classroom teaching and GMing

I've been doing a lot of the first, recently, which is why I haven't done much of the latter, or blogging. (Hooray, not being unemployed!) I'm far from the only person in this sphere who teaches for my day job, so nothing in this is original - but I don't know whether I've seen the analogy enumerated at length elsewhere, so here's a stab at it.

Differences

• Classroom teaching serves purposes other than the mere entertainment of the participant 
• People are coerced into classrooms, which kinda changes everything
  

Similarities

• Classroom teaching and the gaming table are formalized social situations, and in general, you know when that situation is happening or not. These sessions are typically stretched together into something bigger (class ⊆ unit ⊆ course, session ⊆ arc ⊆ campaign) but need not be.
• The classroom and the gaming table feature a distinction between, typically, one participant (the GM or teacher - from here on out, "you") and others. (Rejecting this is seen as avante-garde, or as a different kind of activity.)
• The relationship between you and the other participants is one of *asymmetric antagonism*: you present challenges to them, which they go about solving. Straightforwardly, they want to win the challenges, and "defeat" you. You want them to win, but not without struggle. (The player and the intrinsically interested student wants to struggle, too, but this is a case of what C. Thi Nguyen calls "submerged identity," the player wants to be challenged, and so places themselves in a challenging situation and then tries to solve it with all their might.)
• A major axis of differentiation is the degree to which you present them with material where their input is minimal ("railroading," "direct instruction") vs allow them to set the agenda ("sandbox," "constructivism.")
• Presenting material may involve showmanship, voices, all of the storytelling arts. Despite this, doing too much direct presentation can leave people bored, fidgety, unengaged. 
• Presenting them with lots of agency can be very engaging, but requires more player buy-in, as well as an understanding of how the thing they're working with works. Lacking either can result in "going nowhere," "feeling lost," and the like.
• A second axis of differentiation is how much prep you do, both at the level of the individual session and long-term planning
• You can create your own material from scratch, which is a lot of work
• You can get things from a very active community of GMs/teachers who by and large like sharing content, buy things from a thriving market of content makers, but you'll have to adapt it to your group and to your context.
• You can improvise, which can work well or, well, not well.
• Relationships form in the process, including relationships that can be antagonistic in the actual rather than submerged-agency sense. 
• Good relationships are rewarding in and of themselves
• Bad relationships are miserable in and of themselves and *will* fuck everything else up
• Spotlight management is a thing. Some participants are more participatory by default than others; you want to get everyone involved without drawing people out (much) more than they're comfortable with.
• Knowing the group and its individual members guides all of the decisions above. What are people into, how much energy do they have, etc.
• Surprises in what people are interested in, or what people's energy levels are, means you'll have to throw out prep and shift to improvising on the fly.
• Anything you get from others will likely have to be adjusted to your group
• The crudest method used to manipulate behavior is a straightforward points system.
• Enough buy-in and you can ignore this entirely
  
• It's fun! Also lots of burnout, but still, rewarding and fun! 

Joesky tax