Quote from: Adric;737842I'm not sure how deciding on consequences and influences of a situation during play makes those consequences less meaningful than ones written beforehand.

If a player is aware of the potential consequences of their actions before they act, and make an informed decision based on that awareness, their decision is meaningful. It's about applying logical cause and effect to the situation described.

There's no bait and switch at play, unless the GM lies about what is actually at stake and what the consequences may be, but that has nothing to do with prep VS improv. That's about misleading the players about what is going on in the current situation.

I'm not sure what part of the GM creating the situation as they describe it is more dishonest than the GM describing a situation the created beforehand. The GM is still describing the situation as it appears to the players. and how it appears to the players is how it is in the game world.

I tend to side with Nathan on this.
Whilst logically ther eis no difference people just don't like finding out that there was no "solution" to discover. Its similar to their reaction to Strondingers cat

I have often had guests accusing me of altering the plot in response to their input once they find out I am the author as well as one of the actors. "Don't tell him that or he will change the answer so you are wrong," is a common thing I hear on Saturday night after a few glasses of red.
I would never think of doing that of course. For me once a thing is set, so once the murder is defines its a real thing involitile. I will occassionally alter small aspects adding explaination as to why things that have appeared by mistake are as they are. When I forget to leave any clothes for a naked victim for example or when I in error leave a pen that writes in black ink next to a note written in blue ink. These things I retcon but back into the existing plot. A rewrite like changing the murderer will only occur in a CRITICAL situation liek he guy had a car accident for example then I retcon but usually can do so leaving no joins.

Must say my actors are not always that happy with me. Say saturday I have handed out the act 2 sheets including the complex timeline for the day, the actors only get this 30 mins before we go live and so they have to memorise it pretty quick, this is deliberate to generate the reality of memory which is more falible than we recall (hoho). But then with 10 mins to go I say "oh Kate can you do me a favour I need a scene between maincourse and dessert can you sing an Aria, you are playing an opera singer", or  "Jen I need you to have a big argument with Steve but I need you to have it in Russian. No one here can speak Russian apart from that Ukrainian waitress so just make it sound like Russian. And steve I want you to hit her when she finished yelling at you. I'll let the two of you sort out the details.... " yeah they hate that, wimps

Quote from: jibbajibbaYou don't need too may red herrings but sub-plots are great and just bear in mind means, motive and opportunity and generate a very tight timeline, you can totally do this in your head. So long as there are 6 people with a motive and the opportunity the players will provide their own red herrings.

I'm sure you can totally do this in your head, but I can guarantee that I will run a murder mystery better with more preparation - I'm sure I could piece something together on the fly but I'm equally sure it wouldn't be of as high quality as it would if I prepared it at least partially ahead of time.

You mentioned the murder mystery business - do you write for a murder mystery show?  Because if so that would (1) explain a lot and (2) be really awesome!!

Quote from: jibbajibba;737850I tend to side with Nathan on this.
Whilst logically ther eis no difference people just don't like finding out that there was no "solution" to discover. Its similar to their reaction to Strondingers cat

I don't see it as there wasn't a solution, but that the GM and the players solved the mystery together through play.

Murder Mystery improv play definitely needs more careful thought to it than your average "Let's see where this goes" play, I'd definitely need to take detailed notes for clues and evidence as the game goes so I can see where it's pointing. I'd probably also want to play a system that specifically enables mystery investigation specifically.

Edit: It's exactly like Schrodinger's cat. You know the possible outcomes before the box is open, but the dice rolls will determine which of them is true.

Quote from: jibbajibba;737850I have often had guests accusing me of altering the plot in response to their input once they find out I am the author as well as one of the actors. "Don't tell him that or he will change the answer so you are wrong," is a common thing I hear on Saturday night after a few glasses of red.
I would never think of doing that of course. For me once a thing is set, so once the murder is defines its a real thing involitile. I will occassionally alter small aspects adding explaination as to why things that have appeared by mistake are as they are. When I forget to leave any clothes for a naked victim for example or when I in error leave a pen that writes in black ink next to a note written in blue ink. These things I retcon but back into the existing plot. A rewrite like changing the murderer will only occur in a CRITICAL situation liek he guy had a car accident for example then I retcon but usually can do so leaving no joins.

Must say my actors are not always that happy with me. Say saturday I have handed out the act 2 sheets including the complex timeline for the day, the actors only get this 30 mins before we go live and so they have to memorise it pretty quick, this is deliberate to generate the reality of memory which is more falible than we recall (hoho). But then with 10 mins to go I say "oh Kate can you do me a favour I need a scene between maincourse and dessert can you sing an Aria, you are playing an opera singer", or  "Jen I need you to have a big argument with Steve but I need you to have it in Russian. No one here can speak Russian apart from that Ukrainian waitress so just make it sound like Russian. And steve I want you to hit her when she finished yelling at you. I'll let the two of you sort out the details.... " yeah they hate that, wimps

If this is your job, it sound super cool. Is it hosting a murder mystery night?

Quote from: jibbajibba;737850I tend to side with Nathan on this.
Whilst logically ther eis no difference people just don't like finding out that there was no "solution" to discover. Its similar to their reaction to Strondingers cat

My forceful overstating of the case is also only really appropriate in response to the claim that there's something wrong with players who feel that way.

Quote from: Adric;737860I don't see it as there wasn't a solution, but that the GM and the players solved the mystery together through play.

Murder Mystery improv play definitely needs more careful thought to it than your average "Let's see where this goes" play, I'd definitely need to take detailed notes for clues and evidence as the game goes so I can see where it's pointing. I'd probably also want to play a system that specifically enables mystery investigation specifically.

Edit: It's exactly like Schrodinger's cat. You know the possible outcomes before the box is open, but the dice rolls will determine which of them is true.

If this is your job, it sound super cool. Is it hosting a murder mystery night?

But because its like Schrodingers cat people don't like it. A guy wants to solve your puzzle he doesn't want you to change the solution to your puzzle to his proffered solution because then he doesn't feel like he has solved anything. Its a common enough reaction. Like your girlfriend faking her orgasm, sure it doesn't really affect your enjoyment, and if she isn't bothered... but you still feel cheated somehow

the MM business was a sideline I ran in the UK for the last 15 years or so. My actual job is sadly far more mundane and now takes place largely in Singapore.

Quote from: Adric;737842I'm not sure how deciding on consequences and influences of a situation during play makes those consequences less meaningful than ones written beforehand.

The consequences are not written beforehand in the type of play I currently advocate for.  The details of the situation are pre-defined, but definitely not the consequences.  However, if I only generate the facts of the matter in response to player's actions, controlling the consequences becomes child's play.

QuoteIt's about applying logical cause and effect to the situation described.

Can there be logical cause and effect when there are no facts of the matter?  Pretty much the only thing there can be is a single individual who sits as a gate keeper before people's proposed actions having not just the role of adjudicating the system given the situation, but the ability to define the situation itself in response to their proposed actions.  This is in contrast with a referee who takes all the virtual facts of the matter into consideration, along with their described actions and the rules and produces a fair result.

QuoteThere's no bait and switch at play, unless the GM lies about what is actually at stake and what the consequences may be, but that has nothing to do with prep VS improv. That's about misleading the players about what is going on in the current situation.

The bait and switch is presenting the players with a situation and then when they engage with it, it turns out there was no situation.  They're presented with a dangerous environment, a challenging or dramatic situation, or whatever, and they make decisions based on that but what they are actually dealing with is a completely undefined non-situation.  That's the bait and switch.

QuoteI'm not sure what part of the GM creating the situation as they describe it is more dishonest than the GM describing a situation the created beforehand.

The dishonesty is the lie that there is a virtual situation to engage with at all.

Also, please bear in mind that what I'm talking about here is an improv heavy approach along with the position that there are no virtual facts of the matter until they are established in play.  There are many hybrid approaches that don't rely on the GM either changing or not-defining the actual situation that would not be deception.  An example would be jibbajibba's approach where a situation might be created through improvisation, but the virtual facts of the matter are actually set before the players engage with it.  He also doesn't seem to approach the situation with a revisionist mindset except when correcting problems.  The "created from the quantum soup by the act of observation" method goes much, much further.

Quote from: NathanIW;737867The consequences are not written beforehand in the type of play I currently advocate for.  The details of the situation are pre-defined, but definitely not the consequences.  However, if I only generate the facts of the matter in response to player's actions, controlling the consequences becomes child's play.

The possible consequences come from looking at what has been said (or written) before and figuring out what the logical outcomes of an action interacting with the established situation. This is simply a part of talking to your players to determine what's happening and what they are doing.

You aren't only creating facts in response to players' actions, you are creating facts every time you say something about the world. This is true whether you are creating these facts as you set a scene, or as you prepare for the game. These facts aren't always pleasant, in fact in order to have a dangerous, exciting game, you need to establish dangerous, exciting facts.

Quote from: NathanIW;737867Can there be logical cause and effect when there are no facts of the matter?  Pretty much the only thing there can be is a single individual who sits as a gate keeper before people's proposed actions having not just the role of adjudicating the system given the situation, but the ability to define the situation itself in response to their proposed actions.  This is in contrast with a referee who takes all the virtual facts of the matter into consideration, along with their described actions and the rules and produces a fair result.

The facts are everything that has been said about the game world by everyone at the table, and by the rules, and the current situation to date. Whether you are reading those facts off a page or establishing them on the spot, as soon as you speak them to the players, they become a factual part of the game.

How are the facts established by the referee in your model of play? do the players read them off a page?

Quote from: NathanIW;737867The bait and switch is presenting the players with a situation and then when they engage with it, it turns out there was no situation.  They're presented with a dangerous environment, a challenging or dramatic situation, or whatever, and they make decisions based on that but what they are actually dealing with is a completely undefined non-situation.  That's the bait and switch.

As soon as you present the situation, there is a situation. Speaking it in the game makes it a 'virtual fact'. When you speak you define the situation. Your descriptions tell the players why the environment is dangerous, your portrayal of NPCs makes a situation challenging or dramatic.

Quote from: NathanIW;737867The dishonesty is the lie that there is a virtual situation to engage with at all.

We may be disagreeing on the definition of situation. My definition is "What is happening to the fictional characters right now." That is influenced by everything that has been said before (the established facts), and what is being said right now (Usually player questions or actions, or gm descriptions of the world). This means that the GM is honest about the influences on an outcome or consequence both before and after the action/roll.

Quote from: NathanIW;737867Also, please bear in mind that what I'm talking about here is an improv heavy approach along with the position that there are no virtual facts of the matter until they are established in play.  There are many hybrid approaches that don't rely on the GM either changing or not-defining the actual situation that would not be deception.  An example would be jibbajibba's approach where a situation might be created through improvisation, but the virtual facts of the matter are actually set before the players engage with it.  He also doesn't seem to approach the situation with a revisionist mindset except when correcting problems.  The "created from the quantum soup by the act of observation" method goes much, much further.

You may be talking about conveyance, which is more about the ability to give the players adequate information on the current situation for them to make informed decisions.

In the example of the 2 doors;

Let's say in example 1, the GM says "At the end of the corridor there are two doors. What do you do?"

In example 2, the GM says "At the end of the corridor there are two doors. One is fashioned out of polished dark wood, with a simple iron handle. Underneath the crack at the bottom of the door, firelight flickers and you can hear voices murmuring softly. The second door is made of black stone, with no seams at the edges, and no handle of any kind. In the center of the door is a square metal plate that gleams oddly in your torchlight. What do you do?"

Whether you are a prep GM who has a few lines written about each door and the rooms behind them, or an improv GM who came up with the descriptions when the players got to the end of the corridor, example 1 gives the players very little information to make a decision upon, and example 2 suggests what might be behind each door.

I'm not saying prep is useless or wrong. If preparing for your game means you and your players have more fun, then no other justification is needed.

I don't see one method as 'real' GMing and one as 'fake' GMing though. Both create valid and fun experiences for players, though they require different skills to implement.

Quote from: Adric;737875In the example of the 2 doors;

Let's say in example 1, the GM says "At the end of the corridor there are two doors. What do you do?"

In example 2, the GM says "At the end of the corridor there are two doors. One is fashioned out of polished dark wood, with a simple iron handle. Underneath the crack at the bottom of the door, firelight flickers and you can hear voices murmuring softly. The second door is made of black stone, with no seams at the edges, and no handle of any kind. In the center of the door is a square metal plate that gleams oddly in your torchlight. What do you do?"

Whether you are a prep GM who has a few lines written about each door and the rooms behind them, or an improv GM who came up with the descriptions when the players got to the end of the corridor, example 1 gives the players very little information to make a decision upon, and example 2 suggests what might be behind each door.

I'm not saying prep is useless or wrong. If preparing for your game means you and your players have more fun, then no other justification is needed.

I don't see one method as 'real' GMing and one as 'fake' GMing though. Both create valid and fun experiences for players, though they require different skills to implement.

Exactly, Improv or module, example 1 means that my choice is from an overhead perspective irrelevant. But. From the player perspective and character perspective it is very much relevant because there is likely something behind each door. I open A and theres a kobold with a dagger, I open B and theres 100 gp in a small chest on a shelf.

If I'm a first level mage and opened A. I likely just died. Have the fighter open the door. In which case the kobold rushes past and still stabs me to death.

Thus the choice has meaning because there is an outcome no matter.

In example 2 it is much the same except I have a theoretically more informed idea to base a choice from. But I still do not know what is really behind a door till I open it. And in a fantasy seting like AD&D for example. You learn very quickly sometimes that what you see may not be what is really there.

Tricks, Camouflage, Illusions, Same-same, etc.

Simmilar to walking past a secret door. If I never spot it then effectively there was never a door there at all as far as I know.

Quote from: NathanIW;737867Also, please bear in mind that what I'm talking about here is an improv heavy approach along with the position that there are no virtual facts of the matter until they are established in play.  There are many hybrid approaches that don't rely on the GM either changing or not-defining the actual situation that would not be deception.  An example would be jibbajibba's approach where a situation might be created through improvisation, but the virtual facts of the matter are actually set before the players engage with it.  He also doesn't seem to approach the situation with a revisionist mindset except when correcting problems.  The "created from the quantum soup by the act of observation" method goes much, much further.

Reminds me of a relatively recent game where one of the players decided he wanted to woo a widowed noble lady at a royal ball they were attending to get in some gold digging action.  Not having all the various attendees written out beforehand, I had him roll percentile to see if there was a widowed noble lady in attendance.  There was; I made up her story on the spot; player got to rollplay out what he was wanting to try.

This was absolutelt a schoedingers moment, dice controlled whether she was in attendance.  How is this a bait and switch?  Or a lie?

Quote from: Old One Eye;737887Reminds me of a relatively recent game where one of the players decided he wanted to woo a widowed noble lady at a royal ball they were attending to get in some gold digging action.  Not having all the various attendees written out beforehand, I had him roll percentile to see if there was a widowed noble lady in attendance.  There was; I made up her story on the spot; player got to rollplay out what he was wanting to try.

This was absolutelt a schoedingers moment, dice controlled whether she was in attendance.  How is this a bait and switch?  Or a lie?

Not to speak for anyone but some people consider a decision made after the fact to be overly influenced by what is going on at the moment.

Quote from: NathanIW;737840Then you just don't get human nature.  People don't like being shown the meaninglessness of their choices.  Or that a situation they thought they were engaging with was something else entirely.  People don't like being subject to bait and switch tactics.

I think you may have externalized your own hangup and not realized "people" don't think the same as you.  As well you seem to be forgetting it's a game people are playing for fun.  Sure people don't like to be tricked when it hurts them, but like a magicians trick, they love it when it's for fun.

Quote from: NathanIW;737840It's cool that you've found people that are okay with being treated like that.  You've talked yourself into thinking that you are protecting player input when you're actually nullifying it.

I'm sorry you lack the perspective to see that it's all in how you frame the situation.  There's no right or wrong here, the only person attaching real ethical weight to our leisure activity is you.  I've run games for 100s of players over the last 30+ years (a decade or so on the convention circuit can do this by itself).  This is only a "problem" to forum theorists.

That all said, how about we drop the junior psychology bullshit and attaching imagined ethical weight to a harmless leisure activity.

Quote from: NathanIW;737840I am going to guess though, that you pretty much exclusively GM and rarely, if ever play.

While I do GM more than I play, it' not entirely by preference.  If I want to game I often have to GM because, frankly, in 30+ years I get way more compliments than complaints and people seem to like the result.  I not only get asked to run, like I mentioned before, I've even been ambushed to run.  If this was just by some small group of people in one place, it would be one thing, but this has happened everywhere I go and I've been lots of places (not to mention my decade or so doing conventions, where I would get the some of the same players year after year).

Quote from: Adric;737860Murder Mystery improv play definitely needs more careful thought to it than your average "Let's see where this goes" play, I'd definitely need to take detailed notes for clues and evidence as the game goes so I can see where it's pointing. I'd probably also want to play a system that specifically enables mystery investigation specifically.

I agree that a murder mystery would perhaps require much more attention to detail so that any result remained logical and could be seen in hindsight after great scrutiny.

That said, while I MIGHT make up the murderer after the actual murder in a game, most of the time it's what's already gone on in the game that is going to determine it for me.  There seems to be some confusion between improv and changing history going on in this thread.  I improv like crazy, but I don't change the history of the game.  I in fact keep fairly detailed notes.

Quote from: NathanIW;737864My forceful overstating of the case is also only really appropriate in response to the claim that there's something wrong with players who feel that way.

If it's me you are referring to, I didn't actually say there was anything wrong with anyone.  I said I would find a certain behavior dumb, not that there was anything wrong with anyone.  I was more skeptical of your perceptions than actually thinking anyone was wrong or dumb.  I sincerely doubt most of them really gave a shit, even though you may have honestly thought otherwise.  I wasn't there, I can't be certain, but I am skeptical (you might feel the same about my claims).  As an analogy, lots of people like sausage and hot dogs, but they don't say sausage and hot dogs are bad just because they don't like to watch how they are made, even if one or more might comment on it.

Just so no one has to look back, this could be the relevant quote:

Quote from: Brander;737726If it was negative you need to remember not to invite them back.  Seriously.  They had a wonderful experience, but because they saw behind the curtain it was all undone?  Frankly, that's just dumb to me.

Quote from: Adric;737875...

I'm not saying prep is useless or wrong. If preparing for your game means you and your players have more fun, then no other justification is needed.

I don't see one method as 'real' GMing and one as 'fake' GMing though. Both create valid and fun experiences for players, though they require different skills to implement.

QFT (even the "..." parts)

As seems to be the case, I think Adric is saying things better than I probably would.

Quote from: Bill;737894Not to speak for anyone but some people consider a decision made after the fact to be overly influenced by what is going on at the moment.

In my case, once it's gone into my notes, that's the way it pretty much is.  I would need a good, logical, reason to change it.  I'm only going to improv things that aren't yet determined by past events and details.  Sure I might improv something based on what's going on in the moment, but it's surprising to me how much of a game I find writes itself after a certain point.