After some years, I have noticed one thing that can be a potential oversight in normal circumstances.

The game is meant to be fun for everyone; including the GM. What you, and other players may find fun, the GM may not, and vice versa.

The way your GM runs a game, particularly one that has been running games for years, may have developed a desire for a particular kind of gameplay from/for the players. This doesn't mean they aren't (or are) open to input from players, it may just mean they don't realise what they are doing.

For example, in this particular group, the GM was frequently creating "tension" through physical conflict, I.e. combat. As soon as a challenge was overcome, they would present another physical challenge or encounter. This would create tension because the PCs would be physically restricted in their ability to overcome the next obstacle. If a creative solution was found (which was rare - suggestions would often be shot down for various reasons) they would be followed up with another one.

In another group however, the opposite was the norm. Often, the players would be faced with deadly challenges, and be forced (or at least advised) to avoid the conflict in order to survive. A deadly enemy would confront the group, and we would have to find creative solutions in order to avoid the combat. In this scenario, tension was created by walking the razors edge between life and death, not because we were constantly on the edge of the cliff, but because one wrong step or choice would fling us from our comfy seat in the pub to the volcanic pit 3 towns over, forcing us to hand over our character sheet for consumption.

This is where the dynamic between the players and the GM is important, and should potentially be discussed. Getting to understand what the group sees as fun, and what the GM sees as fun is important to know so that everyone can have the fun they want.

Systems can play a part in this too. For example, systems like Pathfinder, that work around numbers to determine success and survival, vs Dark Heresy, where losing a limb is merely a chance for an upgrade, and works more around pure chance in order to determine success and survival, can mold the type of gameplay that a GM comes to know.

After some years, I have noticed one thing that can be a potential oversight in normal circumstances.

The game is meant to be fun for everyone; including the GM. What you, and other players may find fun, the GM may not, and vice versa.

The way your GM runs a game, particularly one that has been running games for years, may have developed a desire for a particular kind of gameplay from/for the players. This doesn't mean they aren't (or are) open to input from players, it may just mean they don't realise what they are doing.

For example, in this particular group, the GM was frequently creating "tension" through physical conflict, I.e. combat. As soon as a challenge was overcome, they would present another physical challenge or encounter. This would create tension because the PCs would be physically restricted in their ability to overcome the next obstacle. If a creative solution was found (which was rare - suggestions would often be shot down for various reasons) they would be followed up with another one.

In another group however, the opposite was the norm. Often, the players would be faced with deadly challenges, and be forced (or at least advised) to avoid the conflict in order to survive. A deadly enemy would confront the group, and we would have to find creative solutions in order to avoid the combat. In this scenario, tension was created by walking the razors edge between life and death, not because we were constantly on the edge of the cliff, but because one wrong step or choice would fling us from our comfy seat in the pub to the volcanic pit 3 towns over, forcing us to hand over our character sheet for consumption.

Systems can play a big part in this; particularly a "favourite" system that people have. For example, systems like Pathfinder, that work around numbers to determine success and survival, vs Dark Heresy, where losing a limb is merely a chance for an upgrade, and works more around pure chance in order to determine success and survival, can mold the type of gameplay that a GM comes to know, or favor.

Another aspect is the "GNS Theory". There are three primary aspects for people playing or running an RPG: Gamism, Narrativism and Similuationism.

Gamism A gamist makes decisions to satisfy predefined goals in the face of adversity: to win.

Narrativism Narrativism relies on outlining (or developing) character motives, placing characters into situations where those motives conflict and making their decisions the driving force.

Simulationism Simulationism is a playing style recreating, or inspired by, a genre or source

In short, everyone is a mix of all 3, but the variation is in how much of each we are. In the first example I gave, I believe the GM was more Gamist, and in the second, they were likely more Narrativist.

This is where the dynamic between the players and the GM is important, and should potentially be discussed (maybe even as part of the Session 0). Getting to understand what the group sees as fun, and what the GM sees as fun is important to know so that everyone can have the fun they want.