>I believe the GM's first duty is to herself. The game must be fun for her, >or why bother. I'll have to agree with this one. If the GM is enjoying him/herself, a game can survive a seemingly infinite amout of setbacks. If the GM isn't having fun, even a small hurdle can be an impass. Currently, my two Phoenyx games provide a perfect example. "ATP" took forever to get going, because of player problems, mismanagement, my studies abroad, and a host of other things. Still, of all the games I've run in the past, I find Continuum to be one of the most rewarding, and now "ATP" is back on its feet. On the other hand, "DeusX", which ran pretty solidly for the past 18 months, is slowly dragging to a halt (one which will probably end soon in a mercy killing) because it simply stopped being fun. I'm down to three solid players, and drafting complex, layered scenarios for them just doesn't seem worth it anymore. Earlier on, I might have found it in myself to push past that, but the lack of excitment I feel about the game is a deathknell. Serving the players is a great idea, but, unlike Niztche (sp?), GMs are not the sun, all-giving, requiring nothing in return. Serve yourself every now and then or you'll liable to find yourself empty of things to give. But enough waxing philosophic. Later. Jonathan ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
