Quote from: Nexus;936819There is something of an excluded middle here, an assumption that a game feeling "alive" is the primary goal (or should be as its innately the superior choice) and that it sand box style play works for every group, every game style, setting and genre. I've tried pure sand box a few times and it didn't work for me as a gm or for the groups I was running at the time. It came out dull, meandering or anti climactic much of the time or didn't deliver the game everyone had signed on for. Superheroes in particular didn't work as a sandbox. I feel most things are a spectrum and its important find where on the continuum your tastes and abilities sit and what your players are enjoy, want and are comfortable with. It doesn't have to be one extreme or another.

Well, obviously if what everyone has signed up for is "Roleplaying within Genre" then you're keeping an OOC eye on genre tropes and conceits.  I'm not the one to talk to about GMing a narrative game.

The World in Motion requires context.  It requires a certain amount of length as well.  If incredible planning by the players leads to an "anticlimactic" Milk Run, then the lack of injuries, expended resources, greater wealth, whatever, will carry over into the next session, maybe the one after that, etc.  That type of GMing probably isn't best for a convention oneshot, say.

Claiming this way of GMing is the One True Way is not the point. My point was, based on the thoughtful posts going on between Tristam and Grove, try and use examples from Grove's posts to try and foster some understanding about Tenbones' and other's positions without the built-up frustration of several less fruitful interactions.

Another point made by several here is that every GM style has it's strengths and weaknesses, it exercises different muscles.  When I went through the Conan 2d20 test, that was very different style of GMing for me.  I was exercising muscles I hadn't used in a while by being more of a director.  In my way, I'm every bit as ossified in the World in Motion as Grove is in his Plots.

We both maybe need to make a New Year's resolution to do some cross-training.  But no P-90x, I like my insides to stay on the inside.

Also, what Brendan said....World in Motion =/= Sandbox Play.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;936822For you, superhero adventures may need a climax or may need to avoid meandering. It is true that a comic or a superhero movie needs that, but I don't see why a superhero game can't meander or not always have a climax.

For us its because it doesn't feel like a comic book world. The heroes might fail in their goals, the villains escape but they don't meander pr come to an anti climactic conclusion. Well, some might, but speaking in general that's not how the genre works and that's what my games mostly try to emulate. The characters choices guide the action but there is a general "plotline"  or guiding premise to resolve in a fashion that feel appropriate and entertaining. My aim isn't to emulate real life but the sort of fiction I and the people playing enjoy though in an interactive format. I think the highway analogy is very fitting, actually as a description of the interactive nature or a branching tree structure.

Quote from: cranebump;936825Once you start viewing the campaign as a linear plot diagram, you have no choice but to follow the steps. Exposition, rising action, climax, denouement, and all the other assorted bullshit that makes folks hate Lit classes

I loved my lit classes. Maybe that's the source of the disorder?

Quote from: Nexus;936833For us its because it doesn't feel like a comic book world. The heroes might fail in their goals, the villains escape but they don't meander pr come to an anti climactic conclusion. Well, some might, but speaking in general that's not how the genre works and that's what my games mostly try to emulate. The characters choices guide the action but there is a general "plotline"  or guiding premise to resolve in a fashion that feel appropriate and entertaining. My aim isn't to emulate real life but the sort of fiction I and the people playing enjoy though in an interactive format. I think the highway analogy is very fitting, actually as a description of the interactive nature or a branching tree structure.

But I think one important thing to keep in mind is emulating a genre world can mean lots of different things. Some folks don't want genre, but I like genre physics and genre elements in my games. Heck, pretty much all the games I've made have been genre games of one sort or another. If I am playing a mafia campaign, I want it to feel like the crime genre. If I am playing horror, I want horror. But genre elements doesn't have to mean genre structure. For you it might, and that is cool. But for me roleplaying in the world of superheroes means that we are dealing with superhero physics, maybe even superhero universe logic, but it doesn't mean each session or adventure has to play like a episode of a show, a comic issue or a movie. I am not trying to emulate real life (I think taken to an extreme, that idea would get dull for me). But I am trying to emulate a world that feels real and internally consistent. That doesn't mean exciting or genre-appropriate things can't happen. It just means it isn't going to flow toward a predictable climax, that player characters can die due to bad rolls, and it isn't worried about trying to be a different medium than a game.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;936835But I think one important thing to keep in mind is emulating a genre world can mean lots of different things. Some folks don't want genre, but I like genre physics and genre elements in my games. Heck, pretty much all the games I've made have been genre games of one sort or another. If I am playing a mafia campaign, I want it to feel like the crime genre. If I am playing horror, I want horror. But genre elements doesn't have to mean genre structure. For you it might, and that is cool. But for me roleplaying in the world of superheroes means that we are dealing with superhero physics, maybe even superhero universe logic, but it doesn't mean each session or adventure has to play like a episode of a show, a comic issue or a movie. I am not trying to emulate real life (I think taken to an extreme, that idea would get dull for me). But I am trying to emulate a world that feels real and internally consistent. That doesn't mean exciting or genre-appropriate things can't happen. It just means it isn't going to flow toward a predictable climax, that player characters can die due to bad rolls, and it isn't worried about trying to be a different medium than a game.

I'm aware of the differences and that's part of my pre game planning and talk with potential players. I've run games with varying degree of emulation. Some genres work best with a more simulation feel than other more stylized ones. But I have a definite comfort zone I admit. I'm not really ever trying to emulate a "world" at all or its a very low priority, things like consistency, "basic" logic, etc fiction (IMO, good fiction) cares about those things too. PCs can and have died in my games (unless there has been an agreement that its a low/no death game). They fail, the antagonists win, etc. Sometime the climax goes against them or when it occurs is open to change. But I strive to avoid anti climax and meandering off into the inaction. For me, that's one of the failure states for a game. And its almost always my fault as the GM.

Quote from: Nexus;936836I'm aware of the differences and that's part of my pre game planning and talk with potential players. I've run games with varying degree of emulation. Some genres work best with a more simulation feel than other more stylized ones. But I have a definite comfort zone I admit. I'm not really ever trying to emulate a "world" at all or its a very low priority, things like consistency, "basic" logic, etc fiction (IMO, good fiction) cares about those things too. PCs can and have died in my games (unless there has been an agreement that its a low/no death game). They fail, the antagonists win, etc. Sometime the climax goes against them or when it occurs is open to change. But I strive to avoid anti climax and meandering off into the inaction. For me, that's one of the failure states for a game. And its almost always my fault as the GM.

Again, I am not talking about simulation or avoiding stylized stuff. I incorporate stylized genre elements all the time. What I am talking about is the need to emulate literary structures. You can have genre, without the story structure without worrying about things that are inherent to that medium but harder in a game medium.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;936837Again, I am not talking about simulation or avoiding stylized stuff. I incorporate stylized genre elements all the time. What I am talking about is the need to emulate literary structures. You can have genre, without the story structure without worrying about things that are inherent to that medium but harder in a game medium.

I know you can approach genre without story structure; what I'm saying is I want elements of story structure because when too much of that structure the game starts to feel less like the genre its supposed to emulate, just the trappings. I even find some of those trapping hard to implement without some amount of story structure. You do have to lose some or at least have a light touch with applying structure to take into account the interactive nature of rpgs but I like to maintain some of it because it makes play more fun for me. Obviously others feel differently.

Quote from: Nexus;936838I know you can approach genre without story structure; what I'm saying is I want elements of story structure because when too much of that structure the game starts to feel less like the genre its supposed to emulate, just the trappings.

My Boot Hill character wants to own a ranch. There's the story structure, zero referee effort required.

Another character in the campaign wants to be the marshal of Promise City. There's the story structure, zero referee effort required.

Characters who have goals and pursue them are the story. The referee need only try to keep up.

Quote from: CRKrueger;936832The World in Motion requires context.  It requires a certain amount of length as well.  If incredible planning by the players leads to an "anticlimactic" Milk Run, then the lack of injuries, expended resources, greater wealth, whatever, will carry over into the next session, maybe the one after that, etc.  That type of GMing probably isn't best for a convention oneshot, say.

Then the climax was the planning and the execution:).

Quote from: Nexus;936834I loved my lit classes. Maybe that's the source of the disorder?

Unlikely, I liked lit classes as well, but I apply the lessons when setting up things;).
I think that the difference is in something else you said. You're "not really ever trying to emulate a "world" at all or its a very low priority", to use your own words.
Makes for a world of differences.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;936852My Boot Hill character wants to own a ranch. There's the story structure, zero referee effort required.

Another character in the campaign wants to be the marshal of Promise City. There's the story structure, zero referee effort required.

Characters who have goals and pursue them are the story. The referee need only try to keep up.

It was when I reached the same conclusion, with the help of Black Vulmea's blog, that I made it mandatory that characters should have goals written explicitly on the character sheet:D!

Quote from: Nexus;936834I loved my lit classes. Maybe that's the source of the disorder?

It's not the literature students seem to hate. It's the incessant "analysis" and litspeak that gives book nerds boners. On a basic, human level, we just like good storytelling. The rest is frills. Once you make someone study literature for anything other than the purposes of understanding and (perhaps) emulation, you take something away from the fun--for the average student, anyway. If you're a lit lover you could pick up the phone book and get something from it. Everyone else just wants to be entertained, and not confused.

Quote from: cranebump;936865It's not the literature students seem to hate. It's the incessant "analysis" and litspeak that gives book nerds boners. On a basic, human level, we just like good storytelling. The rest is frills. Once you make someone study literature for anything other than the purposes of understanding and (perhaps) emulation, you take something away from the fun--for the average student, anyway. If you're a lit lover you could pick up the phone book and get something from it. Everyone else just wants to be entertained, and not confused.

That was an attempt to poke some fun at myself.

Quote from: rgrove0172;936823I agree totally. Great advice aside I can't imagine ever making the hard change but perhaps introducing some of these elements here and there. My goals in gaming will always benefit from a stronger GM hand but I can see some benefit from the chaos as well.

Good luck, hopefully you'll find a level of controlled chaos that suits you.

Quote from: Nexus;936866That was an attempt to poke some fun at myself.

You're trying to poke yourself? :eek:  There must be some single women in your area...

A useful guideline I've found for unexpected situations is to follow a simple rule I heard regarding theater:

"Every character wants SOMETHING, and in every scene they are going to do what they can to manipulate events to get them what they want."

The butler may just want to get the master and his friends drunk quickly so they go home and he can get the hell to bed.  Not every character has to be trying to rule the universe.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936876You're trying to poke yourself? :eek:  There must be some single women in your area...

Its either that and sit on my hand some more. ... I guess I end up doing that either way tho'...