A Calm Converstation (hopefully) on GM Improv

Black Vulmea · January 01, 2017, 10:05:41 PM

Quote from: cranebump;938168Anything in your world can become a plot device, which you just noted in your own (fucking) example.

The point is, cb, since there is no plot beyond 'what the adventurers do' in the campaigns I run, if the glittering shards of glass become relevant, it's only because actual play action made them so, not my pre-ordained design.

For me, Chekhov's gun has no place in roleplaying games. That gun can sit there until the barrel rusts shut and the stock dry-rots away.

Gronan of Simmerya · January 01, 2017, 11:03:38 PM

Poor Chekhov. Kirk got his gun polished and fired in almost every episode.

Gronan of Simmerya · January 01, 2017, 11:04:19 PM

Well, I thought "role naying game" was funny even if none of the rest of ya bastids did.

cranebump · January 01, 2017, 11:41:00 PM

Quote from: Black Vulmea;938175The point is, cb, since there is no plot beyond 'what the adventurers do' in the campaigns I run, if the glittering shards of glass become relevant, it's only because actual play action made them so, not my pre-ordained design.

For me, Chekhov's gun has no place in roleplaying games. That gun can sit there until the barrel rusts shut and the stock dry-rots away.

Granted. But putting them there allows them a possible place in the narrative, be it in a significant way or insignificant way. I know there's a difference between plot detail and GM narration. The only reason I'm belaboring the point is to reinforce the notion that there's really no such thing as irrelevant detail, at least from a potential standpoint, so I think it's better to exercise care in such things, i.e. not over describe.

(And you can't fool me--I know the glass shards are a clue to where Acerak's tomb is located!):-)

Omega · January 02, 2017, 04:41:34 AM

Quote from: Black Vulmea;938175The point is, cb, since there is no plot beyond 'what the adventurers do' in the campaigns I run, if the glittering shards of glass become relevant, it's only because actual play action made them so, not my pre-ordained design.

For me, Chekhov's gun has no place in roleplaying games. That gun can sit there until the barrel rusts shut and the stock dry-rots away.

And a-lot of writers ignore Chekhov too. Sometimes the gun on the wall is there because there is a gun on the wall and the writer is describing the place and what the character sees.

cranebump · January 02, 2017, 11:59:12 AM

Quote from: Omega;938210And a-lot of writers ignore Chekhov too. Sometimes the gun on the wall is there because there is a gun on the wall and the writer is describing the place and what the character sees.

Can't really argue with that, though the presence of a gun does stand out in whatever environment it's in.

Nexus · January 02, 2017, 01:24:57 PM

Quote from: Omega;938210And a-lot of writers ignore Chekhov too. Sometimes the gun on the wall is there because there is a gun on the wall and the writer is describing the place and what the character sees.

Yeah, I too feel Chekov's Gun is one of the aspects of literary structure that's best ignored or used very deftly (perhaps through some Illusionism) in a rpg. Other wise it can seem like "important" objects have a halo around them or a symbol hovering over them like in some older computer games. For some that can tax verisimilitude in a distracting unpleasant manner.

Omega · January 02, 2017, 04:17:51 PM

Right. In a RPG if you describe something you are throwing open the door for the PCs to possibly decide to interact with it. Or they might treat it as sceenery. Very different from Chekhov where the gun is there because someone WILL use it.

Skarg · January 02, 2017, 04:25:46 PM

Unless the GM is a crazed narrativist *cough* control freak *cough* being driven by a "great" story he has in mind that hinges on the cleverness of an object introduced earlier becoming important later.

jeff37923 · January 02, 2017, 08:09:43 PM

Quote from: cranebump;938248Can't really argue with that, though the presence of a gun does stand out in whatever environment it's in.

Even in a store that sells guns?

Black Vulmea · January 02, 2017, 08:14:01 PM

Quote from: jeff37923;938317Even in a store that sells guns?

Or an armory?

cranebump · January 03, 2017, 04:26:18 PM

Quote from: jeff37923;938317Even in a store that sells guns?

Yup:-)

rawma · January 03, 2017, 10:37:14 PM

Description of irrelevant detail is essential for world building, not the generally short fiction that Chekhov wrote. And world building is more an RPG thing than tightly plotted fiction is, especially around here.

Black Vulmea · January 04, 2017, 04:04:26 AM

Quote from: rawma;938450Description of irrelevant detail is essential for world building . .

. . . the fuck?

Clearly your definition of either "irrelevant:" or "essential" is very different from mine, because what you wrote write there is monkey-screaming gibberish otherwise.

The only thing I find essential in setting a scene is, can the players see it in their heads? Sometimes that takes me adding details, sometimes it's me getting the fuck out of the way of their imaginations, but it's always the wisdom to know the difference.

AsenRG · January 04, 2017, 04:26:29 AM

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;938182Poor Chekhov. Kirk got his gun polished and fired in almost every episode.

Is that what they call it these days?

Quote from: Skarg;938288Unless the GM is a crazed narrativist *cough* control freak *cough* being driven by a "great" story he has in mind that hinges on the cleverness of an object introduced earlier becoming important later.

That's not a narrativist, having a predetermined story in mind is poison for Forge narrativism just as much as it is for normal sandbox games. What you're thinking about is the Dramatist from the GDS classification, which doesn't have a Narrativist at all.