Forked over from the other thread.

Quote from: Nexus;935815That seems like an uncharitable analogy. Who's the faker in this case?

Grove.  The player thought that his character had actually faced an existing set of challenges and had overcome them honestly through clever play.  His impression after that conversation with Grove was that no, scenes were placed in front of them not based solely on what they did, but by Grove deciding whether they were right or wrong, whether they succeeded or failed based on how he wanted the flow of the story to go.  Too easy so far...oops, they made the wrong decision.  Too rough...hmm, lets make their next choice the right one.  The player going apeshit seems like a player problem, but you have the rug yanked out from under you like that, you might be understandably upset.

I really think we can solve all of this with a single question...

Grove have you ever had a TPK, and if so, what brought it about?

Quote from: CRKrueger;935825Forked over from the other thread.
Grove.  The player thought that his character had actually faced an existing set of challenges and had overcome them honestly through clever play.  His impression after that conversation with Grove was that no, scenes were placed in front of them not based solely on what they did, but by Grove deciding whether they were right or wrong, whether they succeeded or failed based on how he wanted the flow of the story to go.  Too easy so far...oops, they made the wrong decision.  Too rough...hmm, lets make their next choice the right one.  The player going apeshit seems like a player problem, but you have the rug yanked out from under you like that, you might be understandably upset.
?

From Grove's description of the session, I really can't imagine myself being that upset by any revelation about it. I could imagine not wanting to play with him aa gm, of course. But it doesn't matter as much to me.

Quote from: Nexus;935829From Grove's description of the session, I really can't imagine myself being that upset by any revelation about it. I could imagine not wanting to play with him aa gm, of course. But it doesn't matter as much to me.

True, but it's pretty well established you're a player who is quite comfortable with OOC 3rd person narrative storytelling mechanics mixed in with your roleplay, so this kind of thing isn't likely to bother you, is it?

Quote from: CRKrueger;935831True, but it's pretty well established you're a player who is quite comfortable with OOC 3rd person narrative storytelling mechanics mixed in with your roleplay, so this kind of thing isn't likely to bother you, is it?

Too an extent, yeah. There's always going to be something

But as far I could tell the guy lost his religion over he fact Grove didn't have an actual map of the station and may have employed some pacing techniques and intutition when organizing the adventure. The guy wasn't wrong to strongly prefer another playstyle but going off about it was a little much. But I wasn't there maybe there's more to it. No harm no foul in any case.

I'm now convinced people take these things way too seriously, and that the problem has less to do with anything being discussed here and more to do with certain outcomes simply being inevitable regardless of player actions.

Quote from: AsenRG;935732Speak about yourself:)

On the contrary, in this case I speak for everyone, because every GM depends on what the players believe about their game and affects the assumptions players make during play. They are in every sense a magician.

Quote from: Nexus;935690People tend to be, IME, more dogmatic and extreme in internet discussions that in real life.

Quote from: Old One Eye;935693Totally agree.  Too much fidelity to ideology can ruin anything.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;935697Yeap, I also concur.

For irony sake I feel a strange compulsion to undermine this new ideology, but I'm more curious as to why it's true.

Quote from: Necrozius;935736I'm loving this "highway" metaphor. That's a great approach!

So every RPG is #NewJersey.

Quote from: Old One Eye;935751Last campaign I ran, the party decided to double cross an ancient copper dragon with whom they had secretly agreed to destroy an ancient artifact.  The party had support of all the other major good forces in the realm and were widely seen as the saviors of the world.  Completely took me by surprise they would go back on their word (had not done so all campaign) and the dragon was in a position such that confronting them would cripple its own alliances.  I was stumped for figuring out the Dragon's response.

But probably not as stumped as the dragon

Quote from: CRKrueger;935805See, that player thought his choices mattered. He thought that they played well, they didn't get randomly lost, they didn't fail to figure out how the transportation system worked or how to get places, he thought that his character, succeeded despite a chance of failure.

Quote from: CRKrueger;935825The player thought that his character had actually faced an existing set of challenges and had overcome them honestly through clever play.  His impression after that conversation with Grove was that no, scenes were placed in front of them not based solely on what they did, but by Grove deciding whether they were right or wrong, whether they succeeded or failed based on how he wanted the flow of the story to go.

I still find it downright fascinating how a good experience can be ruined by simply recontextualizing things like this after the fact. It's the tabletop equivalent of an #ExistentialCrisis.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;935854I still find it downright fascinating how a good experience can be ruined by simply recontextualizing things like this after the fact. It's the tabletop equivalent of an #ExistentialCrisis.

#HyperboleMuch

You never played a game against anyone, Chess against a friend, Basketball against your older brother or dad, whatever, where you finally won and thought it awesome, but then later on you found out they were handicapping themselves, and your victory wasn't really a victory?  

Granted the player isn't playing the game against the GM, but...the characters are potentially fighting for their lives.

When you do the same thing to the accomplishments of a character, by it getting out that you fudged so that the Ogre didn't actually kill anyone, or the Giant really didn't fail his saving throw, or they didn't actually figure out how to get the reactor online properly and the transport system working again, and they didn't miraculously find their way through the maze, because whichever you way you turned actually got you closer, because there was no maze to begin with...the GM just let you...you diminish their achievements.  What was a worthy success is now cheapened.

I admit it seems like the guy probably went off a bit too hard, but it's obvious that his expectations differed dramatically from the table.

Quote from: Xanther;935800I know, I'm really not hung up on "control"  Sure if they want me to lay out an adventure, I have 3-5 things they can do already to go, typically dungeons and there are always NPCs ready to supply them with a reason or purpose to go there.  If they want an adventure path I have a couple I've put together in the past from things I have.  

Four things I always stress, (1) there is no edge of the map, go anywhere you want; (2) just because a NPC says it doesn't mean it is true or that their lying if it is false.  NPCs operate on their own information with their own resources.  Dumb NPCs make dumb calls, and vice versa; (3) there is no plot protection, the world is not static, what you do can have consequences; and (4) nothing attacks to the death without a reason, almost anything can be parleyed with if you can make it feel it is worthwhile.  These seem to be novel concepts to some.

Same here, I've also found these to be things I must emphasize. I also tend to add things like 5) social orders have a way to maintain themselves and to reward you if you act within them. Just in case a player has spent too much time in MMORPGs, you know:).

Quote from: CRKrueger;935803First off, improv vs. changing is a completely different topic from handsoff vs. steering.

Secondly, there has been NO SHIFT in style.  People have hated Illusionist, Railroading, Storytelling GMs from the beginning of the hobby.  People have played with IRS GMs since the beginning of the hobby.  The only thing new is that you are now aware of other ways of doing things.

This right here, to a large degree is why these threads start to catch fire.  Let me be clear...

Many people who are opposed to what you call "Storyline" are not concerned with "winning".  They are concerned with Roleplaying a character in a setting that seems as much as we can make it, to be a living world, not a literary construct.

Part of your problem in understanding is that no matter how many times people tell you, you keep making false binary dichotomies.  You're differing from a lot of people on many different axes, and you're lumping them all together, which isn't helping the understanding of any one distinction.  It also doesn't help that you seem to need consensus, some form of vindication, so any support you see on a minor point is taken to be vindication on multiple points.

You're looking for specific help, there's the next post.

Also, thanks, Green One;)!

Quote from: CRKrueger;935805I've seen players come alive and engage in a way they never thought possible once they knew they weren't in a Story, but a World, and ALL their choices mattered.

I've seen players become afraid to choose once they find out I won't protect them from a bad choice, they actually have to succeed on their own.

What I've never had, is someone tell me they want to go back to playing in Stories.

I've had exactly one guy like that. He stated he "wants to be a Hero" and the game must guarantee this:D! (I told him which GM to go to, I know one like it).
I guess Rgrove's players have the same mindset? But if my experience is anything to go by, this kind of player isn't encountered all that often. Maybe it's a more common occurence on the random tables for his area?

Quote from: CRKrueger;935823*I think the Improv'ers, like you, take the fact that the players are happy to mean there's no need to do anything different.  Maybe so.  But, to be honest, if Asen or Jibba or any Zero-Prep Improv'er thinks that their campaign is going to have the depth, consistency, and World in Motion feel of lets say Lord Vreeg's campaign, they're simply deluding themselves.  An Improv'er is never going to match the consistency of a Prepper unless they record settings or have near Eidetic Recall.  Show me a successful campaign with a lifespan of years, I'll guarantee it's not a Zero-Prep Improv'er as the GM.

My last campaigns that have concluded* had a span of 1,5 years, 2 years and 3 years in real-life, respectively. Something like 2 to 3 years is pretty average, lately...though I should probably count them double, because when I'm running a campaign, 6 hours seems like the minimum for a session, and getting to double that isn't uncommon.

Of course, that's not exactly disproving your statement. You do realize that the "improv" part only lasts until I have established enough material for the area and connected areas that I no longer need to improvise (or no more often than you), right;)?

*I have two that have been put on the backburner so I could get to play. I don't count them, because we can't tell how long they'd run when I get back to running them, but I also don't count this time against their duration.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;935854On the contrary, in this case I speak for everyone, because every GM depends on what the players believe about their game and affects the assumptions players make during play. They are in every sense a magician.

That's such high-grade bullshit, I'm just not going to engage:D!

Quote from: AsenRG;935867Same here, I've also found these to be things I must emphasize. I also tend to add things like 5) social orders have a way to maintain themselves and to reward you if you act within them. Just in case a player has spent too much time in MMORPGs, you know:)....

I've never played in a MMORPG but have seen people play.  Maybe my experience in the ole' days when there always seemed to be a back stabbing murder hobo in the crowd.  Getting rid of alignments pretty much stopped that as the typical a**munch always used alignment as a cover to be a douchebag at the table.   Maybe I should have a point 5) along your lines, that there is no alignment, no inherently evil natural creatures and even most magical creatures unless they be demons and the like.  No color coded dragons, no humanoid is born evil, or no more or less evil than humans can be (which we all know is pretty damn evil).  Like you mention, social orders exist that tend to reward there friends and destroy their enemies, but rivalries do exist within social orders.

From what I read, Grove didn't eliminate any of the risk and danger from the scenario but more acted as an editor and trimmed the "fat" so to speak to get to the part he hoped would be interesting, the directly interactive sections including fight scenes, dangerous terrain and solving the premise problem without wandering empty rooms and corridors that might exist (He may have narrated that or skipped it all together) or ending things too fast in what could have been an anti climactic fashion. I've been in games that felt like that even though we succeeded in our goals. It was a let down.

What the players chose to do still mattered, there was still risk and they could have failed in their overall goals, if an encounter went horribly awry I guess they could have all been killed but he paired down from the occasional drudge and and drag of real life. Which seems fair to me since its a game but it didn't fit that player's goals for playing an rpg. I guess it comes down to how you view the GMs job more referee and rules arbiter or more MC.

Quote from: AsenRG;935778I assume you mean "board", not "bored", which is not a noun.
And in that case...duh, Sherlock, did you only realize now that I find a lot of people boring? Some of them are no doubt posters of this board, too - with you as a sterling example of both:D!
In short, if your players don't ever surprise you, they're boring players in my book.
(Or maybe you just suck as a GM, as other people have said - see above).

How ironic.

Quote from: rgrove0172;935782What I have asked for, and occasionally gotten, are reasons as to why one would prefer one style over the other... in order to analyze my own style and perhaps be swayed to make some adjustments if I too see advantages to alternate approaches. What I have gotten for the most part is a whole lot of "Your way sucks" and "My way is awesome." Not very helpful and counter productive actually as it presents the image of the 'other side' being comprised of a bunch of egos overly enthused with their perceived gaming prowess. This isn't actually the case, anymore than I am some railroading, self inflated, bore of a GM as some of accused, but it comes across that way in certain posts.

That's interesting. Because a casual glance at your posts in historical context seem to show a *lot* of posters - myself among them, saying *repeatedly* that your style of GMing has its place but overall it's just a tool to be used. Your responses however have been increasingly demanding of why only your storytime methods aren't more widely accepted? And you know, when you keep asking the same question fifty-different ways it leads to:

1) People thinking you're a troll
2) People thinking you aren't really as interested in what other's have to say as much as you seem to want approval
3) People thinking you're disingenuous about your position (which feeds #1)
4) People thinking you aren't actually listening to what's being said vs. what you feel based on what you're reading.

Quote from: rgrove0172;935782I will admit readily that for I, and my players over the years, the importance of story over tactical or academic challenge is paramount. Many decisions, both by myself as the GM and the players are made in the best interest of the storyline rather than a notion of trying to "win" anything. Ive watched characters essentially sacrificed by their players as it was 'a good time and way to die" and made for a hell of a 'tell' later on. Ive contrived scenes and manipulated circumstances to elevate the drama or artificially present situations which maximize theatrical effect, never to the detriment of the players of course, most often completely in their favor and always towards the objective of fun.

Right. This is my point (and I'm happy you're acknowledging it) - you and your players are used to playing a certain way. And if they're having fun, that's great. But my (and others) larger point is that you *may* have occluded yourself from these other methods that you seem equally dismissive of that many others here have pointed out to you, because you've been so insulated with your longtime crew of players.

You've developed a style that overly relies on doing things a certain way that many of us find unsatisfactory for the things we do. That is all. It's not a big deal. It's not a condemnation of you as a human being. If you don't change your players, you probably have nothing to worry about.

But in the interests of intellectual honesty, you seem to be cognitively dissonant of our position. Many of us have been GMing as long, or longer than you. Many of us have been GMing *far* more people than you have (from what you've told us). And not-so-oddly, we've independently arrived at a similar understanding that you *don't* seem to understand. And you illustrate that quite nicely above. You've been on a nicely insulated island where you never had to develop these skills that we have. You *say* you keep asking these questions because you want to "know". We've told you. Repeatedly. And just like you pointed:

Quote from: rgrove0172;935782Granted, I can log off and go play anyway I like but I am interested in the industry at large and am curious as to how and why these shifts in style have come about.

But you're ignoring the obvious corollary of that statement: You *COULD* equally go out and try GMing differently and actually experience the difference. I'm not telling you to. No one is. But it's an obvious litmus test for *you* to put your own ideas independently to the test.

Instead you're acting like we don't know what we're talking about, when everyone commenting on your threads has, in one way or another, acknowledged their thoughts about your method. And that's because we've actually done it. Meanwhile... you seem to be creating these threads over and over without having tried things any differently - rather you seem to be trying to win our approval of your views.

I don't think that's going to happen. Quite the opposite in fact.

Quote from: rgrove0172;935782I promise I am not trying to stur up controversy, and I am certainly not some fucking troll.

Cool. I find nothing controversial about this except your dissonant exclusion of the obvious: 1) Most of us have been saying play as you like if it works for you. 2) You can't convince us your storytime-method of GMing is considered by many of us "best practices" just because you *feel* it works well with your group.

Quote from: CRKrueger;935823*I think the Improv'ers, like you, take the fact that the players are happy to mean there's no need to do anything different.  Maybe so.  But, to be honest, if Asen or Jibba or any Zero-Prep Improv'er thinks that their campaign is going to have the depth, consistency, and World in Motion feel of lets say Lord Vreeg's campaign, they're simply deluding themselves.  An Improv'er is never going to match the consistency of a Prepper unless they record settings or have near Eidetic Recall.  Show me a successful campaign with a lifespan of years, I'll guarantee it's not a Zero-Prep Improv'er as the GM.

I am (for the most part) an improv GM and I keep records of my sessions, and develop much of the world between sessions. That takes care of consistency and World In Motion.

Nevertheless, when it comes to depth, I am convinced that there's no substitute for loving and generous prep.

Quote from: The Butcher;935921I am (for the most part) an improv GM and I keep records of my sessions, and develop much of the world between sessions. That takes care of consistency and World In Motion.

Nevertheless, when it comes to depth, I am convinced that there's no substitute for loving and generous prep.

Every GM Improvs to some extent, even if all they are doing is Roleplaying NPCs, during conversation there's always stuff players may say or ask that is going to require thinking on one's feet and making up shit that wasn't defined before.

Improv isn't Zero-Prep.  Zero Prep is 100% Improv, like there's literally nothing but five-ten minutes maybe of brainstorming before we start.  Think getting pegged to do a convention session cold without any advance knowledge.  That's the kind of stuff Jibba, Asen and others claim they do all the time, every time.  But Asen says, like you he records things and works on stuff between sessions, so even if he starts cold, he moves towards a more traditional mix.

Quote from: tenbones;935911That's interesting. Because a casual glance at your posts in historical context seem to show a *lot* of posters - myself among them, saying *repeatedly* that your style of GMing has its place but overall it's just a tool to be used. Your responses however have been increasingly demanding of why only your storytime methods aren't more widely accepted? And you know, when you keep asking the same question fifty-different ways it leads to:

1) People thinking you're a troll
2) People thinking you aren't really as interested in what other's have to say as much as you seem to want approval
3) People thinking you're disingenuous about your position (which feeds #1)
4) People thinking you aren't actually listening to what's being said vs. what you feel based on what you're reading.



Right. This is my point (and I'm happy you're acknowledging it) - you and your players are used to playing a certain way. And if they're having fun, that's great. But my (and others) larger point is that you *may* have occluded yourself from these other methods that you seem equally dismissive of that many others here have pointed out to you, because you've been so insulated with your longtime crew of players.

You've developed a style that overly relies on doing things a certain way that many of us find unsatisfactory for the things we do. That is all. It's not a big deal. It's not a condemnation of you as a human being. If you don't change your players, you probably have nothing to worry about.

But in the interests of intellectual honesty, you seem to be cognitively dissonant of our position. Many of us have been GMing as long, or longer than you. Many of us have been GMing *far* more people than you have (from what you've told us). And not-so-oddly, we've independently arrived at a similar understanding that you *don't* seem to understand. And you illustrate that quite nicely above. You've been on a nicely insulated island where you never had to develop these skills that we have. You *say* you keep asking these questions because you want to "know". We've told you. Repeatedly. And just like you pointed:



But you're ignoring the obvious corollary of that statement: You *COULD* equally go out and try GMing differently and actually experience the difference. I'm not telling you to. No one is. But it's an obvious litmus test for *you* to put your own ideas independently to the test.

Instead you're acting like we don't know what we're talking about, when everyone commenting on your threads has, in one way or another, acknowledged their thoughts about your method. And that's because we've actually done it. Meanwhile... you seem to be creating these threads over and over without having tried things any differently - rather you seem to be trying to win our approval of your views.

I don't think that's going to happen. Quite the opposite in fact.



Cool. I find nothing controversial about this except your dissonant exclusion of the obvious: 1) Most of us have been saying play as you like if it works for you. 2) You can't convince us your storytime-method of GMing is considered by many of us "best practices" just because you *feel* it works well with your group.

I'm at lunch and don't have time for a long reply but if you read through you will find I have admitted to have used the various other techniques described here, with varying levels of success...so I'm not discounting anything other than the perception they are better. Different, yes, better , no. When you say that my  small groups and long term players shielded me from developing your skills it's very condescending. Perhaps we didn't feel the need to evolve because the alternatives seemed inferior in our opinions, you know? Not out of reach because of some lacking on our part.

Quote from: CRKrueger;935923Improv isn't Zero-Prep.  Zero Prep is 100% Improv, like there's literally nothing but five-ten minutes maybe of brainstorming before we start.  Think getting pegged to do a convention session cold without any advance knowledge.  That's the kind of stuff Jibba, Asen and others claim they do all the time, every time.  But Asen says, like you he records things and works on stuff between sessions, so even if he starts cold, he moves towards a more traditional mix.

Yup! I have *tons* of campaign notes and ideas that because of PC decision-making in-game never got used. Sometimes those ideas are recyclable, sometimes they're not. Depends on the context of the idea. Sometimes it might be an interesting NPC, a setpiece, or a whole set of open-ended plot-points revolving around a MacGuffin.

Improv happens in-game within the moment of play where anything can happen based on those PC decisions. My notes aren't sacrosanct, they're just possible points of interest that are contextual to the actions, timing and events going on in the game, as opposed to some GM fiat or discussion with the players about "what we're gonna do" beyond the initial campaign discussion.