrees. You, as in you in particular, are being an asshole about this.
>>47840772
Let's discuss something related, less stupid and more useful for game purposes, shall we?
*How* do you deal with recalling shit that happens in your campaign?
Each session, one player volunteers (never twice the same person) to write down notes on everything that happens, and keep track of time. They get bonus XP for it, so there's a carrot. What's cool is that every player has his own style of retelling what happened, so it's pretty fun to read, and it's useful not only for me but for people who come later to the game or missed a session, since it's pretty rare that everybody makes it.
I don't need notes myself except as short prep before some games when I feel like it, and I can remember how shit *really is* from what the players saw. For exemple in the last session it's written that they met three angry skeletons, but I know which one is really a mummy.
>>47849562
I'm sorry your feelings are so very hurt by posts on 4chan, but that does not make them less correct, and trying to garner some sort of moral highground by calling someone you disagree with a meanie head makes you look utterly childish.
>this thread
Serious question, OP: are you doing this just because you enjoy arguing with people? Because if you're trying to actually promote your point of view by endlessly repeating the same ipse dixits and being an illogical cunt, I've got some bad news for you.
![maxresdefault[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/OV81bVt.jpg "maxresdefault[1].jpg")
>>47851913
>Argument count: 0
>>47845092
How can they remember "that mystery in the town square" but are unable to mention it at the recap?
You are full of shit anon.
>>47852212
>The point
>Your head
>>47840772
>Okay, now, let’s tackle the thorny issue of why you never, ever let the players do the recap. See, some GMs who are not me and who therefore suck, argue for letting the players do the recap for a couple of reasons. First, they say, it helps you – the GM – figure out what information the players retained and what they didn’t. Second, they say, it helps the players get engaged with the game. Third, it gives the players the opportunity to do fun, quirky things like do their recaps in character. The first reason is utterly worthless. The second reason is wrong. And the third reason is basically kicking all of your players in the teeth because you hate them.
Disagree strongly, and think he's dumb.
In fact, he says not to trust the players to "guess" what was important. No. They tell you what was important to them. You then use that to guide the session. They didn’t catch on to your plot hook? To damn bad. I also don't see how the players are less engaged if they know you'll have them recap. And role-playing is not hating your players. Its what they're here for.
Again: not a pop quiz to see what they remembered. Its a quiz to see what they CARE about. They don't recap something? Fuck it, retcon.
>>47840772
>>47841539
As a teacher I find his opinion to be shit and dumb. If you want to give a short reminder about stuff that happened last lesson(gaming session) you want the students to recap shit. This is because A, passive listening is less efficient if you want to remember things than active speaking and B because it leads to active player participation (let players fill in the blanks their colleauges left).
Tldr if you want to do a recap, involve your players in telling it
People aren't robots, OP. Whether or not what you're presenting is right or logical is irrelevant if it's slathered in rancid feces.
Writing is about communication, and if the quality of your writing prevents people from hearing your message, then you've failed.
>>47852397
Heard the message, its just dumb. Its also slathered in feces.
>>47847562
>the customer does not know what they want
This phrase means the customer often is unable to articulate what they want. This means you as the seller needs to question them ina circuitous way as to eke the answer from them.
For example, asking them for a recap.
This does NOT mean "The customer's opinion is worthless" or "The customer should not be catered to", it means "ask better questions.
From your replies it feels like you are autistic (saying this without insult) and so you may be missing the important nuances here. But getting to know what your players remembered, and discerning with what emotions they remembered them with - angrily, or with great excitement, etc, will help you work out what parts of your GMing they liked or disliked.
I actually kind of like this guy. Presentation aside, he has good ideas sometimes; I liked his article on fudging dice, and I've gotten a lot of use out of his suggestion that rolling for initiative can be abandoned most of the time.
In this case, maybe he's right hypothetically, but for the most part this looks to me like a classic example of the subjective nature of our hobby; it really comes down to what works for your particular group, and what's best for some may not be best for others.
>>47845092
> fun
> entertaining
Jesus christ. Could you use more buzzwords?
>>47841431
When I'm GMing I rely on players to keep track of names, places and events because I impro everything with a vengeance and forget most of my bullshit by the end of the session.
I also almost never remember to take notes. I get up from the table often to act out npcs and fight scenes so I hardly ever get the opportunity to write stuff down.
