Quote from: Ratman_tf;935580Do you design an adventure as a plot or a situation?
I find that if I design an adventure as a situation (or at least as much of a  situation as I can) then I have plenty of material for when the players surprise me.
Some very few times it will cut an adventure short, but I can usually pad out a session with a few random encounters.

I have a Rifts adventure, for example, that's got an expected timeline of events. But I also go over the Who, Why and What of the situation, so if the players decide to attack the Werewolf den, instead of guarding the town, (for example) I know approximatley how many foes there are, what's likey to happen, etc.

Actually, it had no predestined plot of any kind. As I stated earlier, each session would end with a discussion with the players about what they intended to do at the next session
. It could have been something definite, like "we'll investigate dungeon x" or open-ended like "we just want to fuck around town and the market". Based on that , I'd confirm what sort of session they wanted (dungeon crawl or carousing and shopping). Then we'd have unanimous agreement on what I'd "prepare" for the next session.

The biggest difficulties I had was rolling with a suddn massive contradiction in player expectations and intent. This happened very rarely, such as the example of the planned "trek through the jungle, chased by raptors and fighting cannibals to get to a ruin to find the macguffin". Everyone was up for that, specifically, so that's what I planned (as in, i homebrewed/borrowed a simple system for chases, made some random encounter charts and scoured the web for tables like "100 jungle hazards" or "d30 random dinosaurs".

I was caught off guard because some players cancelled at the last minute and the Warlock player had just levelled up and acquired the Flight spell. With fewer companions, he was able to carry the entire party over the jungle and cancel out everything I had prepared. The player even admitted that he knew the implications of such a decision but insisted upon doing it anyway.

Even as soon as an hour later I had come up with dozens of simple solutions to handle it, but by then I'd lost all steam (and we had moved on to a board game).

It's rare that I choke so badly, but I've seen it happen to other people so I'll argue that I'm not the shittiest GM ever.

Quote from: trechriron;935541You mast have me confused with someone else. I never said such a thing. I've taken breaks, they usually last about 6 months tops.

Might want to read that post again.  Not everything is about you.

Quote from: Xanther;935551I love to be surprised by my players, that's the whole point to me (and vice versa) otherwise we could just play computer games.  It's the unpredictability of a human "opponent" and the complete interaction with the environment that is fun.  That's why I use simple and flexible rule systems, and keep a stock of ready made this or that.

Session after session, week after week, year after year, decade after decade, and you and others are still surprised by players?
Then you and the others are all goddamn idiots.

Quote from: rgrove0172;934923I started a thread a while back on GM Fiat and freeform management of the gaming environment (ie. railroading to some) and it got pretty heated. The vast majority of the members here were on the side of railroading being evil or at the very least the practice of an inept GM, while a few counted it merely as a an option of approach and with some uses. I don't want to descend into that same argument here...

Your approach is not conducive to the accomplishment of your stated wishes.

QuoteHowever something  came up during that conversation that generated quite a bit of discussion amid my gaming friends and was touched on but not really settled in the former thread.

There could be (read 'could' as an obvious opinion and in no way a declaration of fact) a comparison between the popular 'Zero Prep- Improvisational' GM style to the afore mentioned and well-ridiculed Railroader. (I use this term because of its universal acceptance, I disagree totally however that it applies to many of the GM strategies I have mentioned here. But I digress...)

There can be also a comparison between apples and oranges. It would have roughly the same basis.

QuoteIf a GM has no previous knowledge of an element of the setting or the reaction of an NPC, and therefore generates what is lacking on the spur of the moment, based on the player's actions, his perception of the situation and lastly his desire to present a fun and rewarding experience for all...he is heralded as a great GM!

No. Improvisation is a tool for something any GM needs to do. That's no great merit.

QuoteSomeone who can think on their feet, exact detail from nothing on the fly, and weave in depth storylines without forethought!

...has maybe visited 3 courses of improv theater. Big deal.

QuoteI wont disagree. Ive seen some guys play that way and have tried it myself with varying degrees of success. It is a challenge but can be incredibly liberating and effective.

Liberating and effective I can agree on. Preparing well can be the same.

QuoteNow, another GM does the exact same thing...BUT...BUT...BUT - he originally had something else in mind and based on the players actions and his own perceptions etc.... decided something else would be more fun, cool, entertaining, fair or whatever. So he changed it.

Dirty storytelling illusionist, this guy is:D!

QuoteTo the players there is absolutely no difference in the experience. Some will say the latter GM acted unfairly towards the players, by changing reality around them, and yet in the case of the former there was no reality. How fair is that?

There was a reality in the case if the former. There wasn't in case of the latter.
That's why the latter is not fair at all and why he's a dirty storytelling illusionist;).

QuoteTo use a cliché from the former thread...

Why is ok to generate a Wizard's Tower from one's imagination on the fly, to plop it right down in front of the players when they inquire what is on the road north of town...

And Yet is isn't ok to take the tower from its originally planned location south of town and move it north when the unaware players ask the same question?

And if you can't answer that question for yourself after the whole of that thread, I don't think I can explain it to you.

QuoteWe've bounced this around our group in almost comical fashion for a couple months, it comes up during play now (which is really annoying... did you make that up just now or alter it?)

Wasn't your group fine with your ways, or did that change? Why the sudden discussions?

QuoteIm curious to hear some of your opinions.

My opinion is that this thread is nothing but your n-th attempt to either "borrow legitimacy" by positioning your own style as similar to what other people are doing, putting it in improv terms, and/or to undermine the arguments of people who disagree with you by claiming "those guys are also doing the same".
In short, my opinion is that this thread is exactly what I warned you not to do. Welcome to my Ignore List for now, because I haven't got the time for a proper "fire and brimstone" delivery in overdrive mode;).

Quote from: rgrove0172;934923I started a thread a while back on GM Fiat and freeform management of the gaming environment (ie. railroading to some) and it got pretty heated. The vast majority of the members here were on the side of railroading being evil or at the very least the practice of an inept GM, while a few counted it merely as a an option of approach and with some uses. I don't want to descend into that same argument here...

However something  came up during that conversation that generated quite a bit of discussion amid my gaming friends and was touched on but not really settled in the former thread.

There could be (read 'could' as an obvious opinion and in no way a declaration of fact) a comparison between the popular 'Zero Prep- Improvisational' GM style to the afore mentioned and well-ridiculed Railroader. (I use this term because of its universal acceptance, I disagree totally however that it applies to many of the GM strategies I have mentioned here. But I digress...)

If a GM has no previous knowledge of an element of the setting or the reaction of an NPC, and therefore generates what is lacking on the spur of the moment, based on the player's actions, his perception of the situation and lastly his desire to present a fun and rewarding experience for all...he is heralded as a great GM! Someone who can think on their feet, exact detail from nothing on the fly, and weave in depth storylines without forethought!  

I wont disagree. Ive seen some guys play that way and have tried it myself with varying degrees of success. It is a challenge but can be incredibly liberating and effective.

Now, another GM does the exact same thing...BUT...BUT...BUT - he originally had something else in mind and based on the players actions and his own perceptions etc.... decided something else would be more fun, cool, entertaining, fair or whatever. So he changed it.

To the players there is absolutely no difference in the experience. Some will say the latter GM acted unfairly towards the players, by changing reality around them, and yet in the case of the former there was no reality. How fair is that?

To use a cliché from the former thread...

Why is ok to generate a Wizard's Tower from one's imagination on the fly, to plop it right down in front of the players when they inquire what is on the road north of town...

And Yet is isn't ok to take the tower from its originally planned location south of town and move it north when the unaware players ask the same question?

We've bounced this around our group in almost comical fashion for a couple months, it comes up during play now (which is really annoying... did you make that up just now or alter it?)

Im curious to hear some of your opinions.

I'm late to the party so I apologize if I go over any well trod territory. Illusionism is a term that I've seen applied to the "The Tower is there regardless of what direction you go" style gming while Rail Roading was usually used to describe something more micromanaged. The characters can decide to go into the tower or not and it'll go back into the Illusionist GM's file o' places but a Rail Road GM will essentially teleport the characters to the front door and might further direct their exploration.

As for my groups. they've never had an issue with Illusionism. Its either never noticed or just assumed to happen to varying degrees. As long as they can make meaningful choices, role play and the world feels cohesive they've been good. There wasn't an expectation for the GM to either make up the entire world in case they went there or improv stretches of it seat of their pants. OTOH, we don't play in Sandboxes or really want the type of utter freedom immersion that experience can create.I can see why employing either technique would detract from the fun of groups that are looking for that.

Quote from: Sommerjon;935606Session after session, week after week, year after year, decade after decade, and you and others are still surprised by players?
Then you and the others are all goddamn idiots.

DM style.  When planning a campaign, I only set up conflict, I never plan for how the PCs will tackle the conflict.  I do not even know what side they will take.

I have been in the process of planning a Star Wars campaign set in the old WEG Tapani sector that I have been updating to the Force Awakens timeline.  I have been planning out conflicts between the various factions and how the First Order and Republic will impact things.  I have no idea even what side the players will want to be on.  

All I design are the various factions, their resources, their goals, and how the factions interact.  

I do not plan the PCs, the PCs' goals, or how the PCs will interact with the setting.  This is the purpose of in-game play.  If I planned this stuff out beforehand, then my players would largely be relegated to just rolling dice.

Quote from: AsenRG;935612Your approach is not conducive to the accomplishment of your stated wishes.


There can be also a comparison between apples and oranges. It would have roughly the same basis.


No. Improvisation is a tool for something any GM needs to do. That's no great merit.

 
...has maybe visited 3 courses of improv theater. Big deal.


Liberating and effective I can agree on. Preparing well can be the same.


Dirty storytelling illusionist, this guy is:D!


There was a reality in the case if the former. There wasn't in case of the latter.
That's why the latter is not fair at all and why he's a dirty storytelling illusionist;).


And if you can't answer that question for yourself after the whole of that thread, I don't think I can explain it to you.


Wasn't your group fine with your ways, or did that change? Why the sudden discussions?


My opinion is that this thread is nothing but your n-th attempt to either "borrow legitimacy" by positioning your own style as similar to what other people are doing, putting it in improv terms, and/or to undermine the arguments of people who disagree with you by claiming "those guys are also doing the same".
In short, my opinion is that this thread is exactly what I warned you not to do. Welcome to my Ignore List for now, because I haven't got the time for a proper "fire and brimstone" delivery in overdrive mode;).

Thanks for your input, and Im all broken up by being put on your ignore list.

Quote from: Nexus;935613I'm late to the party so I apologize if I go over any well trod territory. Illusionism is a term that I've seen applied to the "The Tower is there regardless of what direction you go" style gming while Rail Roading was usually used to describe something more micromanaged. The characters can decide to go into the tower or not and it'll go back into the Illusionist GM's file o' places but a Rail Road GM will essentially teleport the characters to the front door and might further direct their exploration.

As for my groups. they've never had an issue with Illusionism. Its either never noticed or just assumed to happen to varying degrees. As long as they can make meaningful choices, role play and the world feels cohesive they've been good. There wasn't an expectation for the GM to either make up the entire world in case they went there or improv stretches of it seat of their pants. OTOH, we don't play in Sandboxes or really want the type of utter freedom immersion that experience can create.I can see why employing either technique would detract from the fun of groups that are looking for that.

Good stuff and great point. Oddly nobody has stated the difference so simply before. I will admit I am absolutely an Illusionist, card carrying poster child. I see it as part of my responsibility as a GM and indeed one of my favorite parts. I take various ideas, descriptions, personalities, pictures, locations and plot lines and present them in the way that the players FEEL like they are part of the action, part of the story. Its what Ive always believed GMs do. I have always seen myself as more of a narrator and storyweaver than hardline referee. There is simply no bad or unfair way to GM as far as Im concerned as long as the players are having a blast. I have never railroaded anyone that I can remember, not really even being familiar with the term until a couple years back, but I have done a little hedging in the interest of time constraints and not wasting a lot of prep... but if the players absolutely decide something, ive always gone with that instead of my own ideas.

Thanks for the clarification though, good stuff!

One element of many of your descriptions of how you game that suddenly leaped off the screen at me is how proactive your players are. Old One Eye (really one eye? cool) you mentioned setting up the situation and simply letting the players blunder in however they want. Others have mentioned preparing the motivations and resources of NPCs and how they relate then simply starting the game and seeing where it leads.

I have had a number of players over the years, ranging in ages from teens to grandfathers and most well educated, imaginative and passionate about the genre we were playing in but.... and perhaps this is in part to the way we view Roleplaying, I cant imagine starting or playing a game that way. Without a 'lead in', without a fairly obvious introduction to a 'plotline' of some sort, without some introduction to conflict I believe my players would sit there on their hands and wonder when the game was going to start.

"Ok ladies, gentleman.. it is 1876 and you are in New Orleans. You have your characters... what would you like to do?"

I suppose its possible to play that way, eventually someone would want to rob a bank or start a smuggling ring or try and revive the confederacy or something but typically our games have a specific genre and expected flavor that warrants a more direct insertion. We are playing Gothic Horror at the moment. Something has to happen to get it Gothically Horrific. I suppose I could, and have actually, allowed players to wander nilly willy for a bit, acting out the lives of the characters before I ..YES... spring the plot on them and in our viewpoint, start the game.

It sounds to me like some of you GMs wait and allow the players to provide you with inspiration as to what you want to present based on their actions. I can respect that, its definitely an option I have stumbled into on accident before but never really considered as a hard and fast alternative to approach. Perhaps that is the difference I was asking about in the first post.

A improv GM waits until he is motivated by the actions and decisions of the players before creating and introducing a world that best fits their apparent direction and desires for maximum effect. Good stuff

An illusionist GM (Ill use that term I guess) builds a world and possible plots then shifts and modifies his plans to fit where the players seem to be headed.

Its a subtle difference and Ill have to say in my opinion not different enough to warrant some of the bickering this topic seems to cause.

Quote from: rgrove0172;935483See I just don't see that at all. The Choice was an illusion... so what? The characters wouldn't now the difference, and its a Roleplaying game. Everything should be experienced from their perspective. Its not some academic challenge between the players and GM, one in which he withheld information vital to their making the better choice. No world existed down that other road they didn't take. Had they chosen it, there would have been. From their standpoint, its all the same. How could a player be offended by that?

Especially given the original question posted here... had the Y in the road been presented in a Zero Prep game there wouldn't have been a world down either road! The damn Y in the road was just made up 2 seconds ago afterall. Everything after is still churning in the GMs head or waiting to be generated on one of his charts.

In the example, the GM was going to put the same thing down that road no matter which was chosen, kind of like the Star Wars game you ran where the giant elaborate space station the part was "exploring" was really a sequence of planned sets.

You say the characters wouldn't know the difference, but I don't think that's strictly true, and it gets less and less true the more the game develops. Even the characters in JJ Abrams' Lost eventually realize that they are being tormented in a purgatory of doom, and that their struggles and attempts to do anything else could never prevail - that they weren't in a real world where what they tried could really make a difference.

Again, if you just tell me there will be a narrative interlude between actual game situations, fine. Because I won't try to interact, gather info, nor strategize about the parts that are not really in play.

Or if you tell me the world will be rolled up randomly as we go, fine. I will reserve my strategy for the parts that make sense given the random generation.

Or if you tell me you are going to invent stuff as you go... uh, ok. I'll see how that goes, but will relate to it a bit like a dream or nightmare, rather than a real logical world to work with.

But if a GM does not tell me any of that, and tells me it is an RPG world and I get to choose where I go and what I do, I am liable to think "oh good that's even more interesting" and engage the game world as if it were real, detailed, logical and consistent. I will want to see, make, and/or visualize and deduce maps of how the world and its locations are laid out in detail, and try to use that information to make decisions about what to do and how to do it, which way to travel, how to sneak around, etc. I will be trying to play a game based on it being a real logical world, where if I learn enough about it and do smart things, I should tend to expect very different logical results. Like the real world, if I decide to head out in a random direction, I'll find new and different stuff, instead of shit waiting for me based on what I usually do. Playing a game like that can be fascinating and very satisfying to me, and I tend to engage it with a lot of time and attention and inventiveness and attempts at cleverness.

For example, if I or some of my friends were in a game we cared about and were told we were at some Y intersection, we would either have already known all kinds of things about where we were, or we would ask: "Ok, can you draw the angles of the roads? What's the weather and time of day? What can we see in every direction? Are there tracks?" and taking an unknown road would likely involve planning march order and/or scouts and wanting to be told of everything we see bit by bit, and possibly turning back or going off road and/or to vantage points to try to find out what's around.

But if/when I find out that all that makes zero difference because the GM is just gonna use what he thought up regardless of any of what I try to do, that makes all of that irrelevant wasted effort. It's like playing a monster wargame and the referee lets you play for a couple hours and then says, "y'know, the first casualty of war is the plan" and flips a coin and uses that to determine who won.

Now, the Y in the road is a trivial case of that, but it's still a meaningless, misleading thing to ask if it doesn't matter, unless you're just running an example session and in a full session it would be possible to have such choices make a difference.

Quote from: Old One Eye;935619DM style.  When planning a campaign, I only set up conflict, I never plan for how the PCs will tackle the conflict.  I do not even know what side they will take.

I have been in the process of planning a Star Wars campaign set in the old WEG Tapani sector that I have been updating to the Force Awakens timeline.  I have been planning out conflicts between the various factions and how the First Order and Republic will impact things.  I have no idea even what side the players will want to be on.  

All I design are the various factions, their resources, their goals, and how the factions interact.  

I do not plan the PCs, the PCs' goals, or how the PCs will interact with the setting.  This is the purpose of in-game play.  If I planned this stuff out beforehand, then my players would largely be relegated to just rolling dice.

It has nothing, zero, nada to do with Dm style.  
It's understanding that roleplayers are creatures of habit.  Look at where we are, a website dedicated to a very particular style of gaming that came out over 40 years ago.  Are you seriously going to try and tell me that roleplayers are not creatures of habit?

Quote from: Necrozius;935603It's rare that I choke so badly, but I've seen it happen to other people so I'll argue that I'm not the shittiest GM ever.

Nah. From your description, it was just a fluke. I've had plenty of them myself.

From the comfort of my computer chair, I'm thinking, there's so many aerial encounter possibilites in D&D, I'd probably have rolled a couple of them and had the party run into a bunch of Aarakocra fighting some Rocs or something along those lines. A lost Djinn? Flying mountain inhabited by giants?

Quote from: rgrove0172;935625One element of many of your descriptions of how you game that suddenly leaped off the screen at me is how proactive your players are. Old One Eye (really one eye? cool) you mentioned setting up the situation and simply letting the players blunder in however they want. Others have mentioned preparing the motivations and resources of NPCs and how they relate then simply starting the game and seeing where it leads.

I have had a number of players over the years, ranging in ages from teens to grandfathers and most well educated, imaginative and passionate about the genre we were playing in but.... and perhaps this is in part to the way we view Roleplaying, I cant imagine starting or playing a game that way. Without a 'lead in', without a fairly obvious introduction to a 'plotline' of some sort, without some introduction to conflict I believe my players would sit there on their hands and wonder when the game was going to start.

"Ok ladies, gentleman.. it is 1876 and you are in New Orleans. You have your characters... what would you like to do?"

Kind of, but not exactly.  The game will fall flat with that lead in, there is no conflict.  What I do is more like:

It is 1876 New Orleans.  When making characters, we have discussed what your character knows about the various factions I have prepped (or made up on the fly if a no prep campaign).  As a group, we have discussed how the PCs know each other (their choice).  So they walk into the campaign knowing something about how their PCs fit into the world.  Not pages of backstory, but a decent idea drawing on tropes.  I do require them to make PCs which have a reason to work together.  Maybe they decided to be a group of ex-Civil War soldiers drinking away the horrors of a war at some tavern on of them owns.

When the game actually starts, conflict needs to be presented front and center.  Maybe one of the factions I have made up is a coalition of Northern investors seeking to buy up as much property as they can on the cheap and are willing to use street thugs to get it done.  Another faction is a gang of street thugs willing to break legs for whoever pays.  Another faction is a group of antebellum slaveholders looking to thwart any Northern investors.  While making characters, we have discussed how the Northerners and former slaveholders have been in conflict for control of the city.

Game starts with the PCs at their tavern.  The gang of thugs burns down the business next door.  There is conflict for the PCs to interact with if they choose.  There is a mystery to explore on who is behind the thugs.  There is PC choice on which faction to befriend or conflict against.  Going into it, I have no idea if the PCs will confront the thugs, or they may wait and investigate afterward, etc.  Or they may ignore it, and I imagine what conflict happens without their influence on events and describe that.  I do not brainstorm what they would do on the front end (e.g. I would not have a set piece battle against the thugs planned).

Things must be happening around the PCs.  Plopping them down without anything happening will have all but the most proactive players staring at each other in boredom.

So, make factions in conflict.  Describe the conflict occurring around them.  Then let the players choose how they want to interact with it.

As the campaign develops, it will naturally develop where the players will be making at least some proactive goals (maybe they ran across an NPC who really rubbed them the wrong way and they start planning retribution) and the DM will not have to put as much effort into making conflict around them front and center.  

In fairness, I am very happy to spend an hour of real time as the players plan things out.  If a DM cannot stand in-game planning time and wants action now, my method may not be the best.

Quote from: Skarg;935631For example, if I or some of my friends were in a game we cared about and were told we were at some Y intersection, we would either have already known all kinds of things about where we were, or we would ask: "Ok, can you draw the angles of the roads? What's the weather and time of day? What can we see in every direction? Are there tracks?" and taking an unknown road would likely involve planning march order and/or scouts and wanting to be told of everything we see bit by bit, and possibly turning back or going off road and/or to vantage points to try to find out what's around.

Funny, I'd be asking all of that and about related knowledges of folk beliefs and local areas in order to establish whether there's anything notable about that crossroad;).
Then again, in the last Improv thread we established that we both assume a map to be ultimately present and abided by. I just don't expect the GM to ever let me see the actual map:).

QuoteBut if/when I find out that all that makes zero difference because the GM is just gonna use what he thought up regardless of any of what I try to do, that makes all of that irrelevant wasted effort. It's like playing a monster wargame and the referee lets you play for a couple hours and then says, "y'know, the first casualty of war is the plan" and flips a coin and uses that to determine who won.

Yup, that's actually a good comparison.
I mean, what's the point of me playing a proactive character if I'm just waiting for The GM's Plot to catch up with me? And the players being proactive is the foundation of my style both as a GM and as a player.
Well, technically, I could just be proactive in any game, but then I pretty much know I'm going to blow some of the plots out of the water. It always happens! The GM who had one of my players offing the Prince of the city in the V:tM game I had decided to sit out, can probably confirm that:D.
I think it was probably good training for him as well. From the reports, he tried to roll with the blow, but the accounts on how well he managed that, differ quite a bit:p.

But really, I don't want to cause a clash of playstyles, because wasting your efforts (and potentially everyone's time if the GM just has to stop the session) is no fun for me, either! If you want to have a game where Plot Happens wherever we go, just tell me we might not be a good match. Then I'm likely to thank you and decide to either sit it out, or make the necessary adjustments to my style (if there are additional reasons I want to play in this game).
Just don't make me guess it, or then I'm not going to thank you, and adjustments are probably going to be out of the question;)!

Quote from: Ratman_tf;935635Nah. From your description, it was just a fluke. I've had plenty of them myself.

From the comfort of my computer chair, I'm thinking, there's so many aerial encounter possibilites in D&D, I'd probably have rolled a couple of them and had the party run into a bunch of Aarakocra fighting some Rocs or something along those lines. A lost Djinn? Flying mountain inhabited by giants?

Totally! Hell that same night I slapped my forehead remembering the dozen or so pterosaurs available from my memory as well as just adding wings on the goddamned cannibals.