TheRPGSite

I 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.

OK, I'm going to lay out what I believe what a railroad versus improvisational GM'ing.  And the key element is choice.

A railroad adventure you have no choice, it will happen no matter what the input of the players.  There's also usually pre-made NPCs that will do the heavy lifting.


In an improv style, it's nothing but choice.  Some times, yes, the Wizard's Tower is there, no matter what the players choose, BUT the players will be affecting change, and even then, if the players don't want to go into the tower, then the tower sits there, probably forlornly, but the choice to go in or not, was made.

The element of choice is what makes the difference.

To me.

YMMV.

sigh... again?

We allready touched on this two or three threads now? Sometimes this borders on trolling.

It doesn't matter, if the group is enjoying itself.

Quote from: rgrove0172;934923Why 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?

I'm not sure "OK" is the right term, and I think it's all subjective such that there's no "correct" answer. It's mostly about how the GM perceives what is fair game or not in his game world. In my own games, if I had already placed the tower, then I would almost always consider its location fixed and part of the game world reality, so I normally wouldn't move it. I wouldn't say that a GM who decides to move it is "wrong," but in my game the tower's position and location is part of the game, and part of "let the game play out as it will" just like "let the dice fall as they may." The players would need to discover it (or not) based on the game world reality that I've already decided on.

I'd also feel completely free to improvise an encounter I had not previously placed/fixed in the game world's reality. I also sometimes create such encounters or small sites in advance, specifically for such circumstances. In my mind, those aren't "fixed" in the same way. They're not game world reality (yet), just potential.

Hope that makes sense. And just to re-emphasize: I'm not saying the way I do it is the "correct" way, it's just the way I do it.

Quote from: rgrove0172;934923We'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 think for a lot of groups, it is important. Note that your group can't "unsee" the issue now.

So, I think a few posters have got good replies, but I'll chuck my two cents in as well.

The reason I think GMs and players think it's important is that part of an RPG is player decisions affecting outcomes. If an outcome is predetermined "You will encounter the Wizard's Tower no matter where you go." then player decisions are irrelevant. The players don't even have to be there. Replace them with monkeys or wind up toys.
But if the players don't realize that their decisions are irrelevant, then you have the illusion of choice. Or, on the other hand, it's just that making a choice in some situations is not important. This often happens when the players buy into a scenario setup in the first place. "Go find the Wizard's Tower."

The simple solution to the Wizard's Tower example is to tell the players that the Wizard's Tower exists. If you want them to find it, then tell them where it is. Easy. Give them a map or a guard tells them. Whatever.
If the tower is a random encounter type thing, then plop it down in front of them, just as you'd do with any random encounter.

The setup "Go find the Wizard's Tower, there are three roads to follow." and then putting the Tower in the middle of whatever road the party chooses is disingenuous. That's where the players are given a decision point, and the decision is irrelevant. If I could sum up the problem, I'd put it that way. "Don't give players irrelevant decisions to make."

Good stuff guys, and I appreciate the thoughtful tone. It's a fine line it seems, heavily swayed by the group expectations and the way the information is presented.

In my game I don't want to do it because I don't like it and it makes my own world feel like it doesn't have "verisimilitude;" I'm breaking my own suspension of disbelief.

I really don't care what others do in their games unless they tell me I'm doing it wrong, in which case you all know the lyrics.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;934954The reason I think GMs and players think it's important is that part of an RPG is player decisions affecting outcomes..."Don't give players irrelevant decisions to make."

That's definitely a major factor in the way I run things. The players don't always know what's behind the curtain, but I think that presenting them with decisions that matter  makes the game world seem more real to them. It gives them a sense of agency. In my games, I think they mostly sense this through decisions that don't work out. For example, if the Wizard's tower is in one of three mountain vales, and they spend time and resources searching the wrong one before exploring the correct/true location, they have a sense that the game world is a real thing with fixed properties. It's solid, and they can interact with it in a meaningful way that isn't mere smoke and mirrors. I guess it's possible that a talented improvisational GM could do without the fixed reality of the game world and still maintain the illusion, but I personally find it easier to supply that "game reality" by have some elements of the game world fixed and static.

FUCK THE CALM!!  TIME TO MOSH BITCHES!!

The Living Campaign adventures are almost always the choo choo train. And they are extremely popular between the RPGA, Adventurers' League and Pathfinder Society and a smattering of other games who have Living Campaigns happening at home or FLGS for their games.

So while its easy to drop a dookie on the Railroaders, let's acknowledge that for many RPGers, its their absolutely preferred method of play. In fact, it may be the only style of play they ever encountered.

I may have said all this before in previous thread.

For me, I am looking for maximum awesome in my games. So when I have a 4 hour slot at a convention or FLGS game day, I do what it takes to make sure the adventure energy is rocking. I have to get a beginning, middle and end into those 4 hours and I've spent decades getting good at hiding the train tracks.

But at home, the awesome is the PCs wandering about discovering all the stuff I created.

Also, I don't make hexcrawls full of boring shit. In my campaigns, pick any direction and you will find trouble that will be fun for me to GM. For me, great fun is seeing which trouble the PCs decide to investigate and watching how that ripples through the setting.

BTW, I also cheat. I don't make worlds doing okay. I only run worlds on the brink, even if the "world" for that campaign is just a city, a nation, an island, whatever.  Wherever the locale, its not some hunky dorky place full of meh.

Wanna skip the Wizard's Tower and wander up the road to the Olde Inn? Great! The Olde Inn is being devoured by Ankheg's tonight, but the bandits attacking the place at midnight don't know that yet.

If the players have no knowledge of the Tower one way or the other, and thus no plan whether to find it or ignore it, and you decide to move it from South Road to North Road because you think they'd enjoy it more - then that's really no different then just deciding out of the blue that there is a Tower on the North Road.  It's Fiat.  You decide they see a Tower on the North Road.  But, it's Fiat that does not nullify player action or choice for the sake of your narrative.  Whether the Tower was created 2 minutes in advance or 2 months in advance, it's still just in your bag of tricks, ready to be used until you actually use it.

If the players have heard there is a Tower, but want to avoid it, and correctly choose the North path, but they reach it anyway, then you're imposing your will and using your powers as GM to override their choice for your own reasons, even if you think it's for their own good.

Personally, I tend to think the Tower's not going anywhere, leave it on the South Road and they'll get it later.  Or if I really think they will like it, and want to engineer something, I will engineer them finding out about it, so at least it's now a choice they can make, but if they don't choose it, they don't.

Any GM is going to have "What If" and "Man they're going to love this" scenarios in their head that never get realized.  It's just one missed opportunity, but it probably was replaced by one that may have even been better.  Even if it wasn't better, it was their choice, so it was theirs in the way that an engineered option would not be.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;934968In my game I don't want to do it because I don't like it and it makes my own world feel like it doesn't have "verisimilitude;" I'm breaking my own suspension of disbelief.

I really don't care what others do in their games unless they tell me I'm doing it wrong, in which case you all know the lyrics.

The bolded half is the same. :D

The unbolded half is the opposite for me and my players. They understand I like to run PDF/print adventures, and they like the stories in the ones I choose, so they willfully, gleefully embrace the adventure. Sometimes, part of the adventure is convincing one character (character, not player) that they should actually join the rest, but that's actually a non-annoying in-character thing for this group. For us, the suspension of disbelief and verisimilitude (good word, difficult to spell before coffee) come from the characters and how they interact, not from the choice to or of adventure. (Not 100% sure how to word the last, but I think it communicates my thoughts.) :cool:

Or, to sum up what three of my players said after I discussed alternate game systems, "we don't really care ... as long as it doesn't get in the way of us role playing", the latter of which for them is being able to have fun with things like accurately playing their characters (needing to be convinced to participate) or, in character, slightly gonzo things, like cannonballing into the bathtub full of water, in the keep abandoned for decades, that happens to contain a water elemental, and live to tell about it.

My last D&D campaign went very well because I ended each session with a full discussion about what the PCs/Players wanted to do next. What was their next move? Where did they want to explore?

Once a unanimous decision had been made, the understand at the table was that I would prepare the next session based on the players' intentions.

Other than that, I typically just used random tables when I had to make something up on the spot or fed off the players' expectations and imaginations. Sometimes it is hard to dodge a few curve balls (I'm looking at you, Flight spell guy or the dude who routinely murdered key NPCs out of nowhere).

I think it is about the reasons why you put it there (basically unrelated to the time you put it there, but "on-the-fly" is too often too convenient a way to push things in a certain direction to keep your (storytelling smeared) fingers off) and how that fits to the actually or implicitly agreed on gaming style.

Quote from: Omega;934946Sometimes this borders on trolling.

"Borders on trolling?" Dude, the border is thirty miles behind this post and receding fast.

Quote from: Necrozius;935014My last D&D campaign went very well because I ended each session with a full discussion about what the PCs/Players wanted to do next. What was their next move? Where did they want to explore?

Same here, especially considering how many options are on the table in the latest campaign. Of course, they SAY they want to go check out the tower in the swamp, but then, in session, there they are, having brunch with a local cloth merchant and discussing ancient curses with a Mage's guild member.:-)

QuoteWhy 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?

Per your own disclaimers, this isn't a thread about whether that's ok or not, so to answer for myself:

It is fine if your game setting is so far so undefined in the details you invent that inventing a tower really has no effect on what's been established in play yet. If the location of a pre-planned tower has really had no effect at all, and the new location also really has no effect, it's also ok to move it.

However, when I GM a long-term campaign, I tend to have most major landmarks already mapped long ago, and I've been thinking about and developing the world with the map very much in mind, and influencing what exists and who did/does what and where things are and aren't and so on, for a long time. So if it's a significant wizard's tower which would have effects (not just some hedge wizard's house), then it will have already had various effects on my thinking about the world and map and events and stuff, so it would probably be pretty weird to move it.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;934971That's definitely a major factor in the way I run things. The players don't always know what's behind the curtain, but I think that presenting them with decisions that matter  makes the game world seem more real to them. It gives them a sense of agency. In my games, I think they mostly sense this through decisions that don't work out.

I agree. You can see it when a character dies. It sucks to lose a character, but it also reinforces that the choices are relevant.
Failure must be an option, even if it's little failures all the way up to world destroying failures. Commensurate with stakes, of course.

Another thing to consider...we are talking about a Wizard's Tower.  Sheelba's Hut appears where and when Sheelba wants it to.

If you want the freedom to have players run into the Red Mask Bandits whenever you feel like it, make the Red Mask Bandits a large enough organization that they could cover all the entrances/exits of a city.
If you want the freedom to move the Wizard's Tower, make the Wizard's Tower actually movable.

Give your cheating narrative fuckery a legitimate in-setting explanation, then it ceases to be cheating narrative fuckery. ;)

Yes but I expressly stated this comparison is to 0 prep gms, who don't approach their game the way you describe.

Oops replying to Skarg above.

1. I never discuss where something was planned or improvised.
2. I act (outside of GMing) like a passive observer when asked questions about the adventure. Like "I know right? That Ankeg was horrible!".
3. My players will never know they are on a railroad or an improv, except that I explicitly state that my world reacts to the character's choices. I could be lying. But I don't admit it. (I'm not lying).
4. I improv all plots, random encounters, locales, NPCs and the like. My prep consists of reading, creating snippets that I can draw from when needed, and outlining outcomes from the world as I imagine it spins outside the character's perceptions.
5. I can invent things whole-cloth at a moments notice. I learned this from practicing.

Personally, when I'm playing, I hate railroads. I loathe pre-made adventures. I find them boring and predictable. I hate it when NPCs take the cake. I hate it when the GM inserts give-me's to lessen the effects of any hardships or bad choices I made.

Therefore, I do not run my games that way. I'm perfectly happy when someone doesn't dig my game. Just like when I worked at Red Robin, I didn't get miffed at someone who preferred Skippers for Fish & Chips.

I pick up adventures to STEAL from. I add the snippets to my repository for handy on-the-fly needs.

I am firmly in the Improv camp and think railroaders suck. I would never think of forcing anyone to play a way they don't want to, but If I had to "pick a team" I would want to be the captain of the Improvers. :D

Basically it depends on if your world runs on an attempt to model physics or an attempt to model narrative logic. If you want to run a game that runs on narrative logic use some game like FATE or a hundred other games in that vein in which the narrative logic is built into the rules. Having rules that aren't really built for narrative logic and then trying ti run a game that us based on dramatic logic by shoehorning it in with a bunch of DM fiat just seems like a miss-match to me.

If I was running D&D then I wouldn't lift a hand to make sure that the PCs faced the vampire at night. If I was running FATE I'd be tagging aspects left and right to make sure there was a climactic confrontation ar night.

As a genera rule if you find yourself tweaking stuff and overruling the rules a lot then you're probably using the wrong rules.

Quote from: rgrove0172;934923Now, 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 my style of DMing, the problem largely lies on the DM making in-game decisions on the basis of "fun", regardless of whether improv or preplanning.  

I do lots of improv DMing, and I may very well create a wizard's tower on the fly.  But it is never because I am trying to bring the "fun".  Improv works for me by placing a wizard's tower in that location because it makes sense in the milieu for one to be there.  A player in my game could be thinking to themselves that it flows from what they have discovered about how the milieu works.

We're I to try to be "fun", then logical extrapolations could not be used by my players in their in-game decisions to as great an extent.  Because they would have come across plenty of things that didn't really make sense, those things were there simply to be "fun".

Biggest mistake in DMing, I say, is to think that the DM's role is to make the players have a "fun" time.  No.  The DM's role is to set up a milieu where the players themselves can create the "fun".  Somewhat subtle of a distinction, but crucial distinctions often are.

I think your point is made but, and no offense meant, how is it relative to my question? The difference between 0 prep and railroading us you like one and not the other?

Well said. That last observation and declaration is profound.

Quote from: Old One Eye;935116To my style of DMing, the problem largely lies on the DM making in-game decisions on the basis of "fun", regardless of whether improv or preplanning.  

I do lots of improv DMing, and I may very well create a wizard's tower on the fly.  But it is never because I am trying to bring the "fun".  Improv works for me by placing a wizard's tower in that location because it makes sense in the milieu for one to be there.  A player in my game could be thinking to themselves that it flows from what they have discovered about how the milieu works.

We're I to try to be "fun", then logical extrapolations could not be used by my players in their in-game decisions to as great an extent.  Because they would have come across plenty of things that didn't really make sense, those things were there simply to be "fun".

Biggest mistake in DMing, I say, is to think that the DM's role is to make the players have a "fun" time.  No.  The DM's role is to set up a milieu where the players themselves can create the "fun".  Somewhat subtle of a distinction, but crucial distinctions often are.

Subtle? The line is invisible. I mean, if you're providing them the vehicle for fun, you're sort of, you know, bringing the fun in there a little bit. I mean 6 of one...

Quote from: cranebump;935120Subtle? The line is invisible. I mean, if you're providing them the vehicle for fun, you're sort of, you know, bringing the fun in there a little bit. I mean 6 of one...

You do not see a distinction between a DM thinking, "Hmmm...players went north...I think a wizard tower would be fun."

And

"Hmmm...players went north...what makes sense to be there...I have already established that wizard's are outcasts who do not live in town in this milieu...road north goes toward barren wilderness...makes sense a wizard would have built a tower in the general area."

Now repeat that process for every single decision the DM makes over the course of a campaign.  

The former rewards players for guessing from the basis of "what does my DM find fun".

The latter rewards players for guessing from the basis of "what do I know about the milieu".

In the singular instance, I agree to there being virtually no distinction.  Over the course of a campaign is where fruits are born.  (I only run open-ended campaigns, never one shots or closed-ended.)

Quote from: rgrove0172;935117I think your point is made but, and no offense meant, how is it relative to my question? The difference between 0 prep and railroading us you like one and not the other?

An improv DM who makes a decision in their milieu because it would be "fun" leads to a very similar place to a heavily prepped railroading DM who moves the tower because it would be "fun".

Quote from: rgrove0172;934923Why 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 think that approach is perfectly fine - and indeed how I expect many sandbox/improv GMs would run their games. Until the "adventure site" is in play, it doesnt exist.

Quote from: Necrozius;935014My last D&D campaign went very well because I ended each session with a full discussion about what the PCs/Players wanted to do next. What was their next move? Where did they want to explore?

Once a unanimous decision had been made, the understand at the table was that I would prepare the next session based on the players' intentions.

Other than that, I typically just used random tables when I had to make something up on the spot or fed off the players' expectations and imaginations. Sometimes it is hard to dodge a few curve balls (I'm looking at you, Flight spell guy or the dude who routinely murdered key NPCs out of nowhere).

I think this is a really great and pragmatic approach, that should keep everyone happy

Quote from: CRKrueger;935051Give your cheating narrative fuckery a legitimate in-setting explanation, then it ceases to be cheating narrative fuckery. ;)

This. This. This.

Quote from: trechriron;935108I hate it when NPCs take the cake.

Maybe the NPCs really like cake?

Quote from: Old One Eye;935122You do not see a distinction between a DM thinking, "Hmmm...players went north...I think a wizard tower would be fun."

And

"Hmmm...players went north...what makes sense to be there...I have already established that wizard's are outcasts who do not live in town in this milieu...road north goes toward barren wilderness...makes sense a wizard would have built a tower in the general area."

Now repeat that process for every single decision the DM makes over the course of a campaign.  And since you populate the map, what you think is fun is going to play a large part in the campaign.

The former rewards players for guessing from the basis of "what does my DM find fun".

The latter rewards players for guessing from the basis of "what do I know about the milieu".

In the singular instance, I agree to there being virtually no distinction.  Over the course of a campaign is where fruits are born.  (I only run open-ended campaigns, never one shots or closed-ended.)

Either way, there's a fucking wizard tower there, and, as a player in your campaign, I'd would likely not give a shit how it got there. It's there. I'll either investigate, or I won't.

It's a fucking intellectual exercise. If the tower is to the north, it's to the north. If the players know its to the north and decide to go east and then you plonk the wizard's tower there instead for your precious 'story', then you're a dick and your players will know it. If they don't know the tower was originally meant to be to the north and they travel east and still encounter the tower for your precious story, you're a dick and your players won't know it. If your players agreed with you beforehand that they'd like to explore the wizard's tower, it makes no fucking difference where it is and no-one is a dick and everyone knows it.

Yeah I don't see it as a complicated issue. Basically, if it becomes obvious that the GM is "forcing" the players to make a specific decision, or to end up at a particular location or conflict no matter how much they try otherwise, it's shitty railroading.

If the players are at a metaphorical train station and pick the AWESOME TRAIN GOING TO AWESOME TOWN of their own free will and volition, then the rails don't really matter.

Complicating the picture is that even in a sandbox players can voluntarily subject themselves to situations that differ little from the classic railroad. For example joining the military and placing themselves under a higher authority.

Quote from: estar;935160Complicating the picture is that even in a sandbox players can voluntarily subject themselves to situations that differ little from the classic railroad. For example joining the military and placing themselves under a higher authority.

That's a good point, but "voluntary" is the key word. The players chose to enlist. If the DM forced them to, despite efforts to avoid such a fate, well...

But, for the setting to be consistent, sometimes the PCs may not have choice, and the player's won't have chosen that path, but it's important that comes from the setting, not randomly.  If the player's get captured by ninjas, at some point their choices should have placed them in a place where they could be captured by ninjas, not just randomly as they rounded a corner.

Setting consistency is everything.  Without that, what does player choice even mean or get you?

Quote from: CRKrueger;935175But, for the setting to be consistent, sometimes the PCs may not have choice, and the player's won't have chosen that path, but it's important that comes from the setting, not randomly.  If the player's get captured by ninjas, at some point their choices should have placed them in a place where they could be captured by ninjas, not just randomly as they rounded a corner.

Setting consistency is everything.  Without that, what does player choice even mean or get you?

Also good points.

But there's a logical consistency to that (eg.: evil army captures the PCs and forces them to do missions for them). There's an in-setting and situational reason for this to happen. As a player, I'd respect that unless those rails suck and are boring.

edit: "suck and boring" as in breaks the campaign's established expectations of theme and tone. That can be OK, but sometimes it's been lame, in my experience.

Quote from: Necrozius;935159Yeah I don't see it as a complicated issue. Basically, if it becomes obvious that the GM is "forcing" the players to make a specific decision, or to end up at a particular location or conflict no matter how much they try otherwise, it's shitty railroading.

If the players are at a metaphorical train station and pick the AWESOME TRAIN GOING TO AWESOME TOWN of their own free will and volition, then the rails don't really matter.

I think the distinction between a linear adventure and a railroad is important to make here.
A railroad is where the characters decisions are irrelevant. "Forcing" as you say. There is no good railroad. There is no good reason to railroad.
A linear adventure, on the other hand, can be just fine. I think this is what you meant by the metaphorical awesome train.

Quote from: One Horse Town;935150It's a fucking intellectual exercise. If the tower is to the north, it's to the north. If the players know its to the north and decide to go east and then you plonk the wizard's tower there instead for your precious 'story', then you're a dick and your players will know it. If they don't know the tower was originally meant to be to the north and they travel east and still encounter the tower for your precious story, you're a dick and your players won't know it. If your players agreed with you beforehand that they'd like to explore the wizard's tower, it makes no fucking difference where it is and no-one is a dick and everyone knows it.

So by your assessment if they players go north and I arbitrarily plop down a tower I avoid dickness but if I instead take a tower from the world elsewhere and move it there (them not knowing of it) I will embrace dickness even though the experience would be exactly the same for the players?

Quote from: Necrozius;935159Yeah I don't see it as a complicated issue. Basically, if it becomes obvious that the GM is "forcing" the players to make a specific decision, or to end up at a particular location or conflict no matter how much they try otherwise, it's shitty railroading.

If the players are at a metaphorical train station and pick the AWESOME TRAIN GOING TO AWESOME TOWN of their own free will and volition, then the rails don't really matter.

The key point in your post to me is the phrase " no matter how much they try otherwise". Obviously if the players announced they were avoiding towers at all costs and asked around specifically to avoid encountering any in the area, only a really shitty GM would force them to find one anyway. That has never been the issue. It lies however with the situation in which the players are not aware or particularly concerned and wander into whatever the GM provides... and in the interest of minimizing prep time, wasted game time doing nothing etc. he moves, alters, arranges the circumstances to expedite the adventure.

As others are saying in various ways - it's about internal consistency. You can do Zero-Prep with ease, if you as a GM know what your world is about, what the NPC's that inhabit it are all about, and why it all works the way it does. When you start changing the consistency of those dynamics to suit your desires despite whatever the PC's do, well you're now creating a railroad (and as I've said in all your other threads - if that's what your players LIKE - who cares what we think? Play on.)

You don't have to tell the players what/why/when you're doing things - their characters should, imo, discover all that in game. But the onus of creating that consistency is on you as the GM - by whatever means it takes you to get there, be it railroad, improvisation, PC exploration or RP or a big glorious mix of all of the above.

I generally find it a bad move to create some kind of orthodoxy of thought when it comes to using a toolset. But I also stipulate that if you really wanna use a claw-hammer to put in a screw... then have at it. heh

Edit: With this seeming concern you show over whether "railroading" is legit or not vs. improvisation within/without a sandbox - and often these idea get very muddled for you (at least it seems that way by dint of your response), I find a lot of your questions seem to revolve around the idea of how much "prep" is too much prep and hairsplitting. Have you ever tried setting up your campaigns a different way than what you normally do?

I think a nice method for you, if you haven't looked might be the Plotpoint Campaign idea from Savage Worlds. It might let you let go of some of your preconceptions and let you answer your own questions without even trying.

Quote from: CRKrueger;935175But, for the setting to be consistent, sometimes the PCs may not have choice, and the player's won't have chosen that path, but it's important that comes from the setting, not randomly.  If the player's get captured by ninjas, at some point their choices should have placed them in a place where they could be captured by ninjas, not just randomly as they rounded a corner.

Setting consistency is everything.  Without that, what does player choice even mean or get you?

Some of you are forgetting the original question. Player choice is very important of course...but what difference does it make if that choice presents a brand new, conjured up on the fly, situation or one the GM planned for later and maybe elsewhere but moves it?

Lets say the players just reached a small village. The Improv GM has no plans for it at all. He decided as the players travelled it looked like a good place for a settlement due to a river and some nice looking farmland. He starts describing the place - probably rolling randomly for various features I would guess, mixing in what he finds to be logical given his understanding of the area, culture etc. Ok, that's fine.

The players are looking for an inn. He rolls a couple dice and describes a building, presents an innkeeper NPC in a fun way, basing their personality on a character he recalls from a recent TV show. The players stay the night and nurse some wounds. Good stuff.

Another success for the Improv GM.

Another GM whips up a village and an Inn weeks before the game. He places it on the map - here- near a forest road. He expects the players will head that way and generates some businesses and NPCs for the place. They however decide to head another direction, towards a river. Not having anything planned that way, but seeing no harm in it as the players are relatively ignorant about the region, picks up the village, its inn and keeper, and plops it down next to the river with a few tweaks, turning it into a farming village instead of woodcutting.

He is a dirty railroader?

Wouldn't be guilty of no more than economy of prep work?

That's my main question here. Nobody is going to argue (Well maybe someone, but not me) that moving something around in front of the players, no matter how hard they try to avoid it, if fair or desirable. But if confronted with a Y in the road, and with no knowledge whatsoever of what lies down either path, how is it wrong to let the players choose then provide an adventure down the one they travel - regardless?

Quote from: rgrove0172;935212Some of you are forgetting the original question. Player choice is very important of course...but what difference does it make if that choice presents a brand new, conjured up on the fly, situation or one the GM planned for later and maybe elsewhere but moves it?

Consistency. If it's consistent - then it doesn't effectively matter (and to us as outsiders - nor should it). The implications of your question are that some part of you doesn't really care that player choice matters. Or at least you place less importance on their choices for their PCs than your own choices for their PC's. That small difference extrapolates to a whole lot of issues downstream in my experience.

Quote from: rgrove0172;935213Lets say the players just reached a small village. The Improv GM has no plans for it at all. He decided as the players travelled it looked like a good place for a settlement due to a river and some nice looking farmland. He starts describing the place - probably rolling randomly for various features I would guess, mixing in what he finds to be logical given his understanding of the area, culture etc. Ok, that's fine.

The players are looking for an inn. He rolls a couple dice and describes a building, presents an innkeeper NPC in a fun way, basing their personality on a character he recalls from a recent TV show. The players stay the night and nurse some wounds. Good stuff.

Another success for the Improv GM.

Another GM whips up a village and an Inn weeks before the game. He places it on the map - here- near a forest road. He expects the players will head that way and generates some businesses and NPCs for the place. They however decide to head another direction, towards a river. Not having anything planned that way, but seeing no harm in it as the players are relatively ignorant about the region, picks up the village, its inn and keeper, and plops it down next to the river with a few tweaks, turning it into a farming village instead of woodcutting.

He is a dirty railroader?

Wouldn't be guilty of no more than economy of prep work?

That's my main question here. Nobody is going to argue (Well maybe someone, but not me) that moving something around in front of the players, no matter how hard they try to avoid it, if fair or desirable. But if confronted with a Y in the road, and with no knowledge whatsoever of what lies down either path, how is it wrong to let the players choose then provide an adventure down the one they travel - regardless?

You are illustrating a constant inability to not see the forest for the trees. You're not a "dirty railroader" because you decided to use your location prop to fill a spot for the sake of interest. You're a "dirty railroader" when you intend for the players to go to your Inn to have whatever scene you've concocted in your head regardless of what they choose to do.

Do you see the difference? If you can't... then you're staring very close to the tree indeed. There is always an element of "railroad-track" in any campaign. And it depends entirely on your tastes as a GM and that of your players to what degree you use it. It's very common for unskilled GM's to lean heavily on it as a technique - but it does have it's purposes. It's a tool like anything else. But how you use it and to what degree is what distinguishes you between as shitty GM and good GM.

Conversely, I've seen HORRIBLE GM's that think their improvisational skills are the shit and do zero prep - and their campaign run like shit and the players invariably quit.

It's about establishing consistency and maintaining it to the satisfaction of your players.

Quote from: One Horse Town;935150If they don't know the tower was originally meant to be to the north and they travel east and still encounter the tower for your precious story, you're a dick and your players won't know it.

This is an important point: though your players may not know you're an illusionist cocksucker, you're still an illusionist cocksucker if you engage in illusionism.

If you tell a lie and don't get caught, it doesn't mean you're not a liar.

My challenge with this whole debate is tossing out the principal focus I believe GM's should have for some idea that there's a "wrong way" to do it.

The primary goal of the GM is to make a fun game for the players. I imagine everything else is just technique and style.

As I gregariously (and somewhat sarcastically) shared above was my personal love of improv. I have even been fooled a couple times playing in a game with a canned adventure not knowing it was a canned adventure.

Railroads are not about tossing things in front of characters in order to give them something to do. That's just good GMing. Railroads are insisting that certain events or consquences are going to occur in the narrative of the game regardless of the what the characters do.  Some examples;

1) No matter how hard they try, or bribe, or how creative they convince - the NPC will absolutely NOT travel with the PCs (it's not in the module).
2) Regardless of how inventive the strategy, or effective the execution, the evil necromancer ALWAYS gets away.
3) Leveling up requires one week spent in a town of 500+ population. You only find those towns rarely when the module says the PCs are ready to level up. Any attempt to bypass the tracks to escape to a town fails until the GM (module) is ready.

In the end there is no appreciable difference if you take prepared materials (what I prep as snippets from my post above) or invent something whole-cloth and present it to the PCs. If your intent is to keep the game interesting and fun, to keep things moving, to prevent boredom, because it "makes sense for the region", or it "makes sense as a result of PC choices", or it "makes sense for the bad guy's goals", etc. It's all good. You have take the pulse of the people at the table!

When you moved the village from the forest to the river, did the player's seem disappointed? If so, maybe they were purposefully avoiding civilization. Why? Read the table. If the PCs are given a hint that the village is in the forest, and they avoid it, they are telling you something. Roll with it! Let them head to the river and then give them something to do!

Railroading has less to do with how you create situations as a GM and much more to do with how you're limiting choices or worse FORCING conditions, results or consequences on the PCs.

Quote from: rgrove0172;935208So by your assessment if they players go north and I arbitrarily plop down a tower I avoid dickness but if I instead take a tower from the world elsewhere and move it there (them not knowing of it) I will embrace dickness even though the experience would be exactly the same for the players?

You really have trouble with reading. I'm not going round the houses with you, you're not worth it.

Quote from: CRKrueger;935007But if confronted with a Y in the road, and with no knowledge whatsoever of what lies down either path, how is it wrong to let the players choose then provide an adventure down the one they travel - regardless?

Now you're starting to edge into the problem area that Tenbones is talking about.  If the players have no real intent or foreknowledge and they're just picking a road randomly, then of course that one particular decision of deciding to have this cool Inn with the lively Innkeeper you've prepped be down this road and not that one.  The important thing though isn't that you did it, but WHY you did it.  

If you did it because according to you "By god this is the best Inn ever and they WILL visit it." - well then, that's a big problem.   It indicates that the concept of players choosing their own fun is about as alien to you as the sun is to an angler fish.

If you did it because you got caught with your pants down and you feel you will run a prepped/moved area better than a improv'ed area, then not really a problem...But, if you actually do a deent amount of advance prep, picking up and moving a village, or even just an Inn, might have consequences you're going to have to design around later.

Quote from: rgrove0172;935212Some of you are forgetting the original question. Player choice is very important of course...but what difference does it make if that choice presents a brand new, conjured up on the fly, situation or one the GM planned for later and maybe elsewhere but moves it?

I answered this on page 2:

Quote from: CRKrueger;935007If the players have no knowledge of the Tower one way or the other, and thus no plan whether to find it or ignore it, and you decide to move it from South Road to North Road because you think they'd enjoy it more - then that's really no different then just deciding out of the blue that there is a Tower on the North Road.  It's Fiat.  You decide they see a Tower on the North Road.  But, it's Fiat that does not nullify player action or choice for the sake of your narrative.  Whether the Tower was created 2 minutes in advance or 2 months in advance, it's still just in your bag of tricks, ready to be used until you actually use it.

If the players have heard there is a Tower, but want to avoid it, and correctly choose the North path, but they reach it anyway, then you're imposing your will and using your powers as GM to override their choice for your own reasons, even if you think it's for their own good.

Quote from: CRKrueger;935229If you did it because according to you "By god this is the best Inn ever and they WILL visit it." - well then, that's a big problem.   It indicates that the concept of players choosing their own fun is about as alien to you as the sun is to an angler fish.

I also don't understand what the mental state of the GM has to do with anything when the objective result is the same as if he'd been improvising the Inn. In neither case do the players really  have a choice; it's all fiat.

Quote from: tenbones;935211As others are saying in various ways - it's about internal consistency. You can do Zero-Prep with ease, if you as a GM know what your world is about, what the NPC's that inhabit it are all about, and why it all works the way it does. When you start changing the consistency of those dynamics to suit your desires despite whatever the PC's do, well you're now creating a railroad (and as I've said in all your other threads - if that's what your players LIKE - who cares what we think? Play on.)

You don't have to tell the players what/why/when you're doing things - their characters should, imo, discover all that in game. But the onus of creating that consistency is on you as the GM - by whatever means it takes you to get there, be it railroad, improvisation, PC exploration or RP or a big glorious mix of all of the above.

I generally find it a bad move to create some kind of orthodoxy of thought when it comes to using a toolset. But I also stipulate that if you really wanna use a claw-hammer to put in a screw... then have at it. heh

Edit: With this seeming concern you show over whether "railroading" is legit or not vs. improvisation within/without a sandbox - and often these idea get very muddled for you (at least it seems that way by dint of your response), I find a lot of your questions seem to revolve around the idea of how much "prep" is too much prep and hairsplitting. Have you ever tried setting up your campaigns a different way than what you normally do?

I think a nice method for you, if you haven't looked might be the Plotpoint Campaign idea from Savage Worlds. It might let you let go of some of your preconceptions and let you answer your own questions without even trying.

I've brought this up mainly because of local discussion. As stated I've played both ways without issue but had a player lose his god when he discovered I had more or less 0 prepped an adventure. I had another more tactfully question possible railroading during a single session adventure. I didn't see the real difference between the two practices. You guys are great with your opinions.

Quote from: trechriron;935224My challenge with this whole debate is tossing out the principal focus I believe GM's should have for some idea that there's a "wrong way" to do it.

The primary goal of the GM is to make a fun game for the players. I imagine everything else is just technique and style.

As I gregariously (and somewhat sarcastically) shared above was my personal love of improv. I have even been fooled a couple times playing in a game with a canned adventure not knowing it was a canned adventure.

Railroads are not about tossing things in front of characters in order to give them something to do. That's just good GMing. Railroads are insisting that certain events or consquences are going to occur in the narrative of the game regardless of the what the characters do.  Some examples;

1) No matter how hard they try, or bribe, or how creative they convince - the NPC will absolutely NOT travel with the PCs (it's not in the module).
2) Regardless of how inventive the strategy, or effective the execution, the evil necromancer ALWAYS gets away.
3) Leveling up requires one week spent in a town of 500+ population. You only find those towns rarely when the module says the PCs are ready to level up. Any attempt to bypass the tracks to escape to a town fails until the GM (module) is ready.

In the end there is no appreciable difference if you take prepared materials (what I prep as snippets from my post above) or invent something whole-cloth and present it to the PCs. If your intent is to keep the game interesting and fun, to keep things moving, to prevent boredom, because it "makes sense for the region", or it "makes sense as a result of PC choices", or it "makes sense for the bad guy's goals", etc. It's all good. You have take the pulse of the people at the table!

When you moved the village from the forest to the river, did the player's seem disappointed? If so, maybe they were purposefully avoiding civilization. Why? Read the table. If the PCs are given a hint that the village is in the forest, and they avoid it, they are telling you something. Roll with it! Let them head to the river and then give them something to do!

Railroading has less to do with how you create situations as a GM and much more to do with how you're limiting choices or worse FORCING conditions, results or consequences on the PCs.

Thanks for that, really. If your opinion is common then those that have called me a railroaded are without argument as I have never gamed that way. What I do by occasionally shifting the reality of my setting to better present the game is absolutely no different than throwing down arbitrary and new content. I feel liberated! Laugh

I openly brag about winging everything with like no prep so my players know all about it already. I think they're just impressed.

As for what you described, no it's not railroading, unless you're doing it with the intent of them going some place no matter what.

If it's just, "I need some content here, and oh look, I had some made earlier, so I'll just use that," then no, no problem.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;935232I also don't understand what the mental state of the GM has to do with anything when the objective result is the same as if he'd been improvising the Inn. In neither case do the players really  have a choice; it's all fiat.

For any one isolated choice...no difference, but like Old One Eye said, if the idea comes from the concept of the GM choosing the Fun for the players, and being more of a Master of Ceremonies than simply Playing the World, then overall, you're going to get a very different campaign.

That's a big assumption. There could be a big range of styles that can express a mindset differently. That he would move the tower when they don't even know it exists doesn't imply that he'd move it when they already confirmed for a fact it exists at X location.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;935256That he would move the tower when they don't even know it exists doesn't imply that he'd move it when they already confirmed for a fact it exists at X location.

True, which is why that's not what I said. :D  But if he moved the Tower because he wants them to experience "Tower Fun", therefore they will experience "Tower Fun", then whether or not he ever outright railroads them, the campaign in the end is going to be "We're always doing what the GM thinks is fun, dramatic, whatever."

It'd be more accurate if you changed that to "Sometimes we run into set pieces that the GM just moved." Even if you changed that to "always", it doesn't mean you're always doing what he thinks is fun because he doesn't control how you interact with said set pieces.

Quote from: rgrove0172;935208So by your assessment if they players go north and I arbitrarily plop down a tower I avoid dickness but if I instead take a tower from the world elsewhere and move it there (them not knowing of it) I will embrace dickness even though the experience would be exactly the same for the players?

If the players don't mind exploring the tower, regardless of how it got there, then I think you're dickery-free. If the campaign cannot move one inch forward unless you make them explore the tower, then you're dickery-infused. Regardless, if the group goes along with what you have in mind, then it doesn't really matter how anything gets anywhere. Players & GMs must meet somewhere in the middle at some point, or there's no game to be played.

Quote from: cranebump;935149Either way, there's a fucking wizard tower there, and, as a player in your campaign, I'd would likely not give a shit how it got there. It's there. I'll either investigate, or I won't.

The DM moving a tower around for "fun" is likely to make more decisions for "fun".  The singular instance of moving the wizard tower is not that big a deal.  However, when the players' good plan to defeat the tower's inhabitants next gets knocked down by the DM because the DM thinks it be more "fun" for the big set piece he had planned in the tower instead of the easy victory the plan should have resulted in.  Then the DM thinks it would be "fun" to have the tower just start collapsing around the PCs for not Damon good reason because it would be "fun" to have an escape-the-crumbling-tower scene.  Then the DM thinks of something else that is "fun" ... and eventually I will start wondering as a player what the he'll am I trying for.

Quote from: Old One Eye;935299The DM moving a tower around for "fun" is likely to make more decisions for "fun".  The singular instance of moving the wizard tower is not that big a deal.  However, when the players' good plan to defeat the tower's inhabitants next gets knocked down by the DM because the DM thinks it be more "fun" for the big set piece he had planned in the tower instead of the easy victory the plan should have resulted in.  Then the DM thinks it would be "fun" to have the tower just start collapsing around the PCs for not Damon good reason because it would be "fun" to have an escape-the-crumbling-tower scene.  Then the DM thinks of something else that is "fun" ... and eventually I will start wondering as a player what the he'll am I trying for.

Yes, absolutely,  have to agree. On the original question of the tower appearing wherever's appearing, I think a GM is justified to do something like that if (1) it's part of a stockpile of prep materials (2) it makes sense within the parameters of the campaign and (3) the players ultmately make the decision to explore it. As for whether it turns out to be fun, that would remain to be seen in play. The only thing I can say about anything that pops up in my own game is about preparation. I can present a well-prepared tower excursion, and may want to, simply because it's a solid piece of prep, in my mind, and I think I will run it more consistently than something I am winging. But if PCs skirt the well-planned set piece, then I have to file it away, maybe uses elements of it in other things, if I think those elements might fit with some other thread they're tugging on.

(My players so seldom go where I think they will, even when they SAY they will, that I end up with a lot of preparation of places likely never to be seen -- I was shocked as hell last session when they actually bit on a thread that led to something I had invested a great deal of time in. But damned if they coulda used their thief that evening, and damned if he didn't cancel 15 minutes before game time. THAT turned into an interesting session...)

Quote from: Old One Eye;935299... Then the DM thinks of something else that is "fun" ... and eventually I will start wondering as a player what the he'll am I trying for.

A good GM does not insist on one-sided fun. It has to be fun for the whole table. If the GM is the only one having fun, they should soon find themselves alone.

Quote from: trechriron;935301A good GM does not insist on one-sided fun. It has to be fun for the whole table. If the GM is the only one having fun, they should soon find themselves alone.

Man, this just reminded me of some dude who used to post in one of the other forums I used to haunt, I think it mighta been the official D&D discussion pages (don't think it was rpgnet). This guy went on and on about prepping every square inch of territory, and how his players love how detailed and immersive everything was, and how his table was always full, and how blahblahblahblah, the intimation being "yeah, anyone who ISN'T doing it that way is just subpar" (as HIS campaign was OBJECTIVELY superior). All the while, I kept thinking, "I don't doubt anything you say, and I doubt I would ever sit at your fucking table, because we'd have to hear the backstory on how the table legs of the dwarf king's banquet furniture were whittled from Songbark, and bathed in the tears of dead Yuan Ti." More power to the dude for prepping it ALL, but, for the love of God, man, it sure sounded like it was all about HIS world, HIS campaign, and his...well, HIS is the operative word there. (I wonder, if your PC takes a shit in his campaign, does he change the growth pattern of the undervines?)

Quote from: cranebump;935298If the players don't mind exploring the tower, regardless of how it got there, then I think you're dickery-free. If the campaign cannot move one inch forward unless you make them explore the tower, then you're dickery-infused. Regardless, if the group goes along with what you have in mind, then it doesn't really matter how anything gets anywhere. Players & GMs must meet somewhere in the middle at some point, or there's no game to be played.

I agree totally, dickology included.

Quote from: rgrove0172;935241I've brought this up mainly because of local discussion. As stated I've played both ways without issue but had a player lose his god when he discovered I had more or less 0 prepped an adventure. I had another more tactfully question possible railroading during a single session adventure. I didn't see the real difference between the two practices. You guys are great with your opinions.

Please give more info about these players and their concerns.

Quote from: rgrove0172;935213But if confronted with a Y in the road, and with no knowledge whatsoever of what lies down either path, how is it wrong to let the players choose then provide an adventure down the one they travel - regardless?

There's nothing wrong with it whatsoever. If the players have no clue what's down there, so it could be anything. From the GM's perspective, he/she can go 100% improv (rolling on tables or adlib or whatever), or 100% pre-prep drop in a site. All these are perfectly acceptable approaches.

Quote from: Old One Eye;935299The DM moving a tower around for "fun" is likely to make more decisions for "fun".  The singular instance of moving the wizard tower is not that big a deal.  However, when the players' good plan to defeat the tower's inhabitants next gets knocked down by the DM because the DM thinks it be more "fun" for the big set piece he had planned in the tower instead of the easy victory the plan should have resulted in.  Then the DM thinks it would be "fun" to have the tower just start collapsing around the PCs for not Damon good reason because it would be "fun" to have an escape-the-crumbling-tower scene.  Then the DM thinks of something else that is "fun" ... and eventually I will start wondering as a player what the he'll am I trying for.

Fuckin' a, yeah.

If I believed for a moment the OP was an actual gamer and not a booger-eating troll (https://crayfisher.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/troll.jpg?w=640), this is exactly the referee I would expect that person to be.

Quote from: cranebump;935300On the original question of the tower appearing wherever's appearing, I think a GM is justified to do something like that if (1) it's part of a stockpile of prep materials (2) it makes sense within the parameters of the campaign and (3) the players ultmately make the decision to explore it.

Quote from: Psikerlord;935332From the GM's perspective, he/she can go 100% improv (rolling on tables . . . (emphases added - BV)

Here's the great thing about incorporating random tables that you yourself made - you get to come up with all these 'wouldn't it be interesting if . . . ' situations or scenarios, and then let them appear when and where they will based on the roll of the dice, so that you are both at least minimally prepped for and still surprised by What Comes Next.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;935344Fuckin' a, yeah.

If I believed for a moment the OP was an actual gamer and not a booger-eating troll (https://crayfisher.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/troll.jpg?w=640), this is exactly the referee I would expect that person to be.


Here's the great thing about incorporating random tables that you yourself made - you get to come up with all these 'wouldn't it be interesting if . . . ' situations or scenarios, and then let them appear when and where they will based on the roll of the dice, so that you are both at least minimally prepped for and still surprised by What Comes Next.

Yeah I am a massive fan of chance encounter/random tables - you know what might be coming, but even as GM, you get to be surprised too :o

Quote from: Black Vulmea;935344Here's the great thing about incorporating random tables that you yourself made - you get to come up with all these 'wouldn't it be interesting if . . . ' situations or scenarios, and then let them appear when and where they will based on the roll of the dice, so that you are both at least minimally prepped for and still surprised by What Comes Next.

When it comes down to it, this (the bolded part) is one of the main reasons why I like to be a DM.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;935344still surprised by What Comes Next.

My players have told me that their favorite thing in the game is when they do something that totally stumps me as DM whereby I have no idea what should happen next and have to pause the game for a while to think through the ramifications.

On the flipside, one of the things that I hate the most about being a DM is being unable to come up with a solution when a massive curve ball smacks me in the face. Especially when, the next day, I think of an awesome way to handle it.

The worst part is when I decide to open up discussion at the table for a solution and everyone else is also stumped.

Example: at the end of a previous session, the players had agreed upon a course of action: travel through the jungle (on foot) to a ruin to find the McGuffin. Everyone had decided that they were totally up for being chased by dinosaurs, giant insects and cannibals. All of my prep was for this: maps, encounter tables, an elegant chase system, all ready.

Problem: two players had to cancel at the last minute. Since the party was smaller, the Warlock's Flight spell could carry the entire (now smaller) party to reach the ruin. The entire prep time, encounters, everything was ruined. YES, there are plenty of ways to handle this, but at the time, I had nothing NOTHING. So I just sighed, awarded them experience for such a clever solution and we played a board game instead.

Yes, I sucked as a DM that night, but that's the sort of thing that happens occasionally. I hate that.

QuoteHere's the great thing about incorporating random tables that you yourself made - you get to come up with all these 'wouldn't it be interesting if . . . ' situations or scenarios, and then let them appear when and where they will based on the roll of the dice, so that you are both at least minimally prepped for and still surprised by What Comes Next.

Indeed. We've had some great situations come up with a combination of spell failures combined with WM charts (DW's "Draw unwanted attention"). I started with randomly genreated ones from Wizardawn, then tweaked them to add internal consistency between the entries on the charts (in particular how the WM's represented larger populations, their relationships with other monsters on the list, and so on). Even just doing that has made the campaign more interesting, as some of these Wanderers are now part of the game (we've introduced a dragon in a place where I intended nothing at all, which forced me to figure out why he hadn't fried the [relatively] nearby village--I have decided they have a deal with him, regularly passing him a portion of their livestock, lest they draw its ire, and it, or its kobold minions, descend, en toto]).

The other thing I've used are the random charts with The Perilous Wilds. Have generated several dungeons from that, and from that, woven them into the campaign tapestry.  In short, random shit is awesomely fun. :-)

Quote from: Necrozius;935394On the flipside, one of the things that I hate the most about being a DM is being unable to come up with a solution when a massive curve ball smacks me in the face. Especially when, the next day, I think of an awesome way to handle it.

The worst part is when I decide to open up discussion at the table for a solution and everyone else is also stumped.

Example: at the end of a previous session, the players had agreed upon a course of action: travel through the jungle (on foot) to a ruin to find the McGuffin. Everyone had decided that they were totally up for being chased by dinosaurs, giant insects and cannibals. All of my prep was for this: maps, encounter tables, an elegant chase system, all ready.

Problem: two players had to cancel at the last minute. Since the party was smaller, the Warlock's Flight spell could carry the entire (now smaller) party to reach the ruin. The entire prep time, encounters, everything was ruined. YES, there are plenty of ways to handle this, but at the time, I had nothing NOTHING. So I just sighed, awarded them experience for such a clever solution and we played a board game instead.

Yes, I sucked as a DM that night, but that's the sort of thing that happens occasionally. I hate that.

So they spend the rest of the night RETURNING. And then you resolve what happened when they found the doohickey.  Or whatever.  It's a CAMPAIGN, a single victory does not stop the world dead.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;935194I think the distinction between a linear adventure and a railroad is important to make here.
A railroad is where the characters decisions are irrelevant. "Forcing" as you say. There is no good railroad. There is no good reason to railroad.
A linear adventure, on the other hand, can be just fine. I think this is what you meant by the metaphorical awesome train.

Unfortunately most here are of the mindset that Linear Adventure is a Railroad.

Just like they have taken the word "fun" in this thread and turned it into a club.

A linear adventure can be ok, as long as the GM isn't saying it isn't a linear adventure.

"Hey, I want to run a game which will consist of a series of set events. Players can act as they like during those events, but there will be intermissions where I narrate what happens in between." sounds fine. I'd happily play that, sometimes. However I might be annoyed if I was told we were playing a campaign and asked to roleplay a bunch of investigation and decisions, only to find out that many/all of my decisions had zero effect on what happened.

In the "Y in the road" example, the issue is that the Y and the choice effectively do not exist, yet the GM is behaving as if they do. So the players may think there really is a choice and perhaps there really is a world with terrain to explore, when there is not. If/when they find out, they may be understandably annoyed, unless they don't mind being misled that way (which some players do, some players don't, and some players console themselves by adding it to their list of ridiculous silly things GMs have done).

Quote from: Old One Eye;935299The DM moving a tower around for "fun" is likely to make more decisions for "fun".  The singular instance of moving the wizard tower is not that big a deal.  However, when the players' good plan to defeat the tower's inhabitants next gets knocked down by the DM because the DM thinks it be more "fun" for the big set piece he had planned in the tower instead of the easy victory the plan should have resulted in.  Then the DM thinks it would be "fun" to have the tower just start collapsing around the PCs for not Damon good reason because it would be "fun" to have an escape-the-crumbling-tower scene.  Then the DM thinks of something else that is "fun" ... and eventually I will start wondering as a player what the he'll am I trying for.

You assume a lot. There could be any number of reasons the decision was made.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;935344Fuckin' a, yeah.

If I believed for a moment the OP was an actual gamer and not a booger-eating troll (https://crayfisher.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/troll.jpg?w=640), this is exactly the referee I would expect that person to be.


Here's the great thing about incorporating random tables that you yourself made - you get to come up with all these 'wouldn't it be interesting if . . . ' situations or scenarios, and then let them appear when and where they will based on the roll of the dice, so that you are both at least minimally prepped for and still surprised by What Comes Next.

A good GM is never surprised. Its his world and its his job to provide the surprises, not be taken by them. And stick your Troll comment.

Quote from: Old One Eye;935392My players have told me that their favorite thing in the game is when they do something that totally stumps me as DM whereby I have no idea what should happen next and have to pause the game for a while to think through the ramifications.

My players would laugh at this notion. They understand, as I thought most players did, that there is no competition between Players and GM. They shouldn't be trying to stump anybody, and if they do so accidentally, its an unfortunate occurrence that only takes away from the flow of the game. If anything my players, over 35 years, have always respected the work put in by the GM and will 'go with the flow' when weird options become available in the interest of a smooth storyline for all.

If for example the adventure appears to be centered toward a trek across the desert to find the tomb, but someone brings up an airship as a bizarre possibility, they will stick with the trek as its obvious that's the direction everything was headed. Unless of course the choice comes at the end of a session and there is time for the GM to adjust.

Quote from: Sommerjon;935441Unfortunately most here are of the mindset that Linear Adventure is a Railroad.

Just like they have taken the word "fun" in this thread and turned it into a club.

1) Linear Adventures are one of the things I find wrong with RPGs in general. Create clues, events, NPCs, locations, encounters, etc. and let the players figure it out. Toss stuff in when it makes sense, let the players push in various directions. Linear adventures often get derailed and then the GM has to push the players back on track. Instead, motivate the players to want to investigate, save the princess, or find the lost treasure. It's not a mindset, it's an observation. I have been doing this 35 years now. I'm sharing my experience having run all kinds of games using all kinds of adventures.

2) What the fuck else are you doing if not trying to have fun? You butt-hurt because I said the primary goal is to have fun? I'm so interested in hearing why you're so butt-hurt over our use of the word fun. Is it because I believe GMs who use linear adventures suck? Look bro, it's just an opinion. Don't get butt-hurt over my opinion. In the end if you're having fun, and your players are having fun, then you're doing it right. I still think your linear adventures suck however. :P

Quote from: rgrove0172;935478A good GM is never surprised. Its his world and its his job to provide the surprises, not be taken by them. And stick your Troll comment.

I'm a good Referee. I'm surprised all the time.

I'm surprised when I roll Reaction Rolls that surprise me. I'm surprised when I roll Encounter that surprise me. I'm surprised when my Player pull some amazingly clever solution or scheme I never could have seen coming to solve a problem or overcome a challenge. I'm surprised when they use a magic item in a way I never would have anticipated.

Honestly, some of my happiest moments are where I'm surprised. I love being surprised. But more to the point, leaving aside the delight surprise brings, I have no idea how one would Referee without being surprised every once in a while. Like, are RPG Referees supposed to be Mentats or something? Cause I don't think they exist.

Quote from: Sommerjon;935441Unfortunately most here are of the mindset that Linear Adventure is a Railroad.

Just like they have taken the word "fun" in this thread and turned it into a club.

yes, some GMs have elevated a freeform, improve way of playing to some sort of vastly superior status and look down on everything else. I respect and admire such play but there are lot of other really good options.

Quote from: Skarg;935451A linear adventure can be ok, as long as the GM isn't saying it isn't a linear adventure.

"Hey, I want to run a game which will consist of a series of set events. Players can act as they like during those events, but there will be intermissions where I narrate what happens in between." sounds fine. I'd happily play that, sometimes. However I might be annoyed if I was told we were playing a campaign and asked to roleplay a bunch of investigation and decisions, only to find out that many/all of my decisions had zero effect on what happened.

In the "Y in the road" example, the issue is that the Y and the choice effectively do not exist, yet the GM is behaving as if they do. So the players may think there really is a choice and perhaps there really is a world with terrain to explore, when there is not. If/when they find out, they may be understandably annoyed, unless they don't mind being misled that way (which some players do, some players don't, and some players console themselves by adding it to their list of ridiculous silly things GMs have done).

See 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.

Quote from: rgrove0172;935482yes, some GMs have elevated a freeform, improve way of playing to some sort of vastly superior status and look down on everything else. I respect and admire such play but there are lot of other really good options.

... who exactly is saying "improvisation" is vastly superior to and looking down on everything? And why do you insinuate they speak for most people here? In fact I've seen several people (myself being among them) say in this thread and most of your other threads where you bring up this axe you like to grind, where we acknowledge linear elements as a tool in the toolbox.

To the degree that you "admire such play" implies that somehow these "other options" are of equivocal value? Got some examples other than GM fiat? And how exactly are you measuring them as "really good" when you apparently are only playing with the same people? Which leads to...

I find it odd that you'd project your singular experiences with your group which you've played with for over 3.5 decades as indicative of "what is normal" when it might not be normative at all. You act as if you and they don't develop idiosyncratic habits along the way over 3.5 decades?. I can assure you - based on your various threads that revolve around trying to establish your notions of GMing on this forum - you have.

Your predilection of trying to gain some affirmation for your views on GMing, I find... strange. As myself and others have said: If it works for you and your group, play on. Contextually it depends entirely on the subjective nature of the participants. That should be patently clear.

Quote from: rgrove0172;935478A good GM is never surprised. Its his world and its his job to provide the surprises, not be taken by them.

Horseshit, dogshit, cowshit, bullshit, pigshit, chicken shit, llamashit, aardvarkshit, zebra shit, and every kind of other shit in the entire multiverse.

If I set up a situation and figure out ten ways to solve it, my players will promptly come up with solutions 11 through rutabaga.  I am surprised by my players ALL THE TIME.  It's what makes this silly ass hobby still worth pursuing after 44 years.

This thread needs more GNS theory.

(http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/b61ecf23e142553e46670e4ce3b86340b9c05714/c=0-5-848-643&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/2015/07/10/DetroitNews/DetroitNews/635721093276703833-cowbell.jpg)[ATTACH=CONFIG]608[/ATTACH]

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?

... then why even call it a roleplaying game? Who is actually doing the roleplaying when the choices, as you say are an illusion and you're just creating storytime for the "players" (because they're not really playing - that's an illusion too).

Do you think a Choose Your Own Adventure book is an RPG? Ironically, by your own standard you get more choice in a Choose Your Own Adventure book than you might in one of your own adventures because there's no one to force you into a scene other than the rules of the book telling you which page to turn to. In your case, you don't really get a choice that's actually real. Since as you said, it's an illusion.

Quote from: rgrove0172;935483Especially 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.

You're pulling an intellectual bait-and-switch on yourself. You're trying to postulate a legitimate GM option to re-purpose interactive set-pieces with this notion that because a GM can actively subvert the intention of any PC with trivial ability without the player's knowledge, then that's is actually the same thing. Because one serves different motivations of the act of GMing than the other.

If you err on the former - then you're just feeding content. If you err on the latter - you're doing storytime because the intents of the PC's *don't matter* if you're forcing them to interact with your set-piece. The weird part of all this is you're doing the bait-and-switch and I'm not sure if you actually believe you're not.

In which case Black Vulmea is right - you'd be trolling. I prefer to think of you as cognitively dissonant - and you're looking for help.

I hope this helps.

My biggest cognitive problem is with the idea that I only have one idea for what the players can do.  I've got more damned ideas than I can write down.

Quote from: trechriron;9354801) Linear Adventures are one of the things I find wrong with RPGs in general. Create clues, events, NPCs, locations, encounters, etc. and let the players figure it out. Toss stuff in when it makes sense, let the players push in various directions. Linear adventures often get derailed and then the GM has to push the players back on track. Instead, motivate the players to want to investigate, save the princess, or find the lost treasure. It's not a mindset, it's an observation. I have been doing this 35 years now. I'm sharing my experience having run all kinds of games using all kinds of adventures.

Unless you are RNGing it all, nearly all adventures are linear.  It is the way we humans process things.

Quote from: trechriron;9354802) What the fuck else are you doing if not trying to have fun? You butt-hurt because I said the primary goal is to have fun? I'm so interested in hearing why you're so butt-hurt over our use of the word fun. Is it because I believe GMs who use linear adventures suck? Look bro, it's just an opinion. Don't get butt-hurt over my opinion. In the end if you're having fun, and your players are having fun, then you're doing it right. I still think your linear adventures suck however. :P

Have you even bothered to read the thread and the use of "fun" in it?  I would say no.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;935497Horseshit, dogshit, cowshit, bullshit, pigshit, chicken shit, llamashit, aardvarkshit, zebra shit, and every kind of other shit in the entire multiverse.

If I set up a situation and figure out ten ways to solve it, my players will promptly come up with solutions 11 through rutabaga.  I am surprised by my players ALL THE TIME.  It's what makes this silly ass hobby still worth pursuing after 44 years.

Your obsession with fecal matter is rearing it's stinky head again.

Sounds like a you problem if you can't predict what your players will do with a great deal of accuracy.  Maybe you don't pay attention to what is going on?

Isn't that 44 year line a wee bit disingenuous?  You also say you took a couple decades off of gaming, so really isn't that more like 24 years of gaming.

All GMs are #Illusionists, whether they realize it or not.

Quote from: rgrove0172;934923To the players there is absolutely no difference in the experience.

Thing is their experience is based on what they believe to be true, so it doesn't matter if you're actually running a railroad or straight #Improv, only that your players believe you are.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;934954But if the players don't realize that their decisions are irrelevant, then you have the illusion of choice.

To get #Metaphysical for a bit, are choices in the real world any less illusionary?

Quote from: Daztur;935111Basically it depends on if your world runs on an attempt to model physics or an attempt to model narrative logic.

Not really.

Quote from: Daztur;935111As a genera rule if you find yourself tweaking stuff and overruling the rules a lot then you're probably using the wrong rules.

#SystemMatters

Quote from: Black Vulmea;935223This is an important point: though your players may not know you're an illusionist cocksucker, you're still an illusionist cocksucker if you engage in illusionism.

DM screens were created for a reason friend :)

Quote from: Black Vulmea;935223If you tell a lie and don't get caught, it doesn't mean you're not a liar.

And if you tell the truth and aren't believed, it doesn't matter if you're not a liar.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;935481Honestly, some of my happiest moments are where I'm surprised.

Same here. In fact the potential for my players to surprise me is the only reason I GM rather than just write a book or something.

Quote from: rgrove0172;935478A good GM is never surprised. Its his world and its his job to provide the surprises, not be taken by them.

(http://i567.photobucket.com/albums/ss115/Black_Vulmea/boot%20hill/braying%20donkey_zpsfhemwt2x.png) (http://hillcantons.blogspot.com/2014/07/fast-packs-for-boot-hill.html)

Any other guesses?

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;935511To get #Metaphysical for a bit, are choices in the real world any less illusionary?

I'd rather not.

Quote from: trechriron;9354801) Linear Adventures are one of the things I find wrong with RPGs in general. Create clues, events, NPCs, locations, encounters, etc. and let the players figure it out. Toss stuff in when it makes sense, let the players push in various directions. Linear adventures often get derailed and then the GM has to push the players back on track. Instead, motivate the players to want to investigate, save the princess, or find the lost treasure. It's not a mindset, it's an observation. I have been doing this 35 years now. I'm sharing my experience having run all kinds of games using all kinds of adventures.

I've run adventures for about 30 years myself. I find that linear adventures have their uses. I run pretty linear at the beginning of a campaign, and at the end of every major adventure thread. Kind of like a diamond shape. Start linear, when introducing the world and the campaign, branch out based on player choices from there, and then the adventure usually focuses back down as the players make choices until an adventure is resolved somehow, rinse and repeat.

My introductory Dark Sun adventure, for example, is very linear. Based in large on the pack-in adventure from the box set. The characters start as slaves, they get a chance to escape, they survive the desert (or not) and the choices they make during the adventure leads me to what direction to take the campaign.

Quote from: rgrove0172;935478A good GM is never surprised. Its his world and its his job to provide the surprises, not be taken by them. And stick your Troll comment.

Well, that was an incredibly dumb thing to say, especially if you were looking for a (hopefully calm) rendition of this dead-horse beating we seem to find ourselves in on a semi-regular basis.

That said...

If you don't believe in being surprised, and you're evidently always prepared, then you must be running a railroad, and not simply a railroad, but a railroad running down a set of tracks between two impassable canyon walls, with no switching stations. I mean, to do otherwise is to invite GM-fail via "whoops--wasn't expecting that!"

It's clear not everyone plays that way. In fact, without doing any research or canvassing, I'm gonna go out on a wispy ol' limb and say most folks don't mind surprise at all. Surprise is entertaining to some (a lot) of us. This includes experiencing surprise while in the GM chair. This doesn't make for a bad GM. It's a playstyle. We get that it's not yours. I personally don't think that makes you a shitty GM or person. I think the tacit insistence that those who don't do the same ARE "subpar," is a shitty thing to intimate, whether intentional or not. I'm going to assume it was not intentional. Still, it's a ridiculous thing to say.

Quote from: Psikerlord;935349Yeah I am a massive fan of chance encounter/random tables - you know what might be coming, but even as GM, you get to be surprised too :o

Quote from: Necrozius;935377When it comes down to it, this (the bolded part) is one of the main reasons why I like to be a DM.

Quote from: Old One Eye;935392My players have told me that their favorite thing in the game is when they do something that totally stumps me as DM whereby I have no idea what should happen next and have to pause the game for a while to think through the ramifications.

These are my people.

Quote from: cranebump;935416In short, random shit is awesomely fun. :-)

That seems like a great topic for a thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?35753-Great-Moments-in-Randomness) . . .

Quote from: Ratman_tf;935519My introductory Dark Sun adventure, for example, is very linear.

My emphasis.

And so as you further illustrate what I've been trying to get across to the OP - "linear elements" have their place in sandboxes too. I find that people that rely on this approach as their main style tend to be very neophyte GM's - it's a stage. You GM with more people, trying new things, refine your game, etc. and you rely on it less and less because you're able to accomplish more with actual player involvement. Which is what Gronan is saying in his own fecal-drenched fashion.

What emerges from that dynamic of GM/Player interaction tends to be far better gaming experience. Of course if you have players that have no interest in playing that way... well no problem. Much the same I know a lot of friends of mine that think RPG's are too complex and wanna only play boardgames. I know people that like playing Talisman but not Dungeon. I know people that play RPG's and never do *anything* but modules. Some only wanna do homebrewed.

But having gamed with so many people, being in the community, and in the design side, you start to see some behavior patterns develop. You start seeing these commonalities of other GM's that likewise have had similar experiences and one way or another come to see the toolbox for what it is - though they may emphasize certain tools more than others.

Railroading as a technique is basic shit. Really basic. It's one of the first things you learn how to do as a GM. Unsurprisingly, games that lean heavy on that technique tend to be... /shock! pretty basic. I have no idea why it needs to be said - but here we are. But that's because the OP insists that anything outside of this is "looking down" on his ability.

I simply say - There is nothing wrong with your snowcone, just don't insist when you slap BBQ sauce on it, it's BBQ. BUT! if you like eating that shit! DIG IN!

Quote from: Sommerjon;935506... so really isn't that more like 24 years of gaming.

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

Quote from: rgrove0172;935478A good GM is never surprised. Its his world and its his job to provide the surprises, not be taken by them. And stick your Troll comment.

Quote from: rgrove0172;935479My players would laugh at this notion. They understand, as I thought most players did, that there is no competition between Players and GM. They shouldn't be trying to stump anybody, and if they do so accidentally, its an unfortunate occurrence that only takes away from the flow of the game. If anything my players, over 35 years, have always respected the work put in by the GM and will 'go with the flow' when weird options become available in the interest of a smooth storyline for all.

If for example the adventure appears to be centered toward a trek across the desert to find the tomb, but someone brings up an airship as a bizarre possibility, they will stick with the trek as its obvious that's the direction everything was headed. Unless of course the choice comes at the end of a session and there is time for the GM to adjust.

Your gaming sounds so far removed from anything I would want to play that I doubt we could have any meaningful discussion.  I would not even know where to begin in playing in a campaign where the table me expectation of players is that they do not come up with their own plans, but rather, seem to be honor bound to follow the DM's pre-supplied plan.  

Frankly, your gaming sounds like shit.

Quote from: rgrove0172;935478A good GM is never surprised. Its his world and its his job to provide the surprises, not be taken by them.....

I 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.  

Quote from: rgrove0172;935479My players would laugh at this notion. They understand, as I thought most players did, that there is no competition between Players and GM. They shouldn't be trying to stump anybody, and if they do so accidentally, its an unfortunate occurrence that only takes away from the flow of the game. If anything my players, over 35 years, have always respected the work put in by the GM and will 'go with the flow' when weird options become available in the interest of a smooth storyline for all.

I agree it is not personal competition, but the GM does manage the competition to the PCs.  The GM has a duty to make the NPC competition act as they would (and pull no punches) and adjudicate fairly.  Anything less and as  player I'm not interested in and I think my players would feel cheated if the NPCs didn't act fully as they would or could.

QuoteIf for example the adventure appears to be centered toward a trek across the desert to find the tomb, but someone brings up an airship as a bizarre possibility, they will stick with the trek as its obvious that's the direction everything was headed. Unless of course the choice comes at the end of a session and there is time for the GM to adjust.

I have to say that sounds very lame, and they are acting more on outside the game considerations (the social relationship with you) than what might be fun or cool for them.  If airships exist and are a possibility why not go with it?  Your carefully crafted ground encounters still come in handy if they crash or land, just add in some air encounters, and weather.   You can certainly adjust during game as I imagine it will take them some time to acquire said transport.  

I can see why you ask the improve question as your examples seem to imply a low ability to improve on your part.  I don't know if it is the system, that is takes forever to stat out things that may need stats, or just general inability to think on the fly as your examples are pretty easy to deal with.

My biggest shortcoming as a GM is when I can't improvise when the players suddenly surprise me with a completely unexpected plan. I always come up with plenty of ideas after the fact. It's like trying to come up with an awesome comeback and only thinking of one the next day.

Quote from: Necrozius;935553My biggest shortcoming as a GM is when I can't improvise when the players suddenly surprise me with a completely unexpected plan. I always come up with plenty of ideas after the fact. It's like trying to come up with an awesome comeback and only thinking of one the next day.

Me too :)  Part of the secret is to not have your adventures plotted.  Rather understand the NPC/monster motivations, plans and resources.  So nothing can upset how you thought the adventure it might go.  Another is to use a system where stating up something new takes more than a 15 minute break.  Lastly, you can help yourself by keeping files of old things and things you found that might be helpful.

Quote from: rgrove0172;934923Im curious to hear some of your opinions.

My personal answer is that I'd rather not move it.

Optimally

1) I know enough to be able to figure out what would be down a "fork in the road" (or on that planet, or in that city, or whatever)
2) It would be something reasonably interesting

I'm running an interstellar sandbox with dozens of stars, each with several worlds. Each world ought to be able sustain pretty much limitless adventure.

Needless to say, I've done a lot of prep-work, both to create maps but also to have a sense of what's going on in any place the PC's are likely to get to, and to have done enough thinking so that it's reasonably compelling.

I don't hit a homerun every time, but I think the prep pays off in the universe feeling big and fleshed out and full of neat stuff.

History Matters
One thing I've noticed is that I find it very important (to me) to know about the history of a place. Like when I'm designing a world, I wonder "who came here to populate it 1000 years ago... and why? And what happened since then?"

On one hand this is hugely academic because very little of that will ever matter to the PCs, or even be communicated to them.

On the other hand, if I don't have a decent idea of the macro history of the place, I can't make sense of what's going on now. That's true for worlds, but it was equally true for the main city in the last Super Hero game I ran.

Procedurally Generated Content
Optimally I could generate interesting NPCs, encounters, conflicts, and settings with some kind random-roll procedure.

I say optimally because I think random generation creates a certain sense of verisimilitude: I've been playing with my group for years. They know me pretty well. Randomness helps me be unpredictable.

Randomly-generated stuff can be incoherent or dull, though -- so I need a system that is likely to generate interesting stuff.

In practice this sometimes does (literally) mean rolling up NPCs (I used a random generator for super-powers in the super-hero game I ran awhile back and I loved the characters it gave me -- things I would never have come up with on my own).

Mostly, though, it means having a reasonable framework for what might be in a place and some idea of what the major conflicts are and what the locals are up to, and so-on. Then I can come up (with the aid of a die-roll or not) what's likely to happen if the PCs visit some place I don't have an actual adventure for.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: Necrozius;935553My biggest shortcoming as a GM is when I can't improvise when the players suddenly surprise me with a completely unexpected plan. I always come up with plenty of ideas after the fact. It's like trying to come up with an awesome comeback and only thinking of one the next day.

Do 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.

Quote from: Kevin Crawford, "Creating Your Campaign" in Godbound, p. 98Some of those challenges and some of that content will go unused in the session that follows. Thee PCs might never find a particular ruin, or might ignore an aristocratic court you made, or might gloss over an NPC you  eshed out carefully. Don't waste that content. Put it back in your folder and the next time you need something like it during a gaming session, just pull it out, change a few names and paint jobs, and use it. Eventually, you'll have so many of these bits and scraps in your prep folder that you'll be able to ad lib entire sessions out of them.

Quote from: Alexander Macris, "Dynamic Points of Interest" in Lairs & Encounters, p. 12Each dynamic point of interest features the lair of a particular monster from the wilderness encounter tables. Unlike static points of interest, the locations of dynamic points of interest are indeterminate at the start of play. Instead, when a wilderness encounter throw results in an encounter with a monster in its lair, the dynamic point of interest featuring that monster is placed in the hex where the encounter occurred. Once the dynamic point of interest is placed, it becomes static, and its location is fixed for the rest of the campaign. The Judge should write down the hex number where the point of inter- est was found on the regional map in case the party returns to the area.

From the adventurers' point of view, there is no difference between pre-placed points of interest and dynamic ones. Wherever they go on the regional map, there will be a mix of wandering encounters and static locations. On the Judge's actual regional map, though, there will be a lot of empty hexes with unusually high clusters of dynamic points of interest that happen to be along the routes the adventurers have traveled.  is method ensures that wherever the adventurers travel within the region, they will always find interesting places and encounters, while areas that the adventurers do not travel to are not needlessly stocked.

OP, you — or rather, we — are in good company.

Expediency and entertainment trump philosophical dogma. "Illusionism" is as bullshit a charge as it is possible to concoct when the GM's role is weaving an interesting, consistent, lifelike but ultimately illusory universe to entertain one's players.

If your need for consistency or total player agency is overriding enough that you're willing to embrace the possibility of a "dud" session, you might want to stick to the steely, inflexible "if I didn't prep it, it doesn't exist" school. But whatever the merits of this hardcore sort of world emulation, which I even envy to a degree, I don't think this is an approach that works for me, or for my players. I'd rather move a wizard's tower a few hexes over, than endure four hours of room-temperature pizza, pop culture references and random encounters (just kidding. I'd probably work a hook into each random encounter until they bit).

I do believe that immersion must be preserved. The players must not know. Except post facto (as in, days after the session) and ideally with alcohol involved. Mine don't seem to care.

Quote from: Old One Eye;935299The DM moving a tower around for "fun" is likely to make more decisions for "fun".

Aw yeah, moving towers are a gateway drug to the really heavy stuff like Dragonlance and storygames. ��

Quote from: trechriron;935108I am firmly in the Improv camp and think railroaders suck. I would never think of forcing anyone to play a way they don't want to, but If I had to "pick a team" I would want to be the captain of the Improvers. :D

I am exactly like this (except #2, as I said above I'm more of a take-the-piss "yeah, I improv'd the whole town, fuckers, you intercepted the kidnappers way before I expected you to"). Definitely playing on the RPGsite Improvers.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;935511To get #Metaphysical for a bit, are choices in the real world any less illusionary?

I think about this a lot before and after GMing. ��

Quote from: The Butcher;935582Expediency and entertainment trump philosophical dogma.

This.
 

Quote from: trechriron;935480In the end if you're having fun, and your players are having fun, then you're doing it right.

And this.

In the end, that's all that matters. If the choo choo train rocks the world for a game table, who are we to point fingers?

AKA, the Living Campaign have many thousands of devoted fans. Many hundreds of gamers spend thousands of dollars to attend GenCon or PaizoCon or Origins just to sit at Organized Play tables where there are NO meaningful choices and you just play from Encounter A to Encounter B, get your XP, rinse and repeat. Boring beyond reason for me, but super fun for them.

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.

It's not "it's 1876 New Orleans," it's "You're professional shootists in 1876 New Orleans" or "you're adventurous young men and women in a medieval fantasy world" or whatever.

So go to the nearest bar and start talking to people.

Quote from: rgrove0172;935479there is no competition between Players and GM. They shouldn't be trying to stump anybody, and if they do so accidentally, its an unfortunate occurrence that only takes away from the flow of the game. If anything my players, over 35 years, have always respected the work put in by the GM and will 'go with the flow' when weird options become available in the interest of a smooth storyline for all.

So, "you must stick with one of the referee-provided answers, A, B, or C?"  That is the very archetype of railroading, except there is a multiple choice provided.

Of course, if any of my players ever used the phrase "in the interest of a smooth storyline for all" we would kill him and take his stuff.

Here is a world full of interesting shit, go explore it.  "Story" is whatever the fuck happens.

And "brings up an airship as a bizarre possibilty."  What, has somebody got an airship in their pocket?  Is the Graf Zeppelin tied up at a mooring mast here?  If not, they're just flapping their face.

Quote from: Sommerjon;935506Sounds like a you problem if you can't predict what your players will do with a great deal of accuracy.  

It kinda just sounds like your players are boring.

I concur with Gronan, being surprised by player choices is like 75% of why I GM.

The other 25% is hanging outwith friends, the intellectual/creative stimulation of game prep, and free beer/Doritos.

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.

You need to define surprise. If by surprise you mean no idea what the players want to do or where to go adventure wise, then of course not.  We are adults we talk about where we see things going, all the better to prepare.  If you mean by surprised they change their minds and I'm at a lost for what to do, of course not, I excel at improve sometimes so much they think I actually prepared in detail for the new direction.  

If you mean by surprised they come up with something I hadn't thought of, not that I try to map out all their actions just what NPCs think might happen based on what the NPCs know, I certainly hope so.  There is so much more than I hit it with my axe, or I cast fireball, or I check for traps, etc.   If you are never surprised by this last definition, then you must be a genius, an ass or have lame players.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;935651And "brings up an airship as a bizarre possibilty."  What, has somebody got an airship in their pocket?  Is the Graf Zeppelin tied up at a mooring mast here?  If not, they're just flapping their face.

Now you're just talking out of your ass, Gronan! Graf Zeppelin wasn't built until 1928, how could it be in 1876 New Orleans:D?
Unless you assume time travel, of course;).

Quote from: rgrove0172;935625"Ok ladies, gentleman.. it is 1876 and you are in New Orleans. You have your characters... what would you like to do?"

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.

I'm not going to dismiss these issues, because starting a campaign isn't as obvious as some people make it sound. (Classic Traveller, for example, from posts I've read online, often falters from the Players not having a focus and too many choices.)

It's also worth talking about and discussing techniques, because some ways of starting are better than others. So, why not talk about?

For my money, however, I think rgrove0172 and I have two very different styles of Refereeing. For example, I have no plot to spring on the players, for I have no plot at all. In my games, the "story" is the wake left behind by the Player Character's choices and actions.

But I don't leave them hanging in the wind, either.

A valuable technique I use is Rumor Tables: Both for the campaign as a whole, and for specific adventure environments. (Each new PC that begins the game automatically starts with one Rumor off the campaign Rumor Table.) The Rumor Table is full of suggestive bits of information for lots of places the Players might want to have their characters go. I have no expectation which one they might go to... and they might blow them all off completely. But it does provide a selection of choices for them... and at the start of a game, this is helpful.

The other strength of this technique is that the items from the Rumor Table are ideas, places, and things I am already interested in. That is, they get to pick from a selection of items off the menu... but I love all the dishes on the menu and can't wait to make and serve them to them.

That said, again, I have no idea where they will go. Random rolls along the way might derail them, inspire them to whole new agendas, and so on. The point of the Rumor Table is to:
a) inform them of the game world through specific, concrete imagery and words delivered directly to the PCs (thus, telling them about the world without a big info dump;
b) take an infinite setting they know nothing about and boil it down to possibilities that might both intrigue them and give them focus

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;935675A valuable technique I use is Rumor Tables: Both for the campaign as a whole, and for specific adventure environments. (Each new PC that begins the game automatically starts with one Rumor off the campaign Rumor Table.) The Rumor Table is full of suggestive bits of information for lots of places the Players might want to have their characters go. I have no expectation which one they might go to... and they might blow them all off completely. But it does provide a selection of choices for them... and at the start of a game, this is helpful.

The other strength of this technique is that the items from the Rumor Table are ideas, places, and things I am already interested in. That is, they get to pick from a selection of items off the menu... but I love all the dishes on the menu and can't wait to make and serve them to them.

The lack of rumor tables going from 1st to 2nd edition was a great loss. One of those GM techniques that I've had to "rediscover" over the years.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;935680The lack of rumor tables going from 1st to 2nd edition was a great loss. One of those GM techniques that I've had to "rediscover" over the years.

Agreed.

I bumped into the Rumor Table in Qelong (LotFP) and thought, "Wait! This is genius!"

Also, I've been digging deep into the original Traveller rules (https://talestoastound.wordpress.com/traveller-out-of-the-box/), and Classic Traveller in general. The original rules didn't have Rumor Tables, Adventure 1: The Kinunir introduced them, and Rumor Tables were added to the rules in both The Traveller Book and Starter Traveller.

For a sandbox as rich and sprawling as Traveller offers (even one subsector!) I think a Rumor Table is the only way to go. But then I realized, they'd probably be a good idea in any sandbox setting.

I think the loss of Rumor Tables in general can be traced in the shift from the focus on exploration to the focus on pre-plotted adventure stories.

People having too many options and not enough focus can be a problem in some games especially when you have too many people write up long backstories that pull in different directions.

This problem often goes away after the early game as the players have learned enough and pissed off enough people to narrow their focus but what often helps to kick off a game is a "highway."

A highway is like a railroad and you set it up in the same way but make absolutely no effort to make the players stick to the road and provide lots of tempting off ramps. But if the players are being indecisive there's always the default of turning on cruise control and going a few more miles.

What often works well is to start the PCs off with an upper class twit of an employer. Then have him give them errands. If the PCs have half a brain they'll realize that they are much better off manipulating their boss to further their own goals than meekly going all with his orders. They often just need some time to figure out what their goals are.

Just because you can and will do things on the fly doesn't mean there aren't plot hooks out there already. The starting point of "New Orleans, 1876" is going to include a bit more info than just that -- scenario particulars, major players, why they're there, etc. (as for that, asking a player why their PC is there solves that issue immediately). You CAN also start with something like, "tell me a couple rumors you've heard about..." and get hooks from there. Even a reluctant player will come on board with something, given time and perhaps some more prompting.

I bring this up as one who skewed closer to your style, grove, for a long time. Realizing that it's not just my world, but the player's world, too (maybe even more so theirs, since they're authoring the actions), has improved the interest level for all of us. Players feel invested and hooked. I feel a greater challenge to react to their hooks and ideas when they present themselves. I might even toss in something I've really wanted to run, provided the focus is still (mainly) on them. I'm still gonna challenge them head on, make things tough for them, simply because overcoming obstacles leads to greater reward for them. So, there's prep in the form of system knowledge, and notes upon notes related to the machine of the campaign as it churns along. And, yeah, I'll move something I had planned for somewhere else, if I think it might be interesting and/or challenging to them. And I'll certainly bring the world right into their smiling faces if their actions have prompted the response. But I'll no longer dead-end them in my world closet, simply because of some sense of privileged ownership of the imagined world. If it's our world, we both get an invitation to play in it. Seeing as how you're a sticker for detail, I'm fairly certain you could sit down and run a great quality game off the top of your head, if you were so inclined. Yeah, you might make a "mistake" with some thread here or there, but some so-called mistakes are happy ones. And philosophically speaking, mistakes, failures, whatever you want to call them, are often the things that define us most, especially our reactions to them.

But I digress. As has already been echoed incessantly, if your players want the game you run, who gives a damn how you shape it? It isn't about being all things to all people. Rather, it is being the main thing for a select few, including yourself.

Quote from: Daztur;935684People having too many options and not enough focus can be a problem in some games especially when you have too many people write up long backstories that pull in different directions.

This problem often goes away after the early game as the players have learned enough and pissed off enough people to narrow their focus but what often helps to kick off a game is a "highway."

A highway is like a railroad and you set it up in the same way but make absolutely no effort to make the players stick to the road and provide lots of tempting off ramps. But if the players are being indecisive there's always the default of turning on cruise control and going a few more miles.

What often works well is to start the PCs off with an upper class twit of an employer. Then have him give them errands. If the PCs have half a brain they'll realize that they are much better off manipulating their boss to further their own goals than meekly going all with his orders. They often just need some time to figure out what their goals are.

+1. A hybrid approach is a pretty solid way to bring in the best elements of the various approaches. I'm thinking a lot of us play that way? (maybe?)

Quote from: cranebump;935687+1. A hybrid approach is a pretty solid way to bring in the best elements of the various approaches. I'm thinking a lot of us play that way? (maybe?)

I'd agree. People tend to be, IME, more dogmatic and extreme in internet discussions that in real life.

Quote from: cranebump;935687+1. A hybrid approach is a pretty solid way to bring in the best elements of the various approaches. I'm thinking a lot of us play that way? (maybe?)

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

Totally agree.  Too much fidelity to ideology can ruin anything.

Quote from: cranebump;935687+1. A hybrid approach is a pretty solid way to bring in the best elements of the various approaches. I'm thinking a lot of us play that way? (maybe?)

Quote from: Nexus;935690I'd agree. People 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.

Yeap, I also concur.

Quote from: Sommerjon;935632

Quote from: Old One EyeDM 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?

Utter non-sequitur? Did I miss something?

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;935511All GMs are #Illusionists, whether they realize it or not.

Some GMs are illusionists about far more than others.

QuoteThing is their experience is based on what they believe to be true, so it doesn't matter if you're actually running a railroad or straight #Improv, only that your players believe you are.

You may think so. It's fairly simple to test.  Just try a few things that have little to do with anything the GM prompted, and see how the game world responds.

QuoteTo get #Metaphysical for a bit, are choices in the real world any less illusionary?

Yes.

If the setting has a fixed point, like the tower or an event in the timeline, then it should not move from its location once it is recorded there because that is shitty GMing. If you have a notebook full of events and locations that you can drop in anywhere and anywhen, then that is OK for improv work. However, once that improve item has a fixed place, then you don't move it because that is shitty GMing.

It is a bit more complicated than that, like you have to consider how your placement will make sense in the larger setting, but that is the basic bit.

There have been a number of good posts here (will highlight Skarg and AsenRG, but they're joined by many others), so I don't think I have much to add.

I'm curious, though, OP. What's the RPG system that was being used leading up the discussion referenced in post 53? Is that the one that most informs your assumptions going into this thread?

Quote from: Necrozius;935643as well as just adding wings on the goddamned cannibals.

Winged Cannibals!!

That's an awesome idea.

Quote from: Skarg;935704Some GMs are illusionists about far more than others.

Especially gnome GMs.

Quote from: cranebump;935686But I digress. As has already been echoed incessantly, if your players want the game you run, who gives a damn how you shape it? It isn't about being all things to all people. Rather, it is being the main thing for a select few, including yourself.

Nobody. "I don't like it" is not "giving a damn".
Even I told him in the last thread that I don't care how he runs his games. It's between him and his group, after all! (I did advise him to disclose his style to newcomers, but that was about it. And the advise was in order to avoid negative reactions when they find out what his style is - which they will, since he's not keeping it a secret, much to his credit).

What I do object to are his attempts at misrepresenting any and all the other GMing styles as being illusionist, in the hopes of gathering more support for his style. In short, I object to the way he represents it on forum where we both participate, not to his style itself.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;935511All GMs are #Illusionists, whether they realize it or not.

Speak about yourself:).

QuoteTo get #Metaphysical for a bit, are choices in the real world any less illusionary?

To give you a polite answer, #FuckMetaphysicsAndEverythingMeta.

Quote#SystemMatters

#IfILetItMatter.

QuoteDM screens were created for a reason friend :)

I'll let Gronan tell you the actual reason.

Quote from: Skarg;935703Utter non-sequitur? Did I miss something?

You missed that you're replying to Sommerjon (and making me see his posts in the process, but I'm not going to hold it against you:D).
Expecting logic from his posts is the non-sequitur, I'm afraid.

Quote from: Skarg;935704You may think so. It's fairly simple to test.  Just try a few things that have little to do with anything the GM prompted, and see how the game world responds.

That's a good starting-level check for the practice. I've developed more over the years;).

Quote from: Arminius;935710There have been a number of good posts here (will highlight Skarg and AsenRG, but they're joined by many others), so I don't think I have much to add.

Why, thank you!

I'm loving this "highway" metaphor. That's a great approach!

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

Agreed:). Although I just consider it a variant of a sandbox, that adds a "default activity for when you have no better ideas".
That's how I treat dungeons, FWIW;).

Quote from: Arminius;935710There have been a number of good posts here (will highlight Skarg and AsenRG, but they're joined by many others), so I don't think I have much to add.

I'm curious, though, OP. What's the RPG system that was being used leading up the discussion referenced in post 53? Is that the one that most informs your assumptions going into this thread?

Two different systems, Star Wars FFG and Ubiquity.

Quote from: Tristram Evans;935654It kinda just sounds like your players are boring.

I concur with Gronan, being surprised by player choices is like 75% of why I GM.

The other 25% is hanging outwith friends, the intellectual/creative stimulation of game prep, and free beer/Doritos.

Why would they be boring?  
Again we are talking about a place here where some of the posters have been playing with the same people for decades.  How in the hell can you play with the same people for decades and still be surprised by their decisions in game?

Players are predictable or players are not nearly as smart as they think they are.  They will do the same handful to at best maybe a dozen things every time a choice is to be made.

Quote from: Xanther;935660If you are never surprised by this last definition, then you must be a genius, an ass or have lame players.

Maybe it's a you problem?  I don't have any issues keeping track of what my players do over the sessions of a campaign.  Perhaps you don't pay attention to what is actually going on in a session?

Quote from: Sommerjon;935745Why would they be boring?  

Players are predictable or players are not nearly as smart as they think they are.  They will do the same handful to at best maybe a dozen things every time a choice is to be made.

And now we no longer suspect, but rather know that your players are boring:D!

You not noticin that you've answered your own question would have been ironic with someone else. With you, it's business as usual, though;).

Quote from: Sommerjon;935745...

Maybe it's a you problem?  I don't have any issues keeping track of what my players do over the sessions of a campaign.  Perhaps you don't pay attention to what is actually going on in a session?

Ahhh now you've changed the question, or deliberate obtuseness to the rescue.  Keeping track of what the players are doing is never a problem.  That's just paying attention and notes.  If that is all you mean then of course I'm never "surprised."

I believe I and the others who like surprises are referring to the players undertaking an unanticipated course of action, especially when they come up with creative and inventive ideas in the adventure.  If you've been playing for years and years and your players have never come up with ideas outside the box on how to solve a situation in your game then you are either a genius (who can see so many more moves ahead than others), an ass (your players don't want to step off the train you set them on for fear of upsetting you) or the players are lame (they just can't think of anything but the obvious).

Quote from: AsenRG;935732Nobody. "I don't like it" is not "giving a damn".
Even I told him in the last thread that I don't care how he runs his games. It's between him and his group, after all! (I did advise him to disclose his style to newcomers, but that was about it. And the advise was in order to avoid negative reactions when they find out what his style is - which they will, since he's not keeping it a secret, much to his credit).

What I do object to are his attempts at misrepresenting any and all the other GMing styles as being illusionist, in the hopes of gathering more support for his style. In short, I object to the way he represents it on forum where we both participate, not to his style itself.

I think rgrove sounds like a talented GM whose players have no problems with his way of GM'ing, which is fine and I'd be curious to at least try playing briefly, though I have a great preference for more games that aim to simulate and not storytell nor genre-emulate nor bend-universe-for-players.

However he keeps posing questions that ask what we think or prefer, or that suggest there is no difference between various different ways of GMing, in ways that are tempting to reply to, even though he seems to almost always not get the answers somehow.

QuoteYou missed that you're replying to Sommerjon (and making me see his posts in the process, but I'm not going to hold it against you:D).
Expecting logic from his posts is the non-sequitur, I'm afraid.

I noticed it was Sommerjon. (I self-censored part of my response.) I wasn't hoping for logic, but I was struck more than usual by the seeming utter lack of semantic contact.

QuoteThat's a good starting-level check for the practice. I've developed more over the years;).

Yeah I have others too, and a general sense for it, but that was an attempt to explain to someone who seems to lack any.

Oh and I didn't reply earlier to your comment about maps. Of course the players never see THE map. :)

Quote from: Xanther;935747I believe I and the others who like surprises are referring to the players undertaking an unanticipated course of action, especially when they come up with creative and inventive ideas in the adventure.  If you've been playing for years and years and your players have never come up with ideas outside the box on how to solve a situation in your game then you are either a genius (who can see so many more moves ahead than others), an ass (your players don't want to step off the train you set them on for fear of upsetting you) or the players are lame (they just can't think of anything but the obvious).

Last 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.

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.

I assume this is a game with alignments?  If so it should very much be a surprise if the player's are of good or lawful alignment, and they should suffer the consequences for violating their alignment.

I'd go with your response as the dragons.  Clearly such duplicity, that hamstrings the dragon from responding, would leave someone speechless.  Another common response to breaking an agreement is anger or litigation. This is good though, now the dragon can set out to seek revenge and hold the players to the agreement.

Quote from: AsenRG;935746And now we no longer suspect, but rather know that your players are boring:D!

You not noticin that you've answered your own question would have been ironic with someone else. With you, it's business as usual, though;).

Wanna know something funny.  I've gamed with people from this very board.  Glad to know you find people on this bored boring.

Quote from: Xanther;935747Ahhh now you've changed the question, or deliberate obtuseness to the rescue.  Keeping track of what the players are doing is never a problem.  That's just paying attention and notes.  If that is all you mean then of course I'm never "surprised."

I believe I and the others who like surprises are referring to the players undertaking an unanticipated course of action, especially when they come up with creative and inventive ideas in the adventure.  If you've been playing for years and years and your players have never come up with ideas outside the box on how to solve a situation in your game then you are either a genius (who can see so many more moves ahead than others), an ass (your players don't want to step off the train you set them on for fear of upsetting you) or the players are lame (they just can't think of anything but the obvious).

I changed nothing.  Like I said it's a you problem.

Quote from: Skarg;935749I think rgrove sounds like a talented GM whose players have no problems with his way of GM'ing, which is fine and I'd be curious to at least try playing briefly, though I have a great preference for more games that aim to simulate and not storytell nor genre-emulate nor bend-universe-for-players.

However he keeps posing questions that ask what we think or prefer, or that suggest there is no difference between various different ways of GMing, in ways that are tempting to reply to, even though he seems to almost always not get the answers somehow.

More or less that:).

QuoteI noticed it was Sommerjon. (I self-censored part of my response.) I wasn't hoping for logic, but I was struck more than usual by the seeming utter lack of semantic contact.

While I've come to expect said lack;).

QuoteYeah I have others too, and a general sense for it, but that was an attempt to explain to someone who seems to lack any.

Yeah, got that one.

QuoteOh and I didn't reply earlier to your comment about maps. Of course the players never see THE map. :)

Well, in a published setting, it might not be your choice;).

Quote from: Sommerjon;935757Wanna know something funny.  I've gamed with people from this very board.  Glad to know you find people on this bored boring.

I 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).

Quote from: Xanther;935754I'd go with your response as the dragons.  Clearly such duplicity, that hamstrings the dragon from responding, would leave someone speechless.  Another common response to breaking an agreement is anger or litigation. This is good though, now the dragon can set out to seek revenge and hold the players to the agreement.

I can see the wronged dragon lashing out (but still adhering to it's alignment) against the party, as the rest of the good dragons look on and start to think he's gone nuts. It would be a great situation where the wronged dragon tries to prove it's case, and gives the party a bit of a shadow on their alignments. (If they are good or lawful)
I wouldn't ding them for alignment because very few characters are 100% of any alignment, and going against alignment from time to time is far more interesting (how do they justify it? etc) than playing their alignment to the point of predictability.

It sounds like an excellent opportunity for adventure! :)

Quote from: Skarg;935749I think rgrove sounds like a talented GM whose players have no problems with his way of GM'ing, which is fine and I'd be curious to at least try playing briefly, though I have a great preference for more games that aim to simulate and not storytell nor genre-emulate nor bend-universe-for-players.

However he keeps posing questions that ask what we think or prefer, or that suggest there is no difference between various different ways of GMing, in ways that are tempting to reply to, even though he seems to almost always not get the answers somehow.


I)

I have repeated a few very closely related threads mainly due to the disconnect I have between my own experience and what I have read. From a personal standpoint my style of GMing has been extremely rewarding and entertaining through the years and I have experienced only a couple of complaints, both recently and apparently in part due to a perception, admittedly pervasive throughout the community it seems, that free form, improv, hands off GMing is superior and anything else is either outdated, ill advised or relegated to the novice. Techniques that have worked great for decades are suddenly pulled into question or worse outright condemned. Granted, 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.

What 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.

I 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.

I promise I am not trying to stur up controversy, and I am certainly not some fucking troll.

In a recent game the primary heroine chose to investigate a certain seedy bar in the French Quarter. I had already established the bar as a hideout for the group of bad guys she was currently causing trouble for and populated it with a strong force of criminals. Her discovering its name was by accident, a random roll when talking to some possible informants. (Yes, I randomly determine things too) It was a fortunate discovery but in the process of the dialogue, she didn't get the full impact of just how dangerous it might be. She elected to go there alone, to scope it out a bit, not knowing that her identity was well known to some of the ruffians hanging out there. (More randomness from earlier on.)

Realizing this had the possibility of disaster, I dropped in a drunk old codger, one she served during her earlier days as a barmaid elsewhere in New Orleans, who recognized her and having heard enough rumors, warned her off. I had him planted outside another bar and intended him for another purpose entirely but this seemed like a good switcheroo to make.

Now we can debate if it would have been better to let her decision run its course, risking kidnapping, rape, murder etc. but it doesn't matter, that's not the intent of this thread.

What I was asking is how my moving the codger there from his place previously plotted is any different than an improvisation creation of the drunk and placement there for the same purpose if the GM saw fit.

To my mind there is no difference but to some there seems to be a really big one. Some of you have explained your view and I appreciate it. Others have wandered off the topic, which is expected on any forum - Ive been guilty of it myself.

Now if the issue here is the GM fiat directly, and that presenting the drunk in this way (either moving or making him up) is somehow the issue and such things should be left to chance then that is another issue entirely. I suppose some GMs roll for everything, I know I do for quite a bit (weather, density of the crowd, stinginess of the merchant, roughness of the road etc.) but when I feel the need I believe my perception as GM and my overall objective of presenting a fun, exciting and rewarding game to my players gives me the right to manipulate instead of roll, at least when its not in direct conflict with the wishes of the players.

Quote from: Sommerjon;935757...I changed nothing.

Really?  Let’s see what I said.

Quote from: Xanther;935660You need to define surprise. If by surprise you mean no idea what the players want to do or where to go adventure wise, then of course not.  We are adults we talk about where we see things going, all the better to prepare.  If you mean by surprised they change their minds and I'm at a lost for what to do, of course not, I excel at improve sometimes so much they think I actually prepared in detail for the new direction.  
If you mean by surprised they come up with something I hadn't thought of, not that I try to map out all their actions just what NPCs think might happen based on what the NPCs know, I certainly hope so.  There is so much more than I hit it with my axe, or I cast fireball, or I check for traps, etc.  If you are never surprised by this last definition, then you must be a genius, an ass or have lame players.

Underline added for those with memory and reading comprehension problems.  

The very first one is “surprise” based on lack of attention or communication; and said that was clearly not a problem.

On the last one, which you singled out, in what way is coming up with something I didn’t think of equate to not paying attention or remembering from session to session?  It doesn’t, unless you want to discuss in bad faith, are an ass, or have reading comprehension issues.  

I can see why you jump to remembering stuff from session to session or the idea of consulting records or notes (my actual words in the actual post) as what I meant by "surprise."  Memory clearly is a problem you have.

Quote from: Sommerjon;935757...Like I said it's a you problem.

Good to know.  I can strike genius off the list and lame players is looking less likely.

Quote from: rgrove0172;935782I have repeated a few very closely related threads mainly due to the disconnect I have between my own experience and what I have read. From a personal standpoint my style of GMing has been extremely rewarding and entertaining through the years and I have experienced only a couple of complaints, both recently and apparently in part due to a perception, admittedly pervasive throughout the community it seems, that free form, improv, hands off GMing is superior and anything else is either outdated, ill advised or relegated to the novice. Techniques that have worked great for decades are suddenly pulled into question or worse outright condemned. Granted, 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.

What 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.

I 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.

I promise I am not trying to stur up controversy, and I am certainly not some fucking troll.

FWIW, I think I lean more in your direction than the what appears to the majority community preferences for the rpgsite. I haven't had much success with purely simulation, agnostic(?) sandbox style play. I'm not one for the other extreme: focused and dedicated storytelling play, except as an occasional change of pace. I;ve played and enjoyed Fiasco and Slasher Flick but I wouldn't want a steady diet of them. I like games with a strong premise/set up the emphasize Role playing in the sense of trying to depict compelling and "real" characters for their milieu which is hopefully colorful and exciting. Player agency is an important issue so when I gm I try to leave things open ended and shape challenges and scenarios based on the PCs backgrounds, past choices,, successes and failures. But end of the day, I think of it as more creating a entertaining interactive improvisational story and having fun with friends than simulating a world. Though I guess depending on how you look at it that could be seen as a distinction with very little difference.

Quote from: rgrove0172;935782...I 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.

I promise I am not trying to stur up controversy, and I am certainly not some fucking troll.

Fair enough.  I wouldn't in every case storyline protection but just role playing.  For me it is about choices mattering, so I generally detest what is called illusionism.  But people are human.  You stat up an encounter that you think will be challenging, appropriate for the situation and game world.  Players walk in and you find it is way too hard/or too easy.  Not because of anything creative the players did or by stupid actions, you just didn't have the mechanics/statistics right. So you adjust them on the fly.  Fair enough.

In the end it really is what you all have fun doing.  

But if you ask for views on a board, I can tell you contrived scenes that make my player choices (within the rules and game world) meaningless, then I'm no longer playing a game or trying to make my own story.  I'm just listening to the GM's story, so why bother even making decisions or rolling dice.  I've had people join my games that played under a GM where story trumped player choice.  In every case they seemed surprise there was another way, and relish that what they do, does matter, that it can change the future and what the NPCs do, can do or don't do.  It is easy to have drama and tension without contrivance, even to player benefit, and much more satisfying.

Quote from: rgrove0172;935784What I was asking is how my moving the codger there from his place previously plotted is any different than an improvisation creation of the drunk and placement there for the same purpose if the GM saw fit.

To my mind, it's really not. (any different, or much different) and I agree with your call there. In order to make a decision on how risky the venture is, a player-character needs information, and that was your way of delivering information. It could have been done a number of ways. Yours took advantage of existing prep, and simply moved an encounter up (over, whatever) to utilize it.

Now, if you had given the character no chance of anything bad happening, that would have been illusionist. There would be no risk, for the potential reward, and the player's decision to enter a dangerous situation would have been meaningless if there was no actual danger.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;935790To my mind, it's really not. (any different, or much different) and I agree with your call there. In order to make a decision on how risky the venture is, a player-character needs information, and that was your way of delivering information. It could have been done a number of ways. Yours took advantage of existing prep, and simply moved an encounter up (over, whatever) to utilize it.

Now, if you had given the character no chance of anything bad happening, that would have been illusionist. There would be no risk, for the potential reward, and the player's decision to enter a dangerous situation would have been meaningless if there was no actual danger.

Indeed, and of course the Player in this case had the right to ignore the warning and march in anyway. (She actually almost did that, initially believing him simply trying to hide something. Discretion got the better part of valor thank God. I was already dreading those die rolls to see how they would have reacted to her intrusion.)

Quote from: Xanther;935789But if you ask for views on a board, I can tell you contrived scenes that make my player choices (within the rules and game world) meaningless, then I'm no longer playing a game or trying to make my own story.  I'm just listening to the GM's story, so why bother even making decisions or rolling dice.  I've had people join my games that played under a GM where story trumped player choice.  In every case they seemed surprise there was another way, and relish that what they do, does matter, that it can change the future and what the NPCs do, can do or don't do.  It is easy to have drama and tension without contrivance, even to player benefit, and much more satisfying.

That experience sounds eerily similar to my own;).

Quote from: AsenRG;935795That experience sounds eerily similar to my own;).

I 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.

Quote from: rgrove0172;935782a perception, admittedly pervasive throughout the community it seems, that free form, improv, hands off GMing is superior and anything else is either outdated, ill advised or relegated to the novice.

First off, improv vs. changing is a completely different topic from handsoff vs. steering.

Quote from: rgrove0172;935782Techniques that have worked great for decades are suddenly pulled into question or worse outright condemned. Granted, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ok specific example.

Quote from: rgrove0172;924962I bought a chunk of FFG Star Wars stuff last spring and set up one, that's ONE session of Edge of the Empire. The scenario was a sort of Star Wars dungeon crawl through an abandoned and critter infested mining complex, dozens of kilometers across, hundreds of meters deep etc. Huge Place.

There was no way I was going to map all that after some consideration decided, as they goal was more or less a hunt for a specific item, to run it as a set of linked encounters. There was a chance of getting lost, random stuff too of course, but essentially there were 20 or so scenes that they players would wander through, it really didn't matter where they chose to go (up the ladder, down the vent shaft or through the busted security door for example) they would end up in one of those 20 scenes to be dealt with or avoided then move on. The players had a 'map' but not a physical one, instead it gave directions toward parts of the mine (maintenance section, control room, conveyor control hub, droid storage etc.) which correlated with the scenes they might encounter if they chose to go that general way.

I thought it was an efficient way to run the game and it turned out great. We had a ball, 8 hours of steady play through the endless corridors and maintenance shutes before facing the big nasty critter at the end with a gaggle of Stormtroopers thrown in as their presence at the off limits site was discovered.

After the game though, during the typical post game debrief, one of our new players asked about the map to the place. "It must be huge!" I told him it didn't exist. The game was a series of scenes I had established and walked them through. The guy came unhinged! "What? You mean there is no mine, its just a bunch of bullshit encounters you put us through?" I mean he was really upset. The other players kind of stared in wonder, like what was this guys problem. A few minutes before he had been swearing it was one of the best games he had ever taken part in. To make a long story short he left pissed and has never come back. He used the same 'illusionist' term I hear in this forum regularly several times in is ranting.

It seems like you still have no idea why this guy was upset.  Last time we talked about this you ignored or missed my question about it, so I'll ask it again...

In that EotE game, you said you had a gigantic complex with 20 scenes...
1. Did you run all those 20 scenes?
2. Were there any scenes the group could have missed in their exploration?
3. Was the order of the scenes set, random, or random with a few key scenes?

and now my explanation why he was upset...

See, 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. Now obviously, he could have died in combat, etc... so the fights were real, but the rest was not. So, to his mind, you took that accomplishment from him.

Once, you do that, once you break that trust that the characters are accomplishing things on their own, then their choices don't matter. Left, Right, Up, Down - who cares, Grove will get us there.
Reactivate the Reactor first or see if there's anything we need to check - Nah, if something else needed to be done Grove would have made sure we encountered that before now.

The players retain their agency on a micro-level, in combat (maybe) but they completely lose their agency on a larger level because...
No matter what they do, the overall story remains the same.

All the fun your players have been having, for years, is based on that "Grove is in charge" mindset.  They know they can die, they know that bad things can happen, but they also know that once they set foot on the path of the Story, the End will be reached.  That has a profound affect on a player's mindset.

I'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.

Quote from: CRKrueger;935805Ok specific example.


It seems like you still have no idea why this guy was upset.  Last time we talked about this you ignored or missed my question about it, so I'll ask it again...

In that EotE game, you said you had a gigantic complex with 20 scenes...
1. Did you run all those 20 scenes?
2. Were there any scenes the group could have missed in their exploration?
3. Was the order of the scenes set, random, or random with a few key scenes?

and now my explanation why he was upset...

See, 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. Now obviously, he could have died in combat, etc... so the fights were real, but the rest was not. So, to his mind, you took that accomplishment from him.

Once, you do that, once you break that trust that the characters are accomplishing things on their own, then their choices don't matter. Left, Right, Up, Down - who cares, Grove will get us there.
Reactivate the Reactor first or see if there's anything we need to check - Nah, if something else needed to be done Grove would have made sure we encountered that before now.

The players retain their agency on a micro-level, in combat (maybe) but they completely lose their agency on a larger level because...
No matter what they do, the overall story remains the same.

All the fun your players have been having, for years, is based on that "Grove is in charge" mindset.  They know they can die, they know that bad things can happen, but they also know that once they set foot on the path of the Story, the End will be reached.  That has a profound affect on a player's mindset.

I'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.

Ok, Ill answer your questions, sorry I missed them somehow in that other thread and I believe your bringing up that Star Wars scenario is perfectly appropriate to this topic. I can imagine any number of 0 Prep GMs tackling the abandoned mine game in a way similar to the way I did, only I was drawing from premade scenes while they would be making them up on the spot. Both methods are completely Illusionary, I just don't see how anyone can debate that. Now, as to your questions...

Did I run all 20 Scenes? No, not even close. I think we played through maybe 12 of them total. Their decisions on what areas they wanted to explore and some random rolling on my part determined which scenes they encountered. Often this was in the form of choices such as...

"An explosion looks to have removed the stairs from this access way but your map indicates a security juncture up the shaft. The heavy blast doors in front of you seem to lead into an assembly area while a whole series of smaller doorways connect with an administration area off to your left."

Were there any scenes the group could have missed in their exploration? Sure, and as stated, they did - almost half as they expressed a need to hurry towards the end, feeling (correctly) that the stability of the place was in question and worsening.

Was the order of the scenes set, random, or random with a few key scenes? They were generally random, drawn from a long list - however I did use some logic at times instead of rolling when one industrial process seemed to connect to another. (The loading area was next to the rail system maintenance area and robotic hauler control hub etc.) As far as set scenes I had only three... one introduced the first encounter with a rival group of scavengers (after the initial meeting it was up to them how the two groups interrelated.) and the other two were points of major change in the mine's environment - one was an explosion which started more or less a countdown until the area was flooded with hazardous gas and the other was the attention of a large subterranean carnivore that would begin pursuing them. Other than that the encounters were essentially random, or as stated based on their preferences. (We are looking for gear, is there an equipment storage room somewhere on the map nearby?)

As to your explanation for his ire... I disagree. There was absolutely chances for them to fail, get lost, not escape in time, blunder into a couple of very dangerous areas (collapsing platforms, chemical leaks etc.)  When they came up with tactical plans (Lets find the rail hub and see if we cant get it back on line then jumpstart that hauler back there at the intersection and use it to get us out of here) I implemented the right scenes, or introduced new ones (Improv) to proceed through them.

The main difference, to my mind, between the way I conducted the adventure and actually having a huge map of the place is that I removed the possibility of ..
a) suffering long periods of boring travel where nothing happens because they luckily chose empty corridors
b) shortening the game to a less entertaining dash through the mine if they luckily chose the shortest route
c) introducing certain death if they unluckily chose certain paths before they had required equipment or foreknowledge to deal with them

and so on. Instead I paced the adventure to allow them plenty of freedom of action but kept them on track (Highway someone said, that's not bad) so as not to wander off one of these game killing tangents. As said, they all had a great time except for the one guy afterward who seemed to think that without a map, preplanned and concreted encounters, he was cheated in some way.

He would have been even more pissed if one you Zero Prep guys would have sprung that on him.

Quote from: rgrove0172;935814As to your explanation for his ire... I disagree. There was absolutely chances for them to fail, get lost, not escape in time, blunder into a couple of very dangerous areas (collapsing platforms, chemical leaks etc.)  When they came up with tactical plans (Lets find the rail hub and see if we cant get it back on line then jumpstart that hauler back there at the intersection and use it to get us out of here) I implemented the right scenes, or introduced new ones (Improv) to proceed through them.

But did you have a set way things worked in your mind, something the players had to figure out.  In other words, which is closer...
1. The players had to figure out how the place worked.
2. The players had an idea of how the place worked, and you decided if that was the truth or not.

Some more questions...
With no set map, not even an outline of how things are laid out, how can they possibly get lost?  Any guess they make as to the right way to take it validated by you, at the time.  Isn't the reality that they will only get lost if you decide they will?

Quote from: rgrove0172;935814The main difference, to my mind, between the way I conducted the adventure and actually having a huge map of the place is that I removed the possibility of ..
a) suffering long periods of boring travel where nothing happens because they luckily chose empty corridors
b) shortening the game to a less entertaining dash through the mine if they luckily chose the shortest route
c) introducing certain death if they unluckily chose certain paths before they had required equipment or foreknowledge to deal with them and so on.

What is wrong with those outcomes?  
a) The players know they are in a huge, abandoned complex.  Emptiness is expected.  If you're thinking in Story terms, the "empty" areas are there to contrast with the others, the calm before the storm, a way to enforce the natures of the size, age and abandoned state of the complex.
b)If the players correctly choose the "easy" way, why not let them have the reward?
c)If the players choose a dangerous way, why not let them have it (with both barrels)?

As long as you're not using "gotcha" traps and have reasonable, logical and consistent ways for the PCs to use skills in order to determine their best path, to spot hazards, etc... then they should be able to make their way through without your help or hindrance.

If I play in your campaign, I know from everything you've said here that you have a plot in mind, a Story Arc that will be told.  No matter how badly I fuck up, you're not going to let the world drop the hammer on me or the party.  There will be no TPKs.  Similarly, no matter how awesome I plan, no matter how brilliant and unconventional the plan I come up with is, I will never succeed to the point where things become easy - it goes against the narrative.  No, your thumb will be firmly on the scale, always, to ensure that I get just the right amount of danger and difficulty so that things will play out in a dramatically satisfying way.  I will play my role in your Story.

Quote from: rgrove0172;935814He would have been even more pissed if one you Zero Prep guys would have sprung that on him.

I'm not a Zero-Prep GM by any stretch of the imagination, if anything I'm a MorePrepThanI'llRealisticallyEverNeed GM.  My problem with your style isn't that you don't Improv*, my problem with your style is that you approach things from a "we're all telling a Story" approach and that you alter things as need be to make sure that Story gets told.  In the end, you are the real Protagonist and Antagonist, your players are simply actors allowed a certain level of Improv themselves.

*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.

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? :D

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? :D

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 :D

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.

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.

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?

What rug? His decisions had an effect, his rolls determined outcomes, his choices determined the path of the story. The only thing he lacked was that it wasn't all written down in friggin stone before hand. The purpose of this thread was to compare how that player's experience would have been identical, and possible their outrage, had one of the Zero Preppers run it their way from scratch.

Of course Ive had TPKs... a few times due to really sucky combat rolls, once due to my overestimating the prowess of the character because of a rash of great luck previously and at least once or twice due to players making really, really bad decisions. I have admitted to 'hedging', 'nudging' etc. but I don't exercise some sort of God like power to keep the characters alive despite ill luck, bad choices, stupidity etc. As I said, had the female character ignored the drunk's warning and blundered into that bar, it would have gone very bad for her.

Does player choice over their character's actions matter? Do they have consequence? Simple question.

Unfolded deeper question: does their free will DISPLACE or REORIENT the facts extant (or their relation to those facts thereof)?

Do facts have persistence, mass, a materiality? If not, then they are phantasmic, illusory, regardless of how one later interacts with them.

(Do not get lost on this point. The sound of a tree falling in a forest with no one around DOES EXIST, has a specific PLACE and TIME, regardless of any sapient observers present. Choosing one's space and time in relation to a specific event, even momentary, has consequence.)

You are discussing the difference between when content is generated (immediate = improvisation,) versus free will affecting content (different choice = same result).

So, back to the core question: does player choice matter? will their free will suffer their own consequences?

If you equivocate and try to snow this answer with anything larger than a paragraph, understand you are trying to rationalize your choice as being something more than it is not. This is literally the binary question: answer and accept what you have chosen. (And if you want to grow as a GM and run games in new ways, listen, reflect and change.)

Quote from: CRKrueger;935823But did you have a set way things worked in your mind, something the players had to figure out.  In other words, which is closer...
1. The players had to figure out how the place worked.
2. The players had an idea of how the place worked, and you decided if that was the truth or not.

Some more questions...
With no set map, not even an outline of how things are laid out, how can they possibly get lost?  Any guess they make as to the right way to take it validated by you, at the time.  Isn't the reality that they will only get lost if you decide they will?


What is wrong with those outcomes?  
a) The players know they are in a huge, abandoned complex.  Emptiness is expected.  If you're thinking in Story terms, the "empty" areas are there to contrast with the others, the calm before the storm, a way to enforce the natures of the size, age and abandoned state of the complex.
b)If the players correctly choose the "easy" way, why not let them have the reward?
c)If the players choose a dangerous way, why not let them have it (with both barrels)?

As long as you're not using "gotcha" traps and have reasonable, logical and consistent ways for the PCs to use skills in order to determine their best path, to spot hazards, etc... then they should be able to make their way through without your help or hindrance.

If I play in your campaign, I know from everything you've said here that you have a plot in mind, a Story Arc that will be told.  No matter how badly I fuck up, you're not going to let the world drop the hammer on me or the party.  There will be no TPKs.  Similarly, no matter how awesome I plan, no matter how brilliant and unconventional the plan I come up with is, I will never succeed to the point where things become easy - it goes against the narrative.  No, your thumb will be firmly on the scale, always, to ensure that I get just the right amount of danger and difficulty so that things will play out in a dramatically satisfying way.  I will play my role in your Story.

I'm not a Zero-Prep GM by any stretch of the imagination, if anything I'm a MorePrepThanI'llRealisticallyEverNeed GM.  My problem with your style isn't that you don't Improv*, my problem with your style is that you approach things from a "we're all telling a Story" approach and that you alter things as need be to make sure that Story gets told.  In the end, you are the real Protagonist and Antagonist, your players are simply actors allowed a certain level of Improv themselves.

*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.

No, I didn't have anything set in my mind. I knew what was there, what possibilities were at hand, and I allowed their choices (and yes my determination at time went by as to what would be most fun) to lead from one scene to the next.

As to getting lost, that is a factor of the character's memory and ability to read a map - where it should be. A player's memory is irrelevant. The characters have to to make the specific determinations based on the general wishes of the players.

PLayer -We want to head back to that control panel.
GM - Did you mark it on the map? You didn't say you did.
Player - well its not that far away, we will backtrack.
GM - give me an Intellect roll please, +2 as it hasn't been that long.

Emptiness is also boring and not worth playing. Its best served as a narrative statement, many of which I used in the game.
"You travel for several hundred meters down the maglev track and all remains quiet."

Why not let them accidently choose the easy way and shorten the adventure? Because the group got together that night to play an adventure in an abandoned mining complex, to face the hazards within and to experience an exciting story of drama, suspense and danger. Having a quick stroll through a boring ass set of tunnels wasn't in the plan.

Choosing the hard way was certainly possible, and they did a few times. No problems there. I might give them a hand if by bad luck they totally step into it, but as stated above, only to a degree.

If I play in your campaign, I know from everything you've said here that you have a plot in mind, a Story Arc that will be told. No matter how badly I fuck up, you're not going to let the world drop the hammer on me or the party. There will be no TPKs. Similarly, no matter how awesome I plan, no matter how brilliant and unconventional the plan I come up with is, I will never succeed to the point where things become easy - it goes against the narrative. No, your thumb will be firmly on the scale, always, to ensure that I get just the right amount of danger and difficulty so that things will play out in a dramatically satisfying way. I will play my role in your Story.

Your post above is just shit, pure and simple. Sorry, not offense but there are so many blind and inaccurate assumptions in there I cant respond any other way.

As to your last paragraph, I agree entirely. I am absolutely a major Prepper, easily prepping 8-10 hours per 1 hour of play. I have volumes of information at hand before I even begin the first session. Its easily as enjoyable for me as actual play.

Quote from: CRKrueger;935856#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.

At no point where his decisions irrelevant and your examples point directly to combat which is pretty straight forward unless you start fudging dice rolls behind your screen.

Quote from: Nexus;935889From 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.

Your my hero!

My group doesn't typically roleplay dinner, trips to the head, days in training etc. I suppose some do but I don't think this was the problem here. I believe this outraged player was upset that the mine, its environs and content weren't set in stone and instead still up for my (the GM) interpretation. He may have believed what some of you accused me of, completely relating the entire adventure out of my head (ass) and ignoring their input. As I have to tried to relate here, and did then, this is not at all the case.. something my Zero Prep friends out there can probably attest to. What was in my brain at the time was fairly consistent and fair and although perhaps not as set as a printed module, did not wander into 'story telling' land.

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.

I am seeing more and more of this. Professed Zero Preppers reporting they actually do Prep. If you drew up a map, jotted down some characters, made up some random charts... you just might be a Prepper - whether you think you are or not!

Quote from: CRKrueger;935923Every 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.

Agree totally.

Quote from: Opaopajr;935936Does player choice over their character's actions matter? Do they have consequence? Simple question.

Unfolded deeper question: does their free will DISPLACE or REORIENT the facts extant (or their relation to those facts thereof)?

Do facts have persistence, mass, a materiality? If not, then they are phantasmic, illusory, regardless of how one later interacts with them.

(Do not get lost on this point. The sound of a tree falling in a forest with no one around DOES EXIST, has a specific PLACE and TIME, regardless of any sapient observers present. Choosing one's space and time in relation to a specific event, even momentary, has consequence.)

You are discussing the difference between when content is generated (immediate = improvisation,) versus free will affecting content (different choice = same result).

So, back to the core question: does player choice matter? will their free will suffer their own consequences?

If you equivocate and try to snow this answer with anything larger than a paragraph, understand you are trying to rationalize your choice as being something more than it is not. This is literally the binary question: answer and accept what you have chosen. (And if you want to grow as a GM and run games in new ways, listen, reflect and change.)

Don't need a paragraph. Answer is yes. Im on board with everything you just posted.

Gotta post an example here from a session this weekend.

Our heroine and her sidekicks were arranging transport across the Mississippi to seek the council of a certain snake-oil salesman. I had notes about rival ferryboat companies interfering with one another and decided to implement an encounter then instead of much later when I had originally assumed they would be crossing the river at some point for other purposes.

During the conflict one of the 'bad guys' grabs the woman and threatens to throw her overboard. She attempts to escape his clutches but fails. I elected to step in and gave the 'bad boss' a chance of intervening. Sure enough, a good roll and he makes a remark about "We don't fret on no womenfolk, now let'er go." to which the hireling responds by releasing her.

The player, feeling a little indignant I suppose, decided to elbow the guy in the gut as she steps away and gives him a snide remark. To this I made a quick roll and the chided hireling kicked her uppity ass in the drink anyway.

It was awesome. Rescue attempt ensued, some dicey swimming rolls but she made it to shore.

Even as it was unfolding I thought it made a good example of how I did indeed move the encounter from its initially planned time/location and I also stepped in as GM to alter the flow of the action - but only in part... at no point do I believe it detracted from the game or player agency.

Quote from: rgrove0172;924962I bought a chunk of FFG Star Wars stuff last spring and set up one, that's ONE session of Edge of the Empire. The scenario was a sort of Star Wars dungeon crawl through an abandoned and critter infested mining complex, dozens of kilometers across, hundreds of meters deep etc. Huge Place.

There was no way I was going to map all that after some consideration decided, as they goal was more or less a hunt for a specific item, to run it as a set of linked encounters. There was a chance of getting lost, random stuff too of course, but essentially there were 20 or so scenes that they players would wander through, it really didn't matter where they chose to go (up the ladder, down the vent shaft or through the busted security door for example) they would end up in one of those 20 scenes to be dealt with or avoided then move on. The players had a 'map' but not a physical one, instead it gave directions toward parts of the mine (maintenance section, control room, conveyor control hub, droid storage etc.) which correlated with the scenes they might encounter if they chose to go that general way.

These words otherwise condemn you.

We've all worked with abstracted mapping (social networks and institutions are famously so). So abstracting physical locales is again old hat for us. Those bolded quoted words however set off alarm bells like mad.

Yet you keep on using the word "encounter," and it reminds of painfully familiar circular discussions about the pitfalls of precious, overly-crafted encounter-based adventures (I believe someone here coined "encountardization") from others who lament the same as you.

Here's an easy way to clear through this bombastic exchange: Clarify what you mean by this 'abstracted map'.

Were these 20 scenes "encounters" or "locales?" Were they ever interconnected in a fixed manner, or just a random table of grab bag treats? Could one go back through them to take alternate branches before reaching the end? Could one get "lost through its branches," (was it linear, branching, multi-branched, looping branches, etc.)? Or was it a pachinko game with a funnel at the bottom to the jackpot goal?

Quote from: Daztur;935684People having too many options and not enough focus can be a problem in some games especially when you have too many people write up long backstories that pull in different directions.

This problem often goes away after the early game as the players have learned enough and pissed off enough people to narrow their focus but what often helps to kick off a game is a "highway."

A highway is like a railroad and you set it up in the same way but make absolutely no effort to make the players stick to the road and provide lots of tempting off ramps. But if the players are being indecisive there's always the default of turning on cruise control and going a few more miles.

This.

Quote from: Opaopajr;935949These words otherwise condemn you.

We've all worked with abstracted mapping (social networks and institutions are famously so). So abstracting physical locales is again old hat for us. Those bolded quoted words however set off alarm bells like mad.

Yet you keep on using the word "encounter," and it reminds of painfully familiar circular discussions about the pitfalls of precious, overly-crafted encounter-based adventures (I believe someone here coined "encountardization") from others who lament the same as you.

Here's an easy way to clear through this bombastic exchange: Clarify what you mean by this 'abstracted map'.

Were these 20 scenes "encounters" or "locales?" Were they ever interconnected in a fixed manner, or just a random table of grab bag treats? Could one go back through them to take alternate branches before reaching the end? Could one get "lost through its branches," (was it linear, branching, multi-branched, looping branches, etc.)? Or was it a pachinko game with a funnel at the bottom to the jackpot goal?

I can see where you might think so, condemn me that is. Reading it back I can understand your interpretation. What is missing there is that in the absence of any predetermined route or intention, each route was generally random and led to wherever I saw fit or the dice indicated. Much of the time the players did announce an intentional destination and the of course travel was more direct.

As to the map, it was an actual schematic of the mine with a few, FEW, hard and fast locales (complete with encounters at each of them, be they puzzles, difficult terrain, adversaries etc.) Otherwise the map was full of crazy tunnels, chambers, shuts, elevators, access vents etc. with the details left to my list of "possible encounters" or you could say Locales as each was specific in nature. These various encounters served to present challenges, provide resources, introduce NPCs etc. at more or less a random degree with only the few major locales necessary to navigate the mine.

So to answer your question..They were both encounters and locales. Some were interconnected (as I stated before, logically according to the industrial process) and some were random (barracks, storage room, auxiliary power etc. with no direct correlation to adjacent areas).

Yes, it was easy to back track, and often was, as each new discovery was placed on the player map, or at least in the heads and mine as FINITE. (moving things around before they are discovered by the players is fine but only an idiot wouldn't nail them down once presented.)

As to getting lost, I already answered that, players don't get lost, characters do. Why should the player's ability, memory, skill or whatever suddenly take precedence over the character's in this one regard. The player's knowledge of Tai-Kwon Do doesn't help his character fight. Im a paramedic but my characters don't automatically have my medical knowledge. So, sure... they Characters could get lost, the player's understanding of the map or layout isn't a factor.

As to the Pachinko game... sort of. The mine did sort of funnel towards the main freight area where I had a big encounter planned, more due to its design than my preference but there were several other exits, many pitfalls and of course always the chance to simply try and go back the way they came.

Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;935952This.

I was impressed with the analogy too. Typically my players are content to follow the road but on occasion do wander down one of those exits to wherever. Ive never discouraged that, although Ill admit prematurely ending the session to allow me to provide some good content thataway if I cant come up with something quickly. I wont sacrifice quality in my settings for immediacy.

Quote from: rgrove0172;935948Even as it was unfolding I thought it made a good example of how I did indeed move the encounter from its initially planned time/location and I also stepped in as GM to alter the flow of the action - but only in part... at no point do I believe it detracted from the game or player agency.

Do you mind giving an example of the party failing, and how you handled it in the game?

Here is an example of how I handle party failure:

Running a 5e DnD campaign through converted the 2e Slavers adventure module.  PCs horribly misjudged the strength of a slave trader's outpost and were completely overwhelmed when they assaulted it.  One PC was killed outright.  Since they were slavers, the surviving PCs were stripped and sold into slavery.

I rolled randomly among the likely places where they would be shipped and sold (set in the world of Greyhawk, which I know like the back of my hand).  The PCs did not attempt an escape in transit.  They were sold to an orc tribe.  The tribe's numbers were hastily rolled from a generic orc tribe list in my notes.  On a whim, I put them in a stock tower from folder of stuff.  We played out a couple days of captivity until they made their escape through gaining intel on the orc' s habits, putting their plan in action when they figured the time was right according to their intel, and more than one lucky roll.

This occurred over the course of one session.  Starting the session, all I knew was that the party planned to investigate the slavers' stronghold.  Everything else flowed from what I figured to be the consequences of their actions (with a good helping of prep and random generation materials).  

It was a brutal and ugly session which none of the players left the game happy.  Few words were said when it was time to wrap up, and we all just went home.  A couple sessions later, the party had gotten back on their feet.  They managed to go back and get revenge on the slavers.  It was a glorious moment that has hit the group of stories we tell among ourselves in remembrance of past campaigns.

Quote from: rgrove0172;935926I'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.

Skills, I could care less.

On the other hand, getting out of your tight little group, going up to Gen Con, and playing in every game you can, would answer about 99 44/100% of every question in every thread you have ever started anywhere.  Go play some fucking games with other people than the same little group since the dawn of time, it will teach you more then eighty quadrillion forum threads.

Actually go meet people and do shit.

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.

Here's how I usually GM.

1. I get a new game, read it, become psyched.

2. I promiss my group I'll run it.

3. I tell myself this time it's going to be different, I'll draw a map (can't draw worth shit) and stock it, etc.

4. The scheduled day comes up and I have nothing other than a few vague ideas. So I get my improv on, sketch an ugly map (if it's appropriate for the game in question. Sometimes I steal from an existing map), throw them 2 or 3 adventure hooks and off we go.

5. I write down everything that happened and all the off-hand shit I made up, to develop it between games and/or during future sessions.

6. Play continues until:
a. We decide the new game sucks (by session #1 or #2)
b. Scheduling goes to shit
c. New shiny comes along (more of a thing during my RPGnet darling-of-the-month days or my early OSR gotta-try-this days. Nowadays not so much.)

My players enjoy it, but I think I can do one better. I envy the depth and staying power of lovingly prepared campaigns.

Which is why debates relating to session prep, improv GMing and player agency get my attention.

Quote from: rgrove0172;935957I was impressed with the analogy too. Typically my players are content to follow the road but on occasion do wander down one of those exits to wherever. Ive never discouraged that, although Ill admit prematurely ending the session to allow me to provide some good content thataway if I cant come up with something quickly. I wont sacrifice quality in my settings for immediacy.

Tacit jab at the opposing playstyle. Quality is in the eye of the beholder, sir.  Beyond that, well, seems everything is slave to your prep, which indicates, to me, a lack of confidence in the depth and breadth of your knowledge (this is likely a needless worry). As a former "big prepper," I can tell you it is okay to ease up on white-knuckling the steering wheel and see what happens. It feels like you're wasting the resource that is your players. Further, it feels like they're there for you, rather than the other way around. Hell, I don't even see a meeting in the middle.

Quote from: The Butcher;936034Here's how I usually GM.

1. I get a new game, read it, become psyched.

2. I promiss my group I'll run it.

3. I tell myself this time it's going to be different, I'll draw a map (can't draw worth shit) and stock it, etc.

4. The scheduled day comes up and I have nothing other than a few vague ideas. So I get my improv on, sketch an ugly map (if it's appropriate for the game in question. Sometimes I steal from an existing map), throw them 2 or 3 adventure hooks and off we go.

5. I write down everything that happened and all the off-hand shit I made up, to develop it between games and/or during future sessions.

6. Play continues until:
a. We decide the new game sucks (by session #1 or #2)
b. Scheduling goes to shit
c. New shiny comes along (more of a thing during my RPGnet darling-of-the-month days or my early OSR gotta-try-this days. Nowadays not so much.)

My players enjoy it, but I think I can do one better. I envy the depth and staying power of lovingly prepared campaigns.

Which is why debates relating to session prep, improv GMing and player agency get my attention.

Same. I have very bad system alt-itis. I have a lot of respect for people who can hang with a single system, and build and miantain the same world over decades. That said, I know I'll never be the "35 year old campaign setting" dude, because, well, I'd get bored with it, at some point (that's a flaw on my part, I know). In any case, it's an amazing accomplishment to create something like that.

Quote from: Old One Eye;935985Do you mind giving an example of the party failing, and how you handled it in the game?

Here is an example of how I handle party failure:

Running a 5e DnD campaign through converted the 2e Slavers adventure module.  PCs horribly misjudged the strength of a slave trader's outpost and were completely overwhelmed when they assaulted it.  One PC was killed outright.  Since they were slavers, the surviving PCs were stripped and sold into slavery.

I rolled randomly among the likely places where they would be shipped and sold (set in the world of Greyhawk, which I know like the back of my hand).  The PCs did not attempt an escape in transit.  They were sold to an orc tribe.  The tribe's numbers were hastily rolled from a generic orc tribe list in my notes.  On a whim, I put them in a stock tower from folder of stuff.  We played out a couple days of captivity until they made their escape through gaining intel on the orc' s habits, putting their plan in action when they figured the time was right according to their intel, and more than one lucky roll.

This occurred over the course of one session.  Starting the session, all I knew was that the party planned to investigate the slavers' stronghold.  Everything else flowed from what I figured to be the consequences of their actions (with a good helping of prep and random generation materials).  

It was a brutal and ugly session which none of the players left the game happy.  Few words were said when it was time to wrap up, and we all just went home.  A couple sessions later, the party had gotten back on their feet.  They managed to go back and get revenge on the slavers.  It was a glorious moment that has hit the group of stories we tell among ourselves in remembrance of past campaigns.

Hmm, Party Failure - that can mean several things. If you mean TPK, I already mentioned how a few of those occurred. As to how I handled it, well your choices are pretty limited. They are dead afterall. Barring some "dream sequence" bullshit you pretty much have to roll up replacement characters. In every incidence I dealt with we scrapped the current adventure, the players just didn't feel right about bringing in fresh blood to an old story. I concurred.

Now there are other forms of Party Failure, such as a complete failure to accomplish whatever it was they were striving toward. I had a group fail to find the device that ended up leveling a city, they chose to escape at the last minute. In another game the party made the wrong assumption and assassinated a good guy instead of the villain. In another I recall the group was fooled by a rebellious faction into sabotaging government spacecraft. They were caught and jailed. I left it that way for a couple months while we played something else, letting them think it was over - then reviving the game with an escape attempt.

Sounds like you handled yours well. I probably wouldn't have winged the entire thing, that's just me though. The introduction of the Slavers would have required some time for me to flesh the details out. (I am a stickler for having way more detail than I will ever need in a game.) I improvise when I have to but a major event and plot deviation like that would have paused the session. Cool that you managed it on the fly though.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936007Skills, I could care less.

On the other hand, getting out of your tight little group, going up to Gen Con, and playing in every game you can, would answer about 99 44/100% of every question in every thread you have ever started anywhere.  Go play some fucking games with other people than the same little group since the dawn of time, it will teach you more then eighty quadrillion forum threads.

Actually go meet people and do shit.

No thanks. Did the Con thing twice, got the T-shirt, wasn't impressed. Lots of ill prepared, highly pressured and narcissistic GMs trying desperately to pull a game out of a noisy, distracting environment while their players act as if they were at a carnival instead of participating in a thoughtful enterprise. I found out years ago that kind of scene just wasn't for me. I do have a consideration for the experience had by my players but honestly, my own entertainment comes first. If Im not having fun, why would I play. This has kept the gaming groups small, loyal and for the very large part satisfied over the years.

I engage here to hear other opinions, other experiences, and I value them all. Im certainly not searching for revelation through what others believe to be the holy grail of gaming... (ie. what they like)

Quote from: The Butcher;936034Here's how I usually GM.

1. I get a new game, read it, become psyched.

2. I promiss my group I'll run it.

3. I tell myself this time it's going to be different, I'll draw a map (can't draw worth shit) and stock it, etc.

4. The scheduled day comes up and I have nothing other than a few vague ideas. So I get my improv on, sketch an ugly map (if it's appropriate for the game in question. Sometimes I steal from an existing map), throw them 2 or 3 adventure hooks and off we go.

5. I write down everything that happened and all the off-hand shit I made up, to develop it between games and/or during future sessions.

6. Play continues until:
a. We decide the new game sucks (by session #1 or #2)
b. Scheduling goes to shit
c. New shiny comes along (more of a thing during my RPGnet darling-of-the-month days or my early OSR gotta-try-this days. Nowadays not so much.)

My players enjoy it, but I think I can do one better. I envy the depth and staying power of lovingly prepared campaigns.

Which is why debates relating to session prep, improv GMing and player agency get my attention.

There is value in diversity for sure... in this case absolute opposites! Laugh
I had a close buddy who GMd as you do, and many of his games were awesome fun - a bit lite for my taste but there was no denying the positive atmosphere around the table.

I actually envy those like you that can approach a game that way. I am a stickler for setting and spend hours pouring over research, working up ridiculous amounts of detail that I know all to well will probably never make an appearance in my game or that the players wont give three shits for. Still, to my mind, they are critical to my vision of the setting I am presenting and thus, I cant resist.

I have file boxes with reams of setting info in them for games that lasted 1 or 2 sessions for whatever reason. Literally weeks or even months spent preparing. Laugh, its a curse - I wont deny it, but I cant say I don't enjoy it. Digging in to a new setting and making it come alive in my own head is one of the most rewarding aspects of this weird hobby.

Quote from: rgrove0172;936070Lots of ill prepared, highly pressured and narcissistic GMs trying desperately to pull a game out of a noisy, distracting environment while their players act as if they were at a carnival instead of participating in a thoughtful enterprise.

*snicker*

Those silly unwashed masses!

Quote from: cranebump;936054Tacit jab at the opposing playstyle. Quality is in the eye of the beholder, sir.  Beyond that, well, seems everything is slave to your prep, which indicates, to me, a lack of confidence in the depth and breadth of your knowledge (this is likely a needless worry). As a former "big prepper," I can tell you it is okay to ease up on white-knuckling the steering wheel and see what happens. It feels like you're wasting the resource that is your players. Further, it feels like they're there for you, rather than the other way around. Hell, I don't even see a meeting in the middle.

Apologies, I didn't mean to imply anything other than in MY case, improvising is usually accompanied by a drop in depth. I am sure others don't suffer this same problem. Its all about expectations and perception. I might consider one guys improve session extremely lite in detail (as I have witnessed at Cons for example or random games set up at a game shop) while others found it engaging and colorful. Go figure. I know with my own stuff, I can tell when looking back when I was prepared and when I was forced to fly by the seat of my pants.

Your right about the players though, they are absolutely open to whatever. Ive tried some experimentation though, and somewhere in one of these threads I mentioned they suggested I return to the norm.

Quote from: rgrove0172;936074I know with my own stuff, I can tell when looking back when I was prepared and when I was forced to fly by the seat of my pants.

Do your players? If your players can't tell and/or are having a great time, does it matter?

Quote from: rgrove0172;935956[...]
So to answer your question..They were both encounters and locales. Some were interconnected (as I stated before, logically according to the industrial process) and some were random (barracks, storage room, auxiliary power etc. with no direct correlation to adjacent areas).

Yes, it was easy to back track, and often was, as each new discovery was placed on the player map, or at least in the heads and mine as FINITE. (moving things around before they are discovered by the players is fine but only an idiot wouldn't nail them down once presented.)
[...]
As to the Pachinko game... sort of. The mine did sort of funnel towards the main freight area where I had a big encounter planned, more due to its design than my preference but there were several other exits, many pitfalls and of course always the chance to simply try and go back the way they came.

So they were a mix of fixed encounters and fixed locales, whose organization was loose in the less critical stretches, which is fine. Some NPCs don't migrate much if at all. And some locations need to remain clustered for coherence. After that you can design clusterfuck the less important parts of the McDungeon, (just like how style is dead in McMansions). It's an aesthetic choice like any other.

Also, after the random determination you would then fix them into spacial relation. That's good, too. Now, did you cross off "scenes," (fixed NPCs & fixed locations,) as you went? That'd help for logical demographics as well.

Overall you made an oval, (more like marquise cut,) and as long as there was adherence to the moment of content determination, it sounds ok. Now, it is not everyone's cup of tea, and is the sort of those thing I would not surprise on a group without prior talk. Some people want maze-like nooks and crannies to exploit. Instead you pared it down to "Highlighted Nodes!" with hand-wavium passages, which really cramps any precise tactical or strategic directional sense exploitation. So you can see how it is understandable some who wantd a spacial challenge will feel robbed from the experience.

Quote from: rgrove0172;935926I'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.

If you *feel* I'm being condescending - that's on you. I'm pointing out a simple fact of *any* social interaction: if you only socially interact with the same people in the same way (regardless of the endeavor) - you will develop behaviors and practices that will, providing the social group retains cohesion, a method of doing things that becomes rote. That's all I'm pointing out.

Whether or not you think it's better or not is irrelevant, since your group is *obviously* used to doing things a certain way and it works for them: which is great. <-- see that? I'm endorsing *YOUR* GMing for *YOUR* group. I've *BEEN* doing that for at least half-a-dozen threads where you prance around trying to get people to explain to you why we think your storytime-style is inferior - then you demure and act like we don't understand you. We do. Trust me - we do. We just keep telling you that most of us don't do it that way because it's not really serving the game as a best practice for *us*. You keep ignoring how we came to that conclusion (and frankly I don't think you'd understand it - or don't want to hence my position that you're cognitively dissonant).

You even admit - you didn't need to evolve - for reasons . Well that's all well and good when you sit in the comfort of your bubble. Pointing out to everyone outside of your bubble that they're wrong when you're not in that arena by choice is why I find you cognitively dissonant - and others find you to be a troll. Can you step back and objectively see how your position comes off? You want everyone to step onto your little Storytime Island but you're actually wondering why, when we say "Been there, done that." we don't like to stay. We tell you - and you say "Well that's condescending. But I really wanna know why you don't approve of how I run my games."

/rinse repeat

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936007Skills, I could care less.

On the other hand, getting out of your tight little group, going up to Gen Con, and playing in every game you can, would answer about 99 44/100% of every question in every thread you have ever started anywhere.  Go play some fucking games with other people than the same little group since the dawn of time, it will teach you more then eighty quadrillion forum threads.

Actually go meet people and do shit.

... the eloquence of Gronan can be sublime in its directness to the center. This is forum-haiku greatness.

Quote from: tenbones;936086... the eloquence of Gronan can be sublime in its directness to the center. This is forum-haiku greatness.

err, yeah

I don't know what the specific player was upset about with the spacestation that wasn't mapped. It just sounds to me like you got him to think there was a map and he related to it like a real detailed place, and was disappointed and felt misled when you told him it was something abstract.

It occurs to me that, even with my most map-loving players, the would (and) have just asked a direct question like "is this an actual mapped place?" (or have figured it out by questioning you for details that would require you to have a map to see what you did to figure that out) and then be fine with it not being mapped because they know how much work that can take.

It's usually not too hard to determine what's a fruitful line of inquiry with a GM or not. If they don't have a detailed map and you ask them for details, you can usually get plenty of clues about whether there is a map and whether it matters to the GM, by whether you asking them for details is met with excited happily interested detailed responses and discussion, or whether they seem a bit concerned or annoyed or disinterested or to imply "why are you asking me this?"

But sometimes there are GM's who try to provide details by improv as if they were not improv, but they don't handle it so well in any number of ways, as may or may not be more or less evident sooner or later. Like, they improv up some poorly-considered weird stuff in their world which they then have to deal with being there, or maybe they later declare it was stupid and never existed. Or they create negative consequences of one form or another, ranging from disproportionate threats to just being annoyed with the player and possibly treating them, their PC and/or their suggested actions less favorably.

If a player is interested in a game that is about a detailed situation and playing out what happens, that's a different sort of thing from playing a game about a story, or from playing a game about characters in a world and events that get invented around them, especially if the reasons why things exist or happen has to do with entertainment, genre, game balance/challenge, "fun", cleverness, themes, fairness, etc.

Quote from: rgrove0172;936074Apologies, I didn't mean to imply anything other than in MY case, improvising is usually accompanied by a drop in depth.

Me too.

Fortunately, I find preparation fun.

You need to seriously consider what you're starting these threads for and what you expect to get out of them, because they mostly come off as annoying even to those of us who run high-prep games.

What's your fucking POINT in all these threads?  Because it has escaped pretty much everybody in the world.

Quote from: rgrove0172;936070No thanks. Did the Con thing twice, got the T-shirt, wasn't impressed. Lots of ill prepared, highly pressured and narcissistic GMs trying desperately to pull a game out of a noisy, distracting environment while their players act as if they were at a carnival instead of participating in a thoughtful enterprise. I found out years ago that kind of scene just wasn't for me. I do have a consideration for the experience had by my players but honestly, my own entertainment comes first. If Im not having fun, why would I play. This has kept the gaming groups small, loyal and for the very large part satisfied over the years.

I engage here to hear other opinions, other experiences, and I value them all. Im certainly not searching for revelation through what others believe to be the holy grail of gaming... (ie. what they like)

Have to concur with you there, I've no interest in playing with strangers at a con and place zero value on it over a relaxed game with a group of friends. I think Gronans way off base with that little rant.

Quote from: Tristram Evans;936102Have to concur with you there, I've no interest in playing with strangers at a con and place zero value on it over a relaxed game with a group of friends. I think Gronans way off base with that little rant.

Not if your goal is finding out other ways to play, however, and especially if you need to be divested of the notion that your isolated, siloed point of view is actually the way everyone does things, especially the people Back In The Day.  You could just go to Garycon and talk to them while supplies last.

Quote from: CRKrueger;936107Not if your goal is finding out other ways to play, however, and especially if you need to be divested of the notion that your isolated, siloed point of view is actually the way everyone does things, especially the people Back In The Day.  You could just go to Garycon and talk to them while supplies last.

Yeah.

Or even North Texas RPGcon.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936099Me too.

Fortunately, I find preparation fun.

You need to seriously consider what you're starting these threads for and what you expect to get out of them, because they mostly come off as annoying even to those of us who run high-prep games.

What's your fucking POINT in all these threads?  Because it has escaped pretty much everybody in the world.

Lmao, your probably right. Lesson learned, I hope.

Quote from: Tristram Evans;936102Have to concur with you there, I've no interest in playing with strangers at a con and place zero value on it over a relaxed game with a group of friends. I think Gronans way off base with that little rant.

I don't think he's off base. There's a lot of ways to play with other people than just doing Con's. I think GMing at Cons *is* difficult for veteran GM's on a good day, and I don't even think it is indicative of how to GM a non-Convention group in terms of best practices.  BUT - it *will* teach you to stay on your toes and be focused. Which is an invaluable tool for general GMing, which makes the experience worthwhile if you do it a few times.

What I think is more important is the experience of running games for different players that play at different levels of ability. It will force you to expand your capabilities in running a good game beyond the core-conceits of a group whose idiosyncratic behaviors are well understood by you (and vice versa).

It will help you refine what you think you know works vs. the reality of what actually works to get your gaming to levels you may not have even knew existed. For some, this is not even a desirable thing. I've personally had some powerful experiences in my gaming groups that made me realize what gaming could be when all the gears and clicking just right. When you toss out your rulebook and just do it differently - you can find a lot of value in it by challenging those preconceptions. This is what I'm generally striving for in my games with varying amounts of success. The ones that do, are truly special moments for my groups.

First time I ever played Amber was a revelation. And I only played in one campaign over a summer. It completely changed how I viewed running RPG's (I wasn't GMing), the GM was superb - all of the players raised their game to match the context of the campaign, with the players driving the game with a much stronger sense of freedom which I attribute to the GM taking us out of our comforst-zone. It was our first diceless game (which was blasphemous to us) and it affected all of us in how we interacted. It might sound more high-falutin than it was, but it mattered to me in terms of how I approached GMing from that point forward.

I think a good GM should always be a little uncomfortable and be trying new things (even if you mix it with tried-and-true bits). Otherwise you start believing your own hype on what you think you know.

Quote from: rgrove0172;935956I can see where you might think so, condemn me that is. Reading it back I can understand your interpretation. What is missing there is . . .

(https://i.makeagif.com/media/8-19-2015/D8sxR1.gif)

Quote from: The Butcher;935582Expediency and entertainment trump philosophical dogma.

Butch, understand I hold you in the highest regard as an open and open-minded gamer when I say that you are so full of shit right here your tears ducts are leaking watery stool.

'I like this but I don't like that' isn't "philosophical dogma" - it's a statement of preference, no more, no less.

There are ways of improvising game-world content I find enjoyable, both as a player and a referee, and ways I don't, and I will play with the former and not the latter, because I don't enjoy the latter and why would I waste my fucking time?

The closest this veers to anything 'philosophical' is the asshole dickery that anything's okay as long as the players don't know better. I can think of very few examples where lying and misleading people is a good idea, and the notion that you won't be caught out is the height of self-delusion. Some gamers may be fine with illusionism, others will ignore it, but it doesn't mean the referee wasn't caught with pants 'round ankles.

Quote from: tenbones;936117I think a good GM should always be a little uncomfortable and be trying new things (even if you mix it with tried-and-true bits). Otherwise you start believing your own hype on what you think you know.

Pretty solid advice.

Quote from: cranebump;936056Same. I have very bad system alt-itis. I have a lot of respect for people who can hang with a single system, and build and miantain the same world over decades. That said, I know I'll never be the "35 year old campaign setting" dude, because, well, I'd get bored with it, at some point (that's a flaw on my part, I know). In any case, it's an amazing accomplishment to create something like that.

Yeah, right now I think I'm settling on a middle ground. I have a "golf bag" of favorite systems and a few campaign ideas queued for each — though my current campaign is using a game that caught me partly by surprise, swept me off my feet and demanded to be run immediately. I intend to make this a relatively long-term game, real life allowing (Baby Butcher #1 is due in less than six months).

Quote from: rgrove0172;936071There is value in diversity for sure... in this case absolute opposites! Laugh
I had a close buddy who GMd as you do, and many of his games were awesome fun - a bit lite for my taste but there was no denying the positive atmosphere around the table.

Emphasis mine. Care to elaborate?

Quote from: rgrove0172;936071I actually envy those like you that can approach a game that way. I am a stickler for setting and spend hours pouring over research, working up ridiculous amounts of detail that I know all to well will probably never make an appearance in my game or that the players wont give three shits for. Still, to my mind, they are critical to my vision of the setting I am presenting and thus, I cant resist.

But you certainly enjoy it, don't you? Sometimes I feel like preparing a session and running a session are two distinct hobbies in their own. ;) I envy the inclination and commitment to generate well-thought-out materal like this.

Quote from: rgrove0172;936071I have file boxes with reams of setting info in them for games that lasted 1 or 2 sessions for whatever reason. Literally weeks or even months spent preparing. Laugh, its a curse - I wont deny it, but I cant say I don't enjoy it. Digging in to a new setting and making it come alive in my own head is one of the most rewarding aspects of this weird hobby.

As a young man, making NPCs was My Thing. I had tons of them in Word .doc files, mostly for Rifts and WoD, and later d20. They came complete with personalities, quirks and story hooks. Eventually I lost them all on some HD crash or other, but I wish I had them laying around for reference, or the time and inclination to build these extensive files anew.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;936125Butch, understand I hold you in the highest regard as an open and open-minded gamer when I say that you are so full of shit right here your tears ducts are leaking watery stool. (...)

The closest this veers to anything 'philosophical' is the asshole dickery that anything's okay as long as the players don't know better. I can think of very few examples where lying and misleading people is a good idea, and the notion that you won't be caught out is the height of self-delusion. Some gamers may be fine with illusionism, others will ignore it, but it doesn't mean the referee wasn't caught with pants 'round ankles.

Appreciate the kind words, cap'n — the regard is mutual, I assure you — and the opportunity to clarify my own.

It is entirely possible that my players do not mind the "illusionism" because they've been brought up, as gamers, on AD&D 2e and classic World of Darkness; or because I haven't run a long-term campaign in a while, and they have failed to catch on to my parlor tricks; or because they're just casual enough not to care. It is also possible that they do mind but hold their peace out of concern for muh feelz (lol) or common courtesy.

I also have a difficult time framing the presentation of a fictional world, however constrained by GM convenience, as "lying" or "misleading" — and this is where we veer into the metaphysical: is not the whole game world a vast illusion? What does it avail the players if I decided their next encounter on whim, or on a dice roll? How aware are they of their own agency in the game world, any more than we are of the limits of free will in our own lives?

Of course, I care (to a degree), and it's why I enjoy these exchanges. I think upholding player agency is a good value to have, that it makes for more fulfilling games. But my lack of discipline with regards to game prep — it is, after all, the first thing that gets axed when time runs short — often makes me ditch what feels "right" for a more convenient (and, so far, as far as I can tell, teleologically indistinguishable) alternative. And ever since recently seeing similar aporoaches validated in print by two of my sandbox gurus (Alex Macris and Kevin Crawford), I've given in to temptation and I'm up to my old sleight-of-hand again.

When I say his games were a bit lite, I mean the settings lacked a level of depth I enjoy. If a group of the Duke's men gallop into town looking for an escaped brigand I want to know what the crest on their banner looks like, the type of horse the Captain is riding and the name of the dungeon the guy escaped from. If the game introduces a seedy little bar in South Bronx, I need a name, a fairly good description of the guy tending, the house special and the layout of the alley out back. I don't care of these details are provided from a pre created folder or made up on the fly but I want them. Presenting casual and superficial descriptions without sufficient detail leaves me a little disappointed. I come up with the stuff on my own as a player to fill the gaps but it has an effect on my level of enjoyment.

His games were fun, Im not going to rain shit on the guy but at times his vision of the world became pretty vanilla and uninspiring, to the point of being annoyed if we asked for more detail than he had available.

"So the car the gangsters are in, what? Is it a like a big Packard or something?"...

"Huh? I don't know, its a big black car, what does it matter?"
 
Such things are important to me as Im trying to visualize them in my head. I know it annoys some people but what are you gonna do? When I hear ...

"You see a small group of peddlers plodding along the road in an heavy laden wagon"... I want

"You see a small group of Andovian merchants, one of the coastal tribes from the cut of their jerkins. Two huge draft horses, obviously not from their homeland, plot along pulling a wagon bursting from under a leather thong secured tarp with what might be carpets or tapestries."

Its terribly unreasonable expecting that sort of thing, I know that and Ive learned to keep it to myself for the most part.  Different strokes.

Quote from: CRKrueger;936107Not if your goal is finding out other ways to play, however, and especially if you need to be divested of the notion that your isolated, siloed point of view is actually the way everyone does things, especially the people Back In The Day.  You could just go to Garycon and talk to them while supplies last.

I see what your saying, but I also don't think playing in another person's game, especially in an environment like a con, is going to give as much information on a person's approach to GMing, in terms of the things being discussed in the thread such as illusionism, preparedness, playstyle, etc, as simply talking to other GMs, or finding a GM in their home environment.


But then I'm also not quite clear what the OP wants, as they seem to have a successful ongoing gaming group that appear to be satisfied with the approach he's developed.

Quote from: rgrove0172;936186When I say his games were a bit lite, I mean the settings lacked a level of depth I enjoy. If a group of the Duke's men gallop into town looking for an escaped brigand I want to know what the crest on their banner looks like, the type of horse the Captain is riding and the name of the dungeon the guy escaped from. If the game introduces a seedy little bar in South Bronx, I need a name, a fairly good description of the guy tending, the house special and the layout of the alley out back. I don't care of these details are provided from a pre created folder or made up on the fly but I want them. Presenting casual and superficial descriptions without sufficient detail leaves me a little disappointed. I come up with the stuff on my own as a player to fill the gaps but it has an effect on my level of enjoyment.

His games were fun, Im not going to rain shit on the guy but at times his vision of the world became pretty vanilla and uninspiring, to the point of being annoyed if we asked for more detail than he had available.

"So the car the gangsters are in, what? Is it a like a big Packard or something?"...

"Huh? I don't know, its a big black car, what does it matter?"
 
Such things are important to me as Im trying to visualize them in my head. I know it annoys some people but what are you gonna do? When I hear ...

"You see a small group of peddlers plodding along the road in an heavy laden wagon"... I want

"You see a small group of Andovian merchants, one of the coastal tribes from the cut of their jerkins. Two huge draft horses, obviously not from their homeland, plot along pulling a wagon bursting from under a leather thong secured tarp with what might be carpets or tapestries."

Its terribly unreasonable expecting that sort of thing, I know that and Ive learned to keep it to myself for the most part.  Different strokes.

So you want the sort of crap that only shows up in third rate novels?  "One of the costal tribes from the cut of their jerkins" is right up there with "riders in silks and leathers" for fancy-sounding shit that is utterly meaningless.

Without looking it up, tell me the major differences in conformation between an Andalusian and a Lipizzan.  Unless you can, the kind of horse the captain is riding is a "Fuck You" horse, that's what kind of horse it is.

Without looking it up, tell me the major visual spotting differences between a Packard and a Deusenburg.  Can't do it?  The gangsters are driving a "FUCK YOU MOTOR COMPANY" car, that's what they're driving.

Because if you don't know the difference, you're just being a pisshead.

And if you CAN tell the difference, then you're just being a pedantic assmunch by concentrating on irrelevancies and pretending to be "deep".
'

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936190Because if you don't know the difference, you're just being a pisshead.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936191And if you CAN tell the difference, then you're just being a pedantic assmunch by concentrating on irrelevancies and pretending to be "deep".'

(http://i.imgur.com/hpZyw.gif)

Quote from: Black Vulmea;936203(http://i.imgur.com/hpZyw.gif)

So it's a sin to want to know what kind of fucking car it is?
If so your games would be pretty drab to me. Plain car, average horse, typical banner. Why even have a setting at all? Just let the players make up their own.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936190So you want the sort of crap that only shows up in third rate novels?  "One of the costal tribes from the cut of their jerkins" is right up there with "riders in silks and leathers" for fancy-sounding shit that is utterly meaningless.

Without looking it up, tell me the major differences in conformation between an Andalusian and a Lipizzan.  Unless you can, the kind of horse the captain is riding is a "Fuck You" horse, that's what kind of horse it is.

Without looking it up, tell me the major visual spotting differences between a Packard and a Deusenburg.  Can't do it?  The gangsters are driving a "FUCK YOU MOTOR COMPANY" car, that's what they're driving.

Because if you don't know the difference, you're just being a pisshead.

Sad thing is this junior high response doesn't even surprise me. It's come to be expected.

Quote from: rgrove0172;936186Different strokes.

I like that bit of extra detail too. Its one of the reasons I've come to appreciate changing to mostly online forms of play. Its easier to add details with feeling like you're droning on. :)

I don't see what harm little embellishments like that do, especially if there's some clue to had from the information, like "Hmm, all the coast hereabouts is populated with small fishing villages, there no deep ports around or large towns, so why are these merchants carrying what looks like a load of carpets/tapestries?"  Those pieces of random information could tell the observant that there is more to these men then meets the eye, like they're actually smuggling weapons or something else in those tapestries, or could start a conversation whereby the PCs find out the new Provincial Governor is a Royal Relative and is building a new fort in the largest of the seaside villages.

Now if I'm walking down the docks in that village, I don't need to know exactly what fish is for sale in each stall, or which merchant has the cutest daughter, or what color the overhang of their stall is, or whether those overhangs are linen, cotton, or silk, but they can help me visualize the environment.

Of course if I'm passing through and I'm only stocking up on rations for the next leg of an overland journey, then I'll probably need or want less detail than if we've been hired as town guard for a month due to the threat of coastal pirates and I'm getting to know the people, looking for spies, etc.

But...Geezer does have a point in that if you don't yourself know the difference between a Packard and a Deusenberg, or which model is faster, could hold more bodies in the trunk, etc, then insisting on knowing can be a little dickish.

I tend to be a gearhead, so I usually throw out little details like what make of car or gun, breed of horse or dog, type of weapon or armor, etc.

I think part of GMing skill is knowing yourself and your players and having a good sense of the 'right' level of detail at the right time.

Quote from: rgrove0172;936186When I say his games were a bit lite, I mean the settings lacked a level of depth I enjoy. If a group of the Duke's men gallop into town looking for an escaped brigand I want to know what the crest on their banner looks like, the type of horse the Captain is riding and the name of the dungeon the guy escaped from.

Do you bother to ask? Because the information often might be present, but skipped as "something the (other) players wouldn't care about".
Well, all except the horse's type. It's a chestnut gelding whose type seemse related to the destrier, seems strong, but not all that fast - albeit faster than a true destrier.
(I don't know enough about horse's subtypes...and I can bet you don't know much more about the types of horses they had in the Middle Ages, either - especially given that some of them have died off or changed beyond recognition).
Other than that? The captain's banner is a griffon sitting on his hindlegs and grasping a skull in his forelegs, all on blue field. The dungeon has no name, it's just located under the local noble's castle...so the locals just call it the Deep Cellar.

QuoteIf the game introduces a seedy little bar in South Bronx, I need a name, a fairly good description of the guy tending, the house special and the layout of the alley out back. I don't care of these details are provided from a pre created folder or made up on the fly but I want them. Presenting casual and superficial descriptions without sufficient detail leaves me a little disappointed. I come up with the stuff on my own as a player to fill the gaps but it has an effect on my level of enjoyment.

"It's the fucking Brandy At Midnight bar, run by the famous guy who's actually named Brandy. The guy tending it isn't Brandy, he only comes at midnight, justifying the bar's name (though some say he watches the guy that is tending via webcams the whole time). Anyway, it's before midnight now, and the guy has skin the colour of milk chocolate, beady eyes that are popping a bit from his skull, white teeth that make you think of a good dentist, and shaved head. However, he wears the Brandy At Midnight's work uniform, so you can't tell much from his clothes.
The house special is not served before midnight, but it's probably based on brandy. The alley out back leads to the parking lot of a bigger mall, where most of the customers tend to leave their cars...those who come with cars and are planning to go away with them. The whole alley, including the distance between the mall and the bar is, however, unlit - almost as if someone is breaking the street lamps.
You can make some figures back there, probably peddling their, or someone else's, wares. There might even be legal stuff on the sale...but don't bet your ass on it, or it might become part of the wares that are being peddled!"

Good enough for your tastes? The only thing I stopped for was to check for what's the English word for "beady" in the online dictionary.
But unless someone asks, I'm not going to deliver that kind of detail, unless I think they might need it.

QuoteHis games were fun, Im not going to rain shit on the guy but at times his vision of the world became pretty vanilla and uninspiring, to the point of being annoyed if we asked for more detail than he had available.

"So the car the gangsters are in, what? Is it a like a big Packard or something?"...

"Huh? I don't know, its a big black car, what does it matter?"

That guy needs a bit of improv theatre classes if he's to deliver the details you want.
 

QuoteIts terribly unreasonable expecting that sort of thing, I know that and Ive learned to keep it to myself for the most part.  Different strokes.

No, but it's obviously unreasonable to expect it from someone whose style doesn't include it.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;936203(http://i.imgur.com/hpZyw.gif)

Does this wrasslin' move have a name that gives the message? Because I honestly don't understand.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936190Without looking it up, tell me the major differences in conformation between an Andalusian and a Lipizzan.  Unless you can, the kind of horse the captain is riding is a "Fuck You" horse, that's what kind of horse it is.

Conformations I know nothing of, but overall, I'm stealing the Andalusian. :D. If I have to fight the Captain on horseback, I'm hoping he's not on the Andalusian.  If I have to get away from him in a chase, I'm hoping he's not on the Lippizaner.

The kind of flowery prose that rgrove is describing is the kind of stuff that I often imagine, in my head, when the DM provides basic descriptions. That or I'll write it down in my campaign journal (yeah I do that as a player so that I can remember what happened and add this immersive stuff for my own enjoyment).

During the game, I really just want the DM to get to the point and describe things with enough detail so that we;re all on the same page on what is actionable, interactive, usable. The extra stuff just makes me impatient.

Quote from: Necrozius;936231The kind of flowery prose that rgrove is describing is the kind of stuff that I often imagine, in my head, when the DM provides basic descriptions. That or I'll write it down in my campaign journal (yeah I do that as a player so that I can remember what happened and add this immersive stuff for my own enjoyment).

During the game, I really just want the DM to get to the point and describe things with enough detail so that we;re all on the same page on what is actionable, interactive, usable. The extra stuff just makes me impatient.

[/B]

Same here. We're not writing a novel. Hell, even with novels I could stand fewer details and more action most of the time. You can get a long way with economy of verbiage. At some point, all that flowery prose becomes masturbation.

Eh...
The GM gives out not enough detail, Grove thinks he's a simpleton.
The GM gives out too much detail, Necro and others get impatient and think he's a frustrated bad novelist.

Maybe people need to just remember the entire table doesn't exist for the tickling of their testicles, chill the fuck out and let the GM do their job...or else get the fuck out of the campaign and run your own where all detail levels are dialed perfectly of course. :rolleyes:

Quote from: CRKrueger;936242Eh...
The GM gives out not enough detail, Grove thinks he's a simpleton.
The GM gives out too much detail, Necro and others get impatient and think he's a frustrated bad novelist.

Maybe people need to just remember the entire table doesn't exist for the tickling of their testicles, chill the fuck out and let the GM do their job...or else get the fuck out of the campaign and run your own where all detail levels are dialed perfectly of course. :rolleyes:

Over the past few years I've noticed that you regularly interpret what others say in the worst possible way, no matter what. I have no patience with pricks like you. Welcome to my ignore list, asshole :).

Quote from: rgrove0172;936206So it's a sin to want to know what kind of fucking car it is?

It's a sin to offer or demand awful prose as a function of playing a roleplaying game.

Quote from: rgrove0172;936206If so your games would be pretty drab to me. Plain car, average horse, typical banner.

Nope, I never give a moment's thought to things like what kind of horse someone is riding (https://le-ballet-de-l-acier.obsidianportal.com/items) or what books are on a library shelf (http://black-vulmea.blogspot.com/search/label/off%20the%20shelf) or a character's fighting style (http://black-vulmea.blogspot.com/2012/05/you-are-using-bonettis-defense-against.html).

Yup, when you're right, you're right, in spades.

Quote from: Necrozius;936249Over the past few years I've noticed that you regularly interpret what others say in the worst possible way, no matter what. I have no patience with pricks like you. Welcome to my ignore list, asshole :).

Or don't defend your point of view, what a not-surprise.  Too "impatient" I guess. ;)

Quote from: rgrove0172;936206So it's a sin to want to know what kind of fucking car it is?
If so your games would be pretty drab to me. Plain car, average horse, typical banner. Why even have a setting at all? Just let the players make up their own.

No. It's a sin to present a scenario that will never be sufficient to admit your point is invalid. You're saying you want details to suffice for *you*. Well unless I'm mistaken - you're GMing, not playing. And what this all boils down to is you making it about you and your desire for validation. Nothing more.

If YOU want to know what kind of fucking car it is *and* you're GMing - just say what kind car it is. If you're playing - then what Gronan said is rock solid. If your character doesn't know the difference from the subject in question: who gives a shit? He wouldn't know. If he would know - then the GM will tell you (if that's you - then this entire line of reasoning is MOOT because you'd *tell them* and then your complaint of insufficiency is resolved. Right?

Don't mistake giving detail that isn't necessary or even knowable by your PC's with your masturbatory need to fulfill your own desires to give flavor-text beyond the context of the game and what is knowable or not to your PC's. This is why you don't seem to understand your Storytime Gaming is really just you wanting to satisfy yourself - not actually running a game for your players *and* yourself for maximum effect. You assume because your players are trained to like what you like that everyone else must like your style. Hence - you play on your little island of belief.

Ahhhh, Butch, you had me at "teleologically indistinguishable." :)

Quote from: The Butcher;936169I also have a difficult time framing the presentation of a fictional world, however constrained by GM convenience, as "lying" or "misleading" — and this is where we veer into the metaphysical: is not the whole game world a vast illusion? What does it avail the players if I decided their next encounter on whim, or on a dice roll?

Though the world is fictional, treating the game-world as having an objective reality of its own imposes interesting constraints and creates challenges and opportunities, in my experience.

The happy medium here is simply:

1) GM's can give as much detail as necessary as generally understood by the PC's (based on background etc.) Otherwise keep it straightforward and in context.
2) Treat your players like adults not children. Over-explanation can *kill* the most powerful tool in gaming (and storytelling) - the imagination of the consumer. Give your players some fucking credit and don't treat them like 6-year olds with parental bedtime story for a game.

Edit: Unless you want to treat them that way because that's how you get your rocks off - but then I'd say you're doing your campaign, and your players, an extreme disservice.

Quote from: rgrove0172;936207Sad thing is this junior high response doesn't even surprise me. It's come to be expected.

Yeah, yeah, blah, blah.  So you in fact DON'T know the difference.

A difference that makes no difference is no difference.  You don't know the difference, your character doesn't know the difference, you're just disrupting the flow of the game with irrelevant bullshit to prove what a "real roleplayer" you are.

And this is consistent in every thread you ever participate in.  If your posts were any more full of "I am a REAL roleplayer" condescension, they'd be smoking a clove cigarette.

Quote from: CRKrueger;936242Eh...
The GM gives out not enough detail, Grove thinks he's a simpleton.
The GM gives out too much detail, Necro and others get impatient and think he's a frustrated bad novelist.

Maybe people need to just remember the entire table doesn't exist for the tickling of their testicles, chill the fuck out and let the GM do their job...or else get the fuck out of the campaign and run your own where all detail levels are dialed perfectly of course. :rolleyes:

For me the difference is RELEVANT detail, and also what your character knows.  How much does your character know about horses, or cars?  AND WHY DOES IT MATTER?

"You see a cart lumber by with "Cartajena Movers" painted on the side. You realize you are to hell and gone from Cartajena."  THAT is worth looking at.

"The cart is purple with green stripes." Bite me.

Quote from: tenbones;936253No. It's a sin to present a scenario that will never be sufficient to admit your point is invalid. You're saying you want details to suffice for *you*. Well unless I'm mistaken - you're GMing, not playing. And what this all boils down to is you making it about you and your desire for validation. Nothing more.

If YOU want to know what kind of fucking car it is *and* you're GMing - just say what kind car it is. If you're playing - then what Gronan said is rock solid. If your character doesn't know the difference from the subject in question: who gives a shit? He wouldn't know. If he would know - then the GM will tell you (if that's you - then this entire line of reasoning is MOOT because you'd *tell them* and then your complaint of insufficiency is resolved. Right?

Don't mistake giving detail that isn't necessary or even knowable by your PC's with your masturbatory need to fulfill your own desires to give flavor-text beyond the context of the game and what is knowable or not to your PC's. This is why you don't seem to understand your Storytime Gaming is really just you wanting to satisfy yourself - not actually running a game for your players *and* yourself for maximum effect. You assume because your players are trained to like what you like that everyone else must like your style. Hence - you play on your little island of belief.

Marry me.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936273For me the difference is RELEVANT detail, and also what your character knows.  How much does your character know about horses, or cars?  AND WHY DOES IT MATTER?

"You see a cart lumber by with "Cartajena Movers" painted on the side. You realize you are to hell and gone from Cartajena."  THAT is worth looking at.

"The cart is purple with green stripes." Bite me.

Right.  Does it matter?  For example, in Tekumel "purple with green stripes" or some appropriate Tekumel combination could very well tell me things about Clan, Caste or whateverthefuck, yes?  So it might very well matter.

My point in triggering necro was that just because you don't know that it matters, doesn't mean it doesn't matter does it?  If in Heaven or Hell I end up playing Tekumel with you, Chirine and Barker, I'm sure he's gonna drop some setting specific markers I'm gonna have no fucking clue about, but you and Chirine are gonna read properly.  To me they "don't matter", to you they are "blindingly obvious details any fucking idiot who knows the setting should know".

That's why giving the GM some modicum of trust instead of assuming they're some fucktard who doesn't know what they're doing might be the right way to go.

As you cross the street near the theater, a...

"What's the name of the street?  What's the name of the theater?  Is it burlesque or vaudeville or a movie house?  Is there a stop sign?  A four way stop?  Is there a manhole?"

Um... you're at the corner of Fifth and Main, and you've just passed the Odeon movie house, and...

"Talkies or silent?  Does it have a marquee?  Does it have chase lights?"

Er, it's talkies... "Gone with the Wind" is playing.  Anyway, a big black car screeches to a halt and Noodles Romanoff and his band of No-Goods pile out and...

"Wait, what about the marquee?  And what kind of car?  Does it have whitewalls?  Does it have wire spoke wheels?  How is Noodles Romanoff dressed?  Does he have a four in hand or a bow tie?  Pinstripes or solid suit?  Is he wearing a fedora or a trilby?"

* kicks player in the groin repeatedly while screaming "DIE ASSHOLE DIE!" *

Quote from: CRKrueger;936276Right.  Does it matter?  For example, in Tekumel "purple with green stripes" or some appropriate Tekumel combination could very well tell me things about Clan, Caste or whateverthefuck, yes?  So it might very well matter.

My point in triggering necro was that just because you don't know that it matters, doesn't mean it doesn't matter does it?  If in Heaven or Hell I end up playing Tekumel with you, Chirine and Barker, I'm sure he's gonna drop some setting specific markers I'm gonna have no fucking clue about, but you and Chirine are gonna read properly.  To me they "don't matter", to you they are "blindingly obvious details any fucking idiot who knows the setting should know".

That's why giving the GM some modicum of trust instead of assuming they're some fucktard who doesn't know what they're doing might be the right way to go.

I do trust the GM.  If they give details I don't understand, I trust them to tell me why they're important if I ask. More likely they will say something like "you are to hell and gone from Cartajena".  If I don't ask that's my lookout.  But the last half of your post simply puzzles me.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936277As you cross the street near the theater, a...

"What's the name of the street?  What's the name of the theater?  Is it burlesque or vaudeville or a movie house?  Is there a stop sign?  A four way stop?  Is there a manhole?"

Um... you're at the corner of Fifth and Main, and you've just passed the Odeon movie house, and...

"Talkies or silent?  Does it have a marquee?  Does it have chase lights?"

Er, it's talkies... "Gone with the Wind" is playing.  Anyway, a big black car screeches to a halt and Noodles Romanoff and his band of No-Goods pile out and...

"Wait, what about the marquee?  And what kind of car?  Does it have whitewalls?  Does it have wire spoke wheels?  How is Noodles Romanoff dressed?  Does he have a four in hand or a bow tie?  Pinstripes or solid suit?  Is he wearing a fedora or a trilby?"

* kicks player in the groin repeatedly while screaming "DIE ASSHOLE DIE!" *

Right, that's the worst possible extreme imaginable that no one has done ever. :D  Now what about the rest, where it's a balancing act?

Quote from: CRKrueger;936279Right, that's the worst possible extreme imaginable that no one has done ever. :D  Now what about the rest, where it's a balancing act?

That would be "most of the universe."

Most of the world is, in a word, "typical." Boots are typical boot color.  Clothes are cut like typical clothes.  If you are in the market town of Fucktown during Ye Merrieeieie Oldeee Traydeee Fairieieieie, people are dressed "typically for a market town in this region."  If you are in 1920s Chicago, people are dressed typically for 1920s Chicago.  What the referee should spend time on is what is NOT typical, and, where necessary, explain to the players why this is not typical, and why it is significant.

The operative word is "significant."

Because as referee I'm not going to elaborately detail what every noble in the King's court is wearing, nor will I as a player sit still for it.  "And then the EARS, I get the IDEA, get ON with it."

What last half don't you get?  "Just because you don't know that it matters, doesn't mean it doesn't matter does it?"

If everything that comes out of the GM's mouth is directly applicable and immediately defined, then there are no clues at all, and god forbid the GM accidentally lets slip a random word because then that becomes something vitally important the PCs are going to obsess over.

I agree that whether Duke Whoever is wearing black boots or brown is kind of pointless and if a players specifically pumps a GM for that information, that can be annoying.  But type of boots could be important if I want to track him later, or plan on outrunning him at some point, etc...

Sometimes players have a train of thought they are following, and the point of their question might not be immediately apparent.  So, acting like an adult who can shit unassisted and trusting the other people at the table to be the same instead of DETAILSBAD! again, just might be the way to go. :D

And this is where GMing as a skill comes into practice. It's improv. It's understanding the conceits of your setting. It's understanding the relevance of the PC's in context with the setting *better* than the player's do but presenting that context to the PC's as seamlessly as possible through their own actions, etc. and all the rest of methods that lead to a glorious campaign (yeah I know you already know this - I'm just spelling it out for those that seem to be cognitively dissonant to how this all fits together).

This is *precisely* why I say that the OP is still GMing a very basic kind of game. He's doing Storytime without understanding these other principles *in practice* because as he readily admits: He's never needed to develop these other skills.

But now he's here and he's faced with those that have figured this all out through lots of trial and error, and is all WHAGARBLE!!!?!?!?

The irony here is that the OP keeps making these threads and it always turns out to be the same question in disguise. Insanity? Trolling? Honest searching for answers? It's starting to narrow down...

Quote from: tenbones;936294The irony here is that the OP keeps making these threads and it always turns out to be the same question in disguise. Insanity? Trolling? Honest searching for answers? It's starting to narrow down...

Wanting to be washed away in a tsunami of jizz as every gamer in the world simultaneously orgasms over how brilliant and deep an' shit he is.

Quote from: Necrozius;936231The kind of flowery prose that rgrove is describing is the kind of stuff that I often imagine, in my head, when the DM provides basic descriptions. That or I'll write it down in my campaign journal (yeah I do that as a player so that I can remember what happened and add this immersive stuff for my own enjoyment).

During the game, I really just want the DM to get to the point and describe things with enough detail so that we;re all on the same page on what is actionable, interactive, usable. The extra stuff just makes me impatient.

Yep, I've known some gamers that feel the same way. Plenty of room for all kinds of preferences. I was schooled that part of the GMS responsibility was to be a good story teller. Still today the GM section of many rulebooks give this advise but v there is no wrong way to play it.

Quote from: cranebump;936232[/B]

Same here. We're not writing a novel. Hell, even with novels I could stand fewer details and more action most of the time. You can get a long way with economy of verbiage. At some point, all that flowery prose becomes masturbation.

In your opinion surely. Obviously not true in all cases.

Quote from: CRKrueger;936242Eh...
The GM gives out not enough detail, Grove thinks he's a simpleton.
The GM gives out too much detail, Necro and others get impatient and think he's a frustrated bad novelist.

Maybe people need to just remember the entire table doesn't exist for the tickling of their testicles, chill the fuck out and let the GM do their job...or else get the fuck out of the campaign and run your own where all detail levels are dialed perfectly of course. :rolleyes:

At this rate, next you're going to say that knowing your players and how much detail they want, need or are willing to suffer is something to be recommended:mad:!

Quote from: tenbones;936253No. It's a sin to present a scenario that will never be sufficient to admit your point is invalid. You're saying you want details to suffice for *you*. Well unless I'm mistaken - you're GMing, not playing. And what this all boils down to is you making it about you and your desire for validation. Nothing more.

Far it be from me to defend Rgrove, but I'm almost sure he was talking about playing under another GM (and that GM reacting negatively when the players request more detail).

Quote from: Black Vulmea;936254Though the world is fictional, treating the game-world as having an objective reality of its own imposes interesting constraints and creates challenges and opportunities, in my experience.

+1

Quote from: tenbones;936256The happy medium here is simply:

1) GM's can give as much detail as necessary as generally understood by the PC's (based on background etc.)

FWTD had a very good section about that and how different people see the same places differently. A tourist would see a cheap hotel, a cop would see a place where tourists are repeatedly robbed, a robber would see one of his workspots and so on...:D
It's a technique that's not getting enough attention.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936273For me the difference is RELEVANT detail, and also what your character knows.  How much does your character know about horses, or cars?  AND WHY DOES IT MATTER?

"You see a cart lumber by with "Cartajena Movers" painted on the side. You realize you are to hell and gone from Cartajena."  THAT is worth looking at.

"The cart is purple with green stripes." Bite me.

How about "the cart is purple with green stripes, the colours usually used by the respected "Cartajena Movers":D?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936281That would be "most of the universe."

Most of the world is, in a word, "typical." Boots are typical boot color.  Clothes are cut like typical clothes.  If you are in the market town of Fucktown during Ye Merrieeieie Oldeee Traydeee Fairieieieie, people are dressed "typically for a market town in this region."  If you are in 1920s Chicago, people are dressed typically for 1920s Chicago.  What the referee should spend time on is what is NOT typical, and, where necessary, explain to the players why this is not typical, and why it is significant.

The operative word is "significant."

Because as referee I'm not going to elaborately detail what every noble in the King's court is wearing, nor will I as a player sit still for it.  "And then the EARS, I get the IDEA, get ON with it."

But I was just getting to the description of the left nostril:D!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936274Marry me.

O...k...assume much?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936277As you cross the street near the theater, a...

"What's the name of the street?  What's the name of the theater?  Is it burlesque or vaudeville or a movie house?  Is there a stop sign?  A four way stop?  Is there a manhole?"

Um... you're at the corner of Fifth and Main, and you've just passed the Odeon movie house, and...

"Talkies or silent?  Does it have a marquee?  Does it have chase lights?"

Er, it's talkies... "Gone with the Wind" is playing.  Anyway, a big black car screeches to a halt and Noodles Romanoff and his band of No-Goods pile out and...

"Wait, what about the marquee?  And what kind of car?  Does it have whitewalls?  Does it have wire spoke wheels?  How is Noodles Romanoff dressed?  Does he have a four in hand or a bow tie?  Pinstripes or solid suit?  Is he wearing a fedora or a trilby?"

* kicks player in the groin repeatedly while screaming "DIE ASSHOLE DIE!" *

Really profound comment. Geeze. Give me a break. If you don't know the difference you should really just stay out of the conversation.

Quote from: tenbones;936294And this is where GMing as a skill comes into practice. It's improv. It's understanding the conceits of your setting. It's understanding the relevance of the PC's in context with the setting *better* than the player's do but presenting that context to the PC's as seamlessly as possible through their own actions, etc. and all the rest of methods that lead to a glorious campaign (yeah I know you already know this - I'm just spelling it out for those that seem to be cognitively dissonant to how this all fits together).

This is *precisely* why I say that the OP is still GMing a very basic kind of game. He's doing Storytime without understanding these other principles *in practice* because as he readily admits: He's never needed to develop these other skills.

But now he's here and he's faced with those that have figured this all out through lots of trial and error, and is all WHAGARBLE!!!?!?!?

The irony here is that the OP keeps making these threads and it always turns out to be the same question in disguise. Insanity? Trolling? Honest searching for answers? It's starting to narrow down...

And despite mutiple threads you still can't offer your opinion without being a condescending ass. Go figure.because I play a different way my game must surely be basic. Still bullshit no matter how many times you claim it.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936295Wanting to be washed away in a tsunami of jizz as every gamer in the world simultaneously orgasms over how brilliant and deep an' shit he is.

You know I really hope you guys aren't this big of assholes outside the forum. God help your families.

Quote from: rgrove0172;936186When I say his games were a bit lite, I mean the settings lacked a level of depth I enjoy. If a group of the Duke's men gallop into town looking for an escaped brigand I want to know what the crest on their banner looks like, the type of horse the Captain is riding and the name of the dungeon the guy escaped from. If the game introduces a seedy little bar in South Bronx, I need a name, a fairly good description of the guy tending, the house special and the layout of the alley out back. I don't care of these details are provided from a pre created folder or made up on the fly but I want them. Presenting casual and superficial descriptions without sufficient detail leaves me a little disappointed. I come up with the stuff on my own as a player to fill the gaps but it has an effect on my level of enjoyment.

I think my descriptions are rich in detail, not so much in the "cognitive" department (e.g. horse breeds and classic cars — any chance you guys are filthy rich, BTW? These are millionaires' hobbies down here in my country), but I try to convey as much sensory information as possible. I'm big on sights, sounds and smells. And injuries, of course, but that's neither here nor there.

I usually respond to requests for this sort of information to the best of my ability, which is sometimes nil. "A riding horse that would fetch a middling price at the market" or "a fairly popular nondescript car model" would be typical responses. I avoid going "what does it matter" because I want to reward (to the best of my ability) people who are trying to interact with the game world — I don't recall having a player be as insistent on detail as to be disruptive, but if it ever comes up, I think I will have no problem admonishing him or her. (Trust me.)

Congratulations. Calm discussion slaughtered. You succeeded in pissing me off despite herculean efforts to keep it together. Fucking have a nice day, you know who you are. I just read this whole damned thread again and if I am guilty of firing the first shot, I sure cant find it.

Ughh, shouldn't have to be this way. Its like some of you have an agenda or something.

Quote from: rgrove0172;936186When I say his games were a bit lite, I mean the settings lacked a level of depth I enjoy. If a group of the Duke's men gallop into town looking for an escaped brigand I want to know what the crest on their banner looks like, the type of horse the Captain is riding and the name of the dungeon the guy escaped from. If the game introduces a seedy little bar in South Bronx, I need a name, a fairly good description of the guy tending, the house special and the layout of the alley out back. I don't care of these details are provided from a pre created folder or made up on the fly but I want them. Presenting casual and superficial descriptions without sufficient detail leaves me a little disappointed. I come up with the stuff on my own as a player to fill the gaps but it has an effect on my level of enjoyment.

His games were fun, Im not going to rain shit on the guy but at times his vision of the world became pretty vanilla and uninspiring, to the point of being annoyed if we asked for more detail than he had available.

I've always just filled in the blanks by myself when it comes to window dressing. Doesn't bother me in the least that some things are left to my imagination.

Where did you get this expectation from? From reading or playing modules?

Quote from: The Butcher;936304I think my descriptions are rich in detail, not so much in the "cognitive" department (e.g. horse breeds and classic cars — any chance you guys are filthy rich, BTW? These are millionaires' hobbies down here in my country), but I try to convey as much sensory information as possible. I'm big on sights, sounds and smells. And injuries, of course, but that's neither here nor there.

I usually respond to requests for this sort of information to the best of my ability, which is sometimes nil. "A riding horse that would fetch a middling price at the market" or "a fairly popular nondescript car model" would be typical responses. I avoid going "what does it matter" because I want to reward (to the best of my ability) people who are trying to interact with the game world — I don't recall having a player be as insistent on detail as to be disruptive, but if it ever comes up, I think I will have no problem admonishing him or her. (Trust me.)

Exactly! The idiots here pulled my example to the utmost extreme. I was stating that I prefer descriptions with a bit more color and detail. Call if flowery prose or whatever the hell, I don't give a shit. I just know it and like when I hear it and I miss it when it aint there. So sue me!

1 "Ok, you have broken camp and are headed once again down the road towards the capitol. The weather is pretty nice, no issues there. Marching order?"

2 "Ok, you have broken camp and with the groans of travelers 2 weeks on the road you set out. The sun is just peaking over the mountains off to east and its first light promises a warm and pleasant day. The fields to either side of the road are thick with spring flowers and the air is filled with the buzz of bees. Springtime in the kingdom. Who takes lead?"

Go ahead, make fun and ridicule entry 2 all you like. I get it, you don't like it. I don't like playing without it. The players have a right to share in the GM's imagination, not just make up shit on their own. I believe its part of his job to facilitate that sharing. In the above scene the environment IS the scene. Part of the fun of roleplaying another reality is to imagine that reality, together.

There are any number of other ways that scene could have been described. (ie. newly sewn fields line the roads with poor farmers tending as the sun comes up...or...your approach startles a flight of pheasant hiding in the tall grass just off the road, scattering the fowl in the crisp morning air... or ... a boy leading a flock of sheep cross the road ahead of you, moving from the already well grazed pasture on your left to seemingly fresh grass on your right.)  but as GM I had one vision in mind and I want the players to share it.

That's why the general make of the car (not its exact make and model, a general description would have been fine (Like one of those on the Untouchables!)) or the type of horse (a sturdy breed, bred for war and not just some noble's flair) or whatever. I would think that is pretty obvious. Such details are what make roleplaying different than a tactical skirmish war game. We are supposed to be experiencing the world through the senses of the characters, aren't we? How can we do that if those senses aren't fed with info?

Quote from: rgrove0172;936302And despite mutiple threads you still can't offer your opinion without being a condescending ass. Go figure.because I play a different way my game must surely be basic. Still bullshit no matter how many times you claim it.

It comes off condescending to you because in your mind you've concocted this grandiose idea of what a "great GM" you are (which is why you seem to preface your posts with your multi-decades of experience GMing the same group successfully) - and offer us tons and tons of examples on how you do things that to many of us prove that your GMing is... well not as advanced as you might think, despite your years in the saddle. Then you seem to get butthurt when many of us tell you that we stopped doing that kind of GMing after about the first couple of years that we started GMing. I have no such issues. What matters to me is the fact that I like to push my own envelope GMing and I don't need anyone's validation, I'm doing just fine. You, despite you back-patting, seem to create these threads for that reason more than any other. Clearly, since you ask your questions, but you never quite seem to understand the same answers you keep getting.

Which one of these are facts and which ones are based on feelings? I'm not basing *anything* I'm saying on feelings alone. I'm basing them on 1) the anecdotal evidence of decades of GMing lots of different people 2) Meeting and discussing GMing and gamedesign with lots of other GMs (many on this forum and in real life) who have shared similar experiences. 3) Filtering out the extraneous outliers between these experiences of other GM's and players and always refining what is working and what isn't. 4) Working in the industry, actually doing game-design to help test whether my results mechanically balances with my experiences and shared ideas with others. /rinse-repeat.

I'm *ALWAYS* open to trying new things. I'm always open to checking out new mechanics and systems. Obsessively so. With the caveat that if I've decided something doesn't work - someone is going to have to give me some new approach for me to give it a re-try.

I ask you: WHAT have you done in *any* of your threads that shows *any* of these things in good faith?

Precisely zero.

Thus far you pretend to ask these questions in good faith - but then turn around when you don't like the responses and call people condescending asses (at least to me) - when I've actually supported you. Though you don't seem to like that. I'm not *telling* how to GM. I'm calling you out on your own examples you willingly offer as evidence. The reality here, as evidenced by your multiple threads - it's you that's not really posting in good faith. I've not called you names or anything like that. Quite the opposite - I'm a HUGE GM-advocate. And all I'm doing is answering YOUR questions that YOU ask.

I can't help you that you're cognitively dissonant and don't like my (and other's responses). Especially when as we've said many many many times: You seem to be having fun with your group while GMing like that. Keep rocking. <--- why is that part ignored by you?

You're acting like a child that insists eating nothing but popsicles is good food. And I'm saying - "hey, popsicles have their place in the food world, but it's not a fucking steak so lets not get carried away." You don't need any other threads fishing for validity like a neglected child on how your style of GMing is "valid". You *feel* I'm condescending because you're looking up from a descended viewpoint that you want to conflate as being more than what it is. Anything said to the contrary of your view is by *default* condescending. The mere fact I have to spell this out is ludicrous to me.

You have *every* option on the table in front of you to actually put what we're saying to an honest test.

The fact is: you don't really want to.

Quote from: rgrove0172;936206So it's a sin to want to know what kind of fucking car it is?
If so your games would be pretty drab to me. Plain car, average horse, typical banner. Why even have a setting at all? Just let the players make up their own.

The reactions do seem a little intense for what read to me as: "I like more detail in my descriptions." which you admitted was a preference and not a demand. I feel the same way. I like detail as it helps me immerse and interact with environment. The more details I fill in myself the more it begins to feel like I'm writing the world. And I might get it wrong. Character knowledge affects this. I don't need to know the make and model of the car if my pc wouldn't know but some general observation and knowledge description is great.

Quote from: Nexus;936316The reactions do seem a little intense for what read to me as: "I like more detail in my descriptions." which you admitted was a preference and not a demand. I feel the same way. I like detail as it helps me immerse and interact with environment. The more details I fill in myself the more it begins to feel like I'm writing the world. And I might get it wrong. Character knowledge affects this. I don't need to know the make and model of the car if my pc wouldn't know but some general observation and knowledge description is great.

yeah it's a balancing act. OP wants to make everything an attack on him...

Well it is his thread and it's all about him so.... /eyeroll.

I'll take my leave unless someone needs me.

Quote from: tenbones;936318yeah it's a balancing act. OP wants to make everything an attack on him...

Well it is his thread and it's all about him so.... /eyeroll.

I'll take my leave unless someone needs me.

Geezer does want to marry you.

Quote from: CRKrueger;936320Geezer does want to marry you.

I'm considering it. This being 2016 and all. It would be very stylish for me to have a lovely wife and a Geezer. It would be a good virtue-signal to those that care that I'm inclusive. If I marry Geezer, will you be my ally?

Quote from: tenbones;936322I'm considering it. This being 2016 and all. It would be very stylish for me to have a lovely wife and a Geezer. It would be a good virtue-signal to those that care that I'm inclusive. If I marry Geezer, will you be my ally?

:D
I'd be willing to be your best man at the ceremony, though I know the place is occupied already!

Quote from: rgrove0172;936312"Ok, you have broken camp and with the groans of travelers 2 weeks on the road you set out. The sun is just peaking over the mountains off to east and its first light promises a warm and pleasant day. The fields to either side of the road are thick with spring flowers and the air is filled with the buzz of bees. Springtime in the kingdom. Who takes lead?"

This does seem a little creatively self-indulgent, like the guy who likes to hear himself talk, or the writer who loves to read his own work.  Now there is some non-meaningless information in here, namely the weather forecast, but a lot of the sensory information, as others have said, can be assumed with "a beautiful spring morning" without us getting *your* version of what a beautiful spring morning is.  You're just floating at about an 11 on the storytelling scale, and we need you about a 5. ;)

It's pretty easy, just go back in time, find the guy that told young Grove that GMs should be storytellers, and kick them in the teeth before they get the chance.  You'll be fine. :D

Seriously though, there can be a use for sensory input, especially when it can't be assumed.  I don't need people to tell me what an ungodly scatological cornucopia a sewer is, but certain sights, smells, sounds, can be incredibly useful for simply getting people in the mood for certain areas.  But in the words of the immortal philosopher Steve Martin "You have to discriminate."

Quote from: tenbones;936322I'm considering it. This being 2016 and all. It would be very stylish for me to have a lovely wife and a Geezer. It would be a good virtue-signal to those that care that I'm inclusive. If I marry Geezer, will you be my ally?

If it is the standard definition of ally, I already was.  If it's a new definition of ally that's based on your marriage to Geezer, I will need to see that definition first. :D

Quote from: tenbones;936313It comes off condescending to you because in your mind you've concocted this grandiose idea of what a "great GM" you are (which is why you seem to preface your posts with your multi-decades of experience GMing the same group successfully) - and offer us tons and tons of examples on how you do things that to many of us prove that your GMing is... well not as advanced as you might think, despite your years in the saddle. Then you seem to get butthurt when many of us tell you that we stopped doing that kind of GMing after about the first couple of years that we started GMing. I have no such issues. What matters to me is the fact that I like to push my own envelope GMing and I don't need anyone's validation, I'm doing just fine. You, despite you back-patting, seem to create these threads for that reason more than any other. Clearly, since you ask your questions, but you never quite seem to understand the same answers you keep getting.

Which one of these are facts and which ones are based on feelings? I'm not basing *anything* I'm saying on feelings alone. I'm basing them on 1) the anecdotal evidence of decades of GMing lots of different people 2) Meeting and discussing GMing and gamedesign with lots of other GMs (many on this forum and in real life) who have shared similar experiences. 3) Filtering out the extraneous outliers between these experiences of other GM's and players and always refining what is working and what isn't. 4) Working in the industry, actually doing game-design to help test whether my results mechanically balances with my experiences and shared ideas with others. /rinse-repeat.

I'm *ALWAYS* open to trying new things. I'm always open to checking out new mechanics and systems. Obsessively so. With the caveat that if I've decided something doesn't work - someone is going to have to give me some new approach for me to give it a re-try.

I ask you: WHAT have you done in *any* of your threads that shows *any* of these things in good faith?

Precisely zero.

Thus far you pretend to ask these questions in good faith - but then turn around when you don't like the responses and call people condescending asses (at least to me) - when I've actually supported you. Though you don't seem to like that. I'm not *telling* how to GM. I'm calling you out on your own examples you willingly offer as evidence. The reality here, as evidenced by your multiple threads - it's you that's not really posting in good faith. I've not called you names or anything like that. Quite the opposite - I'm a HUGE GM-advocate. And all I'm doing is answering YOUR questions that YOU ask.

I can't help you that you're cognitively dissonant and don't like my (and other's responses). Especially when as we've said many many many times: You seem to be having fun with your group while GMing like that. Keep rocking. <--- why is that part ignored by you?

You're acting like a child that insists eating nothing but popsicles is good food. And I'm saying - "hey, popsicles have their place in the food world, but it's not a fucking steak so lets not get carried away." You don't need any other threads fishing for validity like a neglected child on how your style of GMing is "valid". You *feel* I'm condescending because you're looking up from a descended viewpoint that you want to conflate as being more than what it is. Anything said to the contrary of your view is by *default* condescending. The mere fact I have to spell this out is ludicrous to me.

You have *every* option on the table in front of you to actually put what we're saying to an honest test.

The fact is: you don't really want to.

Ive never even suggested Im a great GM, only that Ive done it a long time and had only a couple of complaints.

Despite your vast research and experience your opinion is still that, just an opinion an should be stated as such.

Is it that hard to just comment and not ridicule? Apparently so.

Quote from: Nexus;936316The reactions do seem a little intense for what read to me as: "I like more detail in my descriptions." which you admitted was a preference and not a demand. I feel the same way. I like detail as it helps me immerse and interact with environment. The more details I fill in myself the more it begins to feel like I'm writing the world. And I might get it wrong. Character knowledge affects this. I don't need to know the make and model of the car if my pc wouldn't know but some general observation and knowledge description is great.

Yes and that's not even what this thread was supposed to be about. I was shoe horned into the whole detail thing and then slam-basted for voicing my opinion. Its often this way with a few members though, I should know by now. They have a bad day, wife didn't make their breakfast, kids beat them at Xbox or whatever and they take it out on us here.

Quote from: tenbones;936318yeah it's a balancing act. OP wants to make everything an attack on him...

Well it is his thread and it's all about him so.... /eyeroll.

I'll take my leave unless someone needs me.

Read the thread, you tell me who started the snarky shit. Wasn't me by any stretch.

Quote from: CRKrueger;936326This does seem a little creatively self-indulgent, like the guy who likes to hear himself talk, or the writer who loves to read his own work.  Now there is some non-meaningless information in here, namely the weather forecast, but a lot of the sensory information, as others have said, can be assumed with "a beautiful spring morning" without us getting *your* version of what a beautiful spring morning is.  You're just floating at about an 11 on the storytelling scale, and we need you about a 5. ;)

It's pretty easy, just go back in time, find the guy that told young Grove that GMs should be storytellers, and kick them in the teeth before they get the chance.  You'll be fine. :D

Seriously though, there can be a use for sensory input, especially when it can't be assumed.  I don't need people to tell me what an ungodly scatological cornucopia a sewer is, but certain sights, smells, sounds, can be incredibly useful for simply getting people in the mood for certain areas.  But in the words of the immortal philosopher Steve Martin "You have to discriminate."

That's the problem here I believe. I was told by some guy that GMs were story tellers, and I believed him. Its the very reason I wanted to GM in the first place. Without it, your just a referee and a match maker (setting up crap for thee players to fuck up). No thanks. My favorite part of the game, telling the story to my friends as they determine where it goes, is what seems to be under attack here at times. Youll excuse me if I balk a bit. I consider it hugely rewarding and a lot of fun to take the mechanics of the rules, the often times unanticipated actions of the players, and the created imagery of the setting and narrate the story we are creating back to the group.

None of that brief description is meaningless to me or, from what I can see, to my players. Describing the dank atmosphere of a dungeon (more than saying it stinks, make all rolls at -1) or the warm comfort of a mountain Inn (other than its cozy) is all part of the gaming experience for me. I don't much care what anyone says here, if Im the only one that does it that way, so be it. Ill keep on keeping on. That's not what this thread was about anyway.

Honestly, I really did believe that immersive storytelling and narration was the Grail of gaming for many years. I get it that for some, maybe most, its not... and that to some others - its bullshit on the highest order. How else can I say that? There is no sense of superiority here, none at all..but I resent those that try to call me uninformed, novice, full of myself or any other term because I enjoy playing this way. Im not including examples because Im trying to impress anyone, Ive already discovered many if not most here are far to jaded for that, I just use them to better demonstrate my points. Others have gone to far more lengthy measures than I.

If one must design a story, best to subscribe to Poetics 101--if it doesn't connect to the plot (the action), it is extraneous, and should be dropped. So, in the case of the horses, any description that does not impact action is basically just spectacle. Not necessarily unimportant, but among the least important of elements.  Of course, the big difference here is that the players are at least co-authoring the story, in response to the scenario. Detail can increase immersion for those who want that sort of thing. I can't relate too much to it, because most groups I've been in aren't overly serious in their gaming, and most of them prefer to keep things moving, most of the time (their recent foray into endless banter with shopkeepers and hovering over planned brunches notwithstanding).

I mean, it's just whatever works, man. All I know is that the last few times I've played, the mainline stories were so obviously railroads that I wondered why I was there. The most memorable moments came from when we did something off the rails, like when we decided to scam a high stakes poker game with some shady toughs, using some sleight of hand a surreptitious magic, or when I decided, "Fuck it--I'm going to touch the goddamned statue, because the GM so obviously wants me NOT to." (yeah, that turned out to be stupid, but why bother even having it there if you're gonna just warn me away so obviously--at least let me figure out the danger for myself).  

As for detail, obviously it's what the group can stand. I do think noting the breed of horses or the make of the car is an invitation to bog your narrative, because, if I, as a player, don't know horse breeds and Packards, I'm sorta fucked. Now, if I knew ahead of time that a certain type of horse or car was unique, it would tell me something as a player. If I don't, then it's extraneous detail--basically bubble gum, which you can chew on and spit out. But, AGAIN, whatever makes the group content.

Quote from: rgrove0172;936334Without it, your just a referee and a match maker (setting up crap for thee players to fuck up). No thanks.

Now who's being dismissive of other styles? ;)

Quote from: rgrove0172;936297In your opinion surely. Obviously not true in all cases.

Well, sure. But I subscribe to the no bullshit theory of writing. Not just what the Poetics says, but modern interpretations, aka David Mamet's True and False. Detail can be a smokescreen for a flimsy plot or premise*, like an effects-driven movie with little in the way of anything else. I guess the litmus test is, "Am I driving the story here, or am I just showing off?" If it's the latter, I shouldn't be doing it, unless, of course, I expect an audience of one.

*actually, fuck premise--everything comes out of action, and anything that doesn't logically drive the action is simply bullshit, no matter how well it's described.

Quote from: CRKrueger;936338Now who's being dismissive of other styles? ;)

Not at all unless some poor jerk thinks that simplistic descriptor applies to.him.

Quote from: tenbones;936322I'm considering it. This being 2016 and all. It would be very stylish for me to have a lovely wife and a Geezer. It would be a good virtue-signal to those that care that I'm inclusive. If I marry Geezer, will you be my ally?

I'm also married so we'd be polygamous.  Or something.

Quote from: rgrove0172;936305Congratulations. Calm discussion slaughtered. You succeeded in pissing me off despite herculean efforts to keep it together. Fucking have a nice day, you know who you are. I just read this whole damned thread again and if I am guilty of firing the first shot, I sure cant find it.

Ughh, shouldn't have to be this way. Its like some of you have an agenda or something.

That's one theory, sure.

If it were just me, I'd be the first to tell you to disregard me.

But MULTIPLE posters here have told you repeatedly that they're tired of your attitude of combined arrogance and gormlessness.

Furthermore, virtually EVERY thread you're involved in goes that way.  And not just in this forum, either.  I know of at least one other, and it's the same every time.  You've been part of more fucking train wrecks than Gomez Addams, and until you admit that to yourself, the shit will continue to fall upon you.

Eventually you realize that the common factor in all your disastrous threads is you.

Quote from: rgrove0172;936186"So the car the gangsters are in, what? Is it a like a big Packard or something?"...

"Huh? I don't know, its a big black car, what does it matter?"

Quote from: rgrove0172;936312That's why the general make of the car (not its exact make and model, a general description would have been fine (Like one of those on the Untouchables!)

Speaking for myself, those two quotations look to be almost completely contradictory to each other.

Quote from: The Butcher;936304I think my descriptions are rich in detail, not so much in the "cognitive" department (e.g. horse breeds and classic cars — any chance you guys are filthy rich, BTW? These are millionaires' hobbies down here in my country), but I try to convey as much sensory information as possible. I'm big on sights, sounds and smells. And injuries, of course, but that's neither here nor there.

I usually respond to requests for this sort of information to the best of my ability, which is sometimes nil. "A riding horse that would fetch a middling price at the market" or "a fairly popular nondescript car model" would be typical responses. I avoid going "what does it matter" because I want to reward (to the best of my ability) people who are trying to interact with the game world — I don't recall having a player be as insistent on detail as to be disruptive, but if it ever comes up, I think I will have no problem admonishing him or her. (Trust me.)

And as referee, I don't want to have to repeat myself.  For example:

You see Sir So and So ride up.

"What's his horse like?"

Um... it's a typical knight's horse.

"I don't know what that means."

Oh, okay. It's a big, strong looking, healthy horse.  Not heavy like a draft horse but big and muscular.  That's pretty typical of what any knight would normally ride.

Now, see, to me, once the phrase "pretty typical of what any knight would normally ride," is spoken, we're done.  The fifth or sixth time that same player then asks me what some knight is riding... specifically knight, not lord, merchant, lady, or peasant... I'm going to say "Haven't you been paying attention?"

"He's riding a fucking kangaroo, what the hell do you think he's riding?"

Quote from: CRKrueger;936338Now who's being dismissive of other styles? ;)

Once again, "the common factor in all his trainwreck threads is him."

Quote from: rgrove0172;936334That's the problem here I believe. I was told by some guy that GMs were story tellers, and I believed him. Its the very reason I wanted to GM in the first place. Without it, your just a referee and a match maker (setting up crap for thee players to fuck up). No thanks. My favorite part of the game, telling the story to my friends as they determine where it goes, is what seems to be under attack here at times. Youll excuse me if I balk a bit. I consider it hugely rewarding and a lot of fun to take the mechanics of the rules, the often times unanticipated actions of the players, and the created imagery of the setting and narrate the story we are creating back to the group.

There's a part of me that agrees and disagrees with you here. There's a part in Stehphen King's Misery where he talks about "fairness" in storytelling. Where the Annie Wilks character gets angry because Paul Sheldon wrote a beloved character out of death with a cheat at first. Causing him to have to re-write the story for his captor.
I think a shade of that can apply to RPGs. I've already gone over player-characters decisions and concequences, and I think those decisions and concequences are the meat of role playing games. The main course. Everything else is various flavors of rules and presentation. This is also why I agre with Pundit that Story Games deserve a distinct category. Story Games are a collaborative on the story part of the narrative, and RPGs are a collaborative but the GM presents the scenario and it's concequences, where the player-characters provide the decisions.
"Narrating the story back to the group" is fine, but not the meat and potatoes of an RPG.  And any sacrifice of decisions and consequences to story will feel like a cheat to many players.

All IMO and all that jazz.

Hmm, One True Wayism is strong in this thread.  Time for me to duck out.

Quote from: rgrove0172;936334That's the problem here I believe. I was told by some guy that GMs were story tellers, and I believed him. Its the very reason I wanted to GM in the first place. Without it, your just a referee and a match maker (setting up crap for thee players to fuck up). No thanks. My favorite part of the game, telling the story to my friends as they determine where it goes, is what seems to be under attack here at times. Youll excuse me if I balk a bit. I consider it hugely rewarding and a lot of fun to take the mechanics of the rules, the often times unanticipated actions of the players, and the created imagery of the setting and narrate the story we are creating back to the group.

....

Honestly, I really did believe that immersive storytelling and narration was the Grail of gaming for many years...

You won't get an argument from me that an immersive story is not the height of an RPG experience.   Yet as a GM and especially as a player i want the story to emerge from player actions.    To that end i will create a living world with NPC goals and interactions that can provide the grist for the players to make the story.   Not through some meta-game mechanic but pure player action.  Whatever story that emerges the players can feel sure it is there own.   My thumb was not on the scales, there was no, none, nada limits imposed by my ideas of cool on the outcome.   Besides being the most exhilarating way to play I've ever found, it also reduces the work as a GM.  No longer am i a storyteller but a stage creator.

Quote from: rgrove0172;936334I was told by some guy that GMs were story tellers, and I believed him.

1986 called. It would like its gamemastering advice back.

Quote from: rgrove0172;936296Still today the GM section of many rulebooks give this advise . . .

Yeah, there's a lot of stupid shit in roleplaying game books. Saying it often doesn't make it less stupid, or shitty.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936273For me the difference is RELEVANT detail, and also what your character knows.  How much does your character know about horses, or cars?  AND WHY DOES IT MATTER?

"You see a cart lumber by with "Cartajena Movers" painted on the side. You realize you are to hell and gone from Cartajena."  THAT is worth looking at.

"The cart is purple with green stripes." Bite me.

Glorious General,

Out of curiosity, having played with Phil, Dave, and Gary, how would you categorise their DM styles? Were they minimalist in their descriptions, assuming that "a horse was a horse" and any excessive quantifiers (etc), just for the sake of description, was superfluous?

Shemek

Quote from: Shemek hiTankolel;936369Glorious General,

Out of curiosity, having played with Phil, Dave, and Gary, how would you categorise their DM styles? Were they minimalist in their descriptions, assuming that "a horse was a horse" and any excessive quantifiers (etc), just for the sake of description, was superfluous?

Shemek

Well, Phil's world was so different that for a long time he described almost everything.  But eventually he went to describing the situation in broad brush strokes, only putting in more detail when relevant.

For Gary and Dave, they were playing a more exploration-based game, so it was more a matter of waiting for the players to say that they look around.  In which case "you see a typical medieval village on fair day" would be the sort of thing you got for the most part.  But the POINT was to look around and explore and poke at things.  But I don't recall having much trouble telling the window dressing from the ordinary stuff.

Quote from: Shemek hiTankolel;936369Glorious General,

Out of curiosity, having played with Phil, Dave, and Gary, how would you categorise their DM styles? Were they minimalist in their descriptions, assuming that "a horse was a horse" and any excessive quantifiers (etc), just for the sake of description, was superfluous?

I hope there was at least some high Gygaxian involved.   No matter what else i really loved Gary's vocabulary.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936371Well, Phil's world was so different that for a long time he described almost everything.  But eventually he went to describing the situation in broad brush strokes, only putting in more detail when relevant.

For Gary and Dave, they were playing a more exploration-based game, so it was more a matter of waiting for the players to say that they look around.  In which case "you see a typical medieval village on fair day" would be the sort of thing you got for the most part.  But the POINT was to look around and explore and poke at things.  But I don't recall having much trouble telling the window dressing from the ordinary stuff.

I kind of figured that's how Phil would have had to do it, for the first little while at least. I've always tried to run my games the way you describe Gary and Dave doing it. Unfortunately, the thing I love the most about Tekumel is the thing which has caused me to often be too talkative in the past, and include way too many extras. The internet has made it a hell of a lot easier. I just point newbies to my game to the Tekumel website. There's more than enough detail there for novice players to begin with.

Shemek

Quote from: Xanther;936373I hope there was at least some high Gygaxian involved.   No matter what else i really loved Gary's vocabulary.

:D I love his descriptions in the DMG. I remember my junior high school English teacher asking me once where ever  did I hear the term  "wanton wench" from? All the other D&D players started snickering as I fumbled for an answer.

Shemek

Without having read the rest of the thread...

I consider it a question of TASTE.

I like to CHOOSE the kinds of games I play. I do not appreciate being lied to.

If someone says they improvise a lot, that is cool. If someone says it changes things on the fly to create a better story, to save players for certain death or from an anticlimax, etc, that is cool too. I had fun with that in the past. I even have a GM ask the playuers "was that too much? maybe something else should happen here?" and it was nice at the time. But that is NOT what I want to play nowadays.

I want to play games with at least SOME prep and "let the dice fall what they may". I like a GM that knows what lies behind the door way before I try to open, and definitely before I enter the house or LISTEN to the door.

Do you have different preferences? Cool, we all like different games.

But saying "the players won't know so it can't hurt them" is akin, TO ME, as someone saying "well, I didn't tell what I cooked with because you're a vegetarian..." or "what I do behind my wife's back cannot really hurt her....". (i.e., the same KIND of behavior, not TO THE SAME DEGREE, of course)

I appreciate honesty, that is all. Do you have a great game in mind? Is your GMing style very improvisational? Do you like to avoid meaningless charachter death? Cool, let me hear about it! If I don't fit your ideal player, you can certainly findo someone who will.

Just be straightforward.

BTW: yes, I ask my players in advance "what ware you planning to do next week", so I don't have to improvise locales and NPCs on the fly. Of course, they often do things I hadn't expected - "is there a baker on the town?" - and I have to improvise an answer, but my answer is what I think is likely based on established ideas ("Yes, probably, do you want to buy bread?"), NOT what I think it would be more interesting and unpredictable ("Yes, but the baker is a demon in disguise so you have to fight it i you want to eat bread at all!").

Strange as it might sound, I like details that might be considered extraneous as a player and try to include them as a gm. I think it makes the world and eviorns feel more complete when it doesn't seem to be all about the adventure. Some things are just there. Also livens up a mystery scenario when you have to determine what's important and what's not or allot just plain problem solving which  can given away of the gm only describes what's important or made much more difficult if they have an extremely minimalist descriptive style.  I've been pleasantly surprised by how players took details I thought were minor or even just threw in on a lark because they were appropriate and sussed out aspects of the plot.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936356That's one theory, sure.

If it were just me, I'd be the first to tell you to disregard me.

But MULTIPLE posters here have told you repeatedly that they're tired of your attitude of combined arrogance and gormlessness.

Furthermore, virtually EVERY thread you're involved in goes that way.  And not just in this forum, either.  I know of at least one other, and it's the same every time.  You've been part of more fucking train wrecks than Gomez Addams, and until you admit that to yourself, the shit will continue to fall upon you.

Eventually you realize that the common factor in all your disastrous threads is you.

You are right, about how this seems to happen regularly. To my mind its because I am, as is clear, a rarity it seems in today's RPG industry - at least in how I approach GMing. I would expect lots of other opinions and very little support but not the ire, the angst. I still cant understand that but I have about accepted that forums are not a place for me. I thought I would enjoy connecting with other gamers as my group is rather small and becoming less active as time goes by. So far, not much fun to be honest. If its me, I can only apologize but it does really appear like a Chevy man showing up at a Ford convention. No matter how nice he is, he is going to be feasted upon until he changes brands.

Yeah, there's a lot of stupid shit in roleplaying game books. Saying it often doesn't make it less stupid, or shitty.

Perhaps not less stupid or shitty, but does make it current - pretty much delegitimizing the 1986 comment entirely.

Quote from: Nexus;936386Strange as it might sound, I like details that might be considered extraneous as a player and try to include them as a gm. I think it makes the world and eviorns feel more complete when it doesn't seem to be all about the adventure. Some things are just there. Also livens up a mystery scenario when you have to determine what's important and what's not or allot just plain problem solving which  can given away of the gm only describes what's important or made much more difficult if they have an extremely minimalist descriptive style.  I've been pleasantly surprised by how players took details I thought were minor or even just threw in on a lark because they were appropriate and sussed out aspects of the plot.

YES! And fairly regularly some minor detail, just a little color to begin with, catches the attention of the players and can steer the game in all kinds of interesting directions.

But even from a straight up description point of view, I cannot imagine presenting a new NPC as "A warrior steps out of the wagon and says he would like to join" and then having to wait for questions to describe him as some here in the last few posts have recommended. Just seeing the guy in the first few seconds would provide all kinds of information that should be volunteered by the GM, then if something is missing the players can ask. Why is that so foreign to some?

Quote from: rgrove0172;936389You are right, about how this seems to happen regularly. To my mind its because I am, as is clear, a rarity it seems in today's RPG industry - at least in how I approach GMing. I would expect lots of other opinions and very little support but not the ire, the angst. I still cant understand that but I have about accepted that forums are not a place for me. I thought I would enjoy connecting with other gamers as my group is rather small and becoming less active as time goes by. So far, not much fun to be honest. If its me, I can only apologize but it does really appear like a Chevy man showing up at a Ford convention. No matter how nice he is, he is going to be feasted upon until he changes brands.

I am attempting in good faith here, whether or not you believe me.

You come across as very arrogant at the same time you make like you're utterly surprised that anyone disagrees with you, and that you've never heard of any of this stuff anywhere anytime, and that anyone who disagrees with you is an uncultured slob.

Once again, if it was just me, I'd suggest you tell me to go to Hell.  But it's not just me.

Quote from: rgrove0172;936391YES! And fairly regularly some minor detail, just a little color to begin with, catches the attention of the players and can steer the game in all kinds of interesting directions.

But even from a straight up description point of view, I cannot imagine presenting a new NPC as "A warrior steps out of the wagon and says he would like to join" and then having to wait for questions to describe him as some here in the last few posts have recommended. Just seeing the guy in the first few seconds would provide all kinds of information that should be volunteered by the GM, then if something is missing the players can ask. Why is that so foreign to some?

See post 279.  And possibly 280.  It didn't look to most people like you wanted "minor detail, just a little color." You asked if it was a fucking PACKARD, for shit's sake.  Not even "a big black car" or "a roadster" or whatever.  A specific MANUFACTURER.  Only LATER did you go to "big black car like in the Untouchables."

Quote from: rgrove0172;936391YES! And fairly regularly some minor detail, just a little color to begin with, catches the attention of the players and can steer the game in all kinds of interesting directions.

Tru dat. It was a running gag in my gaming circles that PCs would always latch onto the little details: totally brush off the "important" NPC in the bar that you invested so much time in developing to spend 30 minutes chatting with and learning the life story of Ed the hot dog cart vendor outside that you came up with 10 seconds earlier.

Quote from: rgrove0172;936391YES! And fairly regularly some minor detail, just a little color to begin with, catches the attention of the players and can steer the game in all kinds of interesting directions.

But even from a straight up description point of view, I cannot imagine presenting a new NPC as "A warrior steps out of the wagon and says he would like to join" and then having to wait for questions to describe him as some here in the last few posts have recommended. Just seeing the guy in the first few seconds would provide all kinds of information that should be volunteered by the GM, then if something is missing the players can ask. Why is that so foreign to some?

It's not a foreign concept. Neither is it a necessary task for everyone involved. One person's essential schtick is another person's eyeroll. As for the tenor of discussion, there's always the heavily moderated, overly PC rpgnet. You'll get plenty of carefully delivered responses. You might not get as many honest ones.  The only thing I can offer is that, if someone responds to your creative act with, "that's nice," they aren't doing you any favors. I think it's clear you're set in your ways as to how you do things. No one's asking you to change. I wouldn't take criticism of detail as criticism of style. Everything he has their thing.  I personally deliver a lot of my "detail" via voice, mannerisms, actions and word choice in dialogue. I do that because that's my strength. I could care less about describing the panorama of the spreading dawn or the moss on the stones (but I will say if the overgrowth is thick, because that indicates the place isn't tended). The only time I give a shit about describing the weather is if it makes difference in player actions (meaning it has turned adverse). To each his own. Do what you do until your table complains. Then find out why and meet them halfway, if you want. That's all it is. Everything else is commentary.

Anyhoo, your original question was whether it was okay to move a preplanned encounter to a new location, provided the players don't know the difference. My opinion on that was -- still is -- that it's fine to move it, but it's not fine to make the horse drink. The advantage of improvisation, however, is that your prep is never wasted. The downside might be some incongruity and gaps in detail. Given your skill at description, detail isn't a problem. But maybe maintaining consistency in your encounter is, so you'd rather move the preplanned, than build whole cloth? Either way, I don't think it's poor GM'ing to use what you have, as long as the location is something the players are interested in at least as much as you. Some players will balk at being nudged, of course, but those players are probably not sitting at your table.

Quote from: Nexus;936400Tru dat. It was a running gag in my gaming circles that PCs would always latch onto the little details: totally brush off the "important" NPC in the bar that you invested so much time in developing to spend 30 minutes chatting with and learning the life story of Ed the hot dog cart vendor outside that you came up with 10 seconds earlier.

Whereas I've had this bite my ass a number of times.

If you have no extraneous detail, the players bitch it's unrealistic.
If you have extraneous detail, somebody will become convinced that the rusty dagger is an incredibly powerful artifact you don't want them to have, as has been lampshaded so many times in Knights of the Dinner Table, complete with the more times you tell them it's just a useless fucking rusty dagger, the more they're convinced that you're just trying to throw them off track.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936409Whereas I've had this bite my ass a number of times.

If you have no extraneous detail, the players bitch it's unrealistic.
If you have extraneous detail, somebody will become convinced that the rusty dagger is an incredibly powerful artifact you don't want them to have, as has been lampshaded so many times in Knights of the Dinner Table, complete with the more times you tell them it's just a useless fucking rusty dagger, the more they're convinced that you're just trying to throw them off track.

I've had similar things happen. Depending on the nature of the game, I either practiced some degree of Illusionism and came up with something interesting related that detail, NPC or whatever. Maybe not “important” in the grand scheme of things but at least interesting, Or just let them do following up to their heart's content until they were satisfied, something else distracted them or the consequences of ignoring other arcs catches up with them.  Either option can be be entertaining.

Quote from: rgrove0172;936389You are right, about how this seems to happen regularly. To my mind its because I am, as is clear, a rarity it seems in today's RPG industry - at least in how I approach GMing.

I know you don't like this pointed out, but you were a rarity back in the day as well.  Your style has never been mainstream for the entire history of the industry, but that's ok.  Mine isn't either.

Quote from: rgrove0172;936391YES! And fairly regularly some minor detail, just a little color to begin with, catches the attention of the players and can steer the game in all kinds of interesting directions.

But even from a straight up description point of view, I cannot imagine presenting a new NPC as "A warrior steps out of the wagon and says he would like to join" and then having to wait for questions to describe him as some here in the last few posts have recommended. Just seeing the guy in the first few seconds would provide all kinds of information that should be volunteered by the GM, then if something is missing the players can ask. Why is that so foreign to some?

We're back to discriminate.  If there's an NPC the players obviously are going to want to know about, then giving out a lot of information on that warrior is perfectly fine.  If that's one of 22 warriors they see walking around the Sword Quarter during the course of the day, and we go into the type of sword belt each one uses...it's too much.

See here's the thing:  When all of the characters are in the shared space of a setting, that setting is going to be reflected in the imaginations of each player.  It is not important that every last detail that you have in your head is transplanted into the player's heads.  In fact for most people, it's not welcome.  Now you want to make sure that important points are communicated correctly, and that we are all on the same page so that we can communicate effectively, but this is not a movie and you are not Alfred Hitchcock, you don't need to storyboard out every single shot for us before the camera rolls.

Now some people don't give a shit about any details, "All I need to know is where they are" and how much XP and all that bullshit, but that's on the extreme end of no details.  You're on the side of maybe too much detail.  The thing is, that's relative, and most people, despite the tendency to be more knee-jerk and rigid online, are in reality more flexible and adjustable at the table.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936355I'm also married so we'd be polygamous.  Or something.

So you would be not just inclusive, but all-inclusive. What's the big deal, it's 2016 after all?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936356That's one theory, sure.

If it were just me, I'd be the first to tell you to disregard me.

But MULTIPLE posters here have told you repeatedly that they're tired of your attitude of combined arrogance and gormlessness.

Furthermore, virtually EVERY thread you're involved in goes that way.  And not just in this forum, either.  I know of at least one other, and it's the same every time.  You've been part of more fucking train wrecks than Gomez Addams, and until you admit that to yourself, the shit will continue to fall upon you.

Eventually you realize that the common factor in all your disastrous threads is you.

You mean, you, me, tenbones, CRK and probably others I'm missing:)?
If it was just on this forum, fine, it's a grognard's forum - I like it here partly because we can afford to be abrasive. But I think I remember a thread that went the same way on TBP, and if you say there's another forum, might not be the only one...
And anyway, there's no way to have more different board cultures than between here and TBP.
At which point, we come to the "common factor" question.

Quote from: rgrove0172;936389You are right, about how this seems to happen regularly. To my mind its because I am, as is clear, a rarity it seems in today's RPG industry - at least in how I approach GMing. I would expect lots of other opinions and very little support but not the ire, the angst. I still cant understand that but I have about accepted that forums are not a place for me. I thought I would enjoy connecting with other gamers as my group is rather small and becoming less active as time goes by. So far, not much fun to be honest. If its me, I can only apologize but it does really appear like a Chevy man showing up at a Ford convention. No matter how nice he is, he is going to be feasted upon until he changes brands.

You're not a rarity, or rather, not the Lone GM you imagine yourself to be.
I know other people off-line who GM the same way as you. Amusingly, they have many other similarities to you, too - the smugness, arrogance, taking the rejection of their playstyle personally, and the feeling of superiority not being the last among them.

Their situation is the same as yours, though. Some of their players like it. A lot of people dislike it. They're periodically amazed, amazed I tell you...when a new player tries to join, spots or it is told what goes on "behind the screen", and then leaves - possibly after telling them exactly how he or she feels about that style.

And they don't even live on the same continent, or speak the same language, so it's a feature of your playstyle, not of location, board culture, or whatever other shit you might want to ascribe it to.

Quote from: Nexus;936400Tru dat. It was a running gag in my gaming circles that PCs would always latch onto the little details: totally brush off the "important" NPC in the bar that you invested so much time in developing to spend 30 minutes chatting with and learning the life story of Ed the hot dog cart vendor outside that you came up with 10 seconds earlier.

And then people wonder how I run my games by coming with stuff 10 seconds before it becomes relevant;).

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936409Whereas I've had this bite my ass a number of times.

If you have no extraneous detail, the players bitch it's unrealistic.
If you have extraneous detail, somebody will become convinced that the rusty dagger is an incredibly powerful artifact you don't want them to have, as has been lampshaded so many times in Knights of the Dinner Table, complete with the more times you tell them it's just a useless fucking rusty dagger, the more they're convinced that you're just trying to throw them off track.

Well, let them have the fucking rusty dagger, and move on? Let them use it, too.
It deals 1d4 (or 2d6 take lower) damage on a hit and has a chance to break in the system you're using, right? If they keep using it, it's going to break sooner or later, and then it's problem solved:D!

Quote from: CRKrueger;936415I know you don't like this pointed out, but you were a rarity back in the day as well.  Your style has never been mainstream for the entire history of the industry, but that's ok.  Mine isn't either.

I doubt that any one style has been "mainstream", ever. At least since 1975 or so;).

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936395See post 279.  And possibly 280.  It didn't look to most people like you wanted "minor detail, just a little color." You asked if it was a fucking PACKARD, for shit's sake.  Not even "a big black car" or "a roadster" or whatever.  A specific MANUFACTURER.  Only LATER did you go to "big black car like in the Untouchables."

I distinctly said "or something", implying a generality woukd be fine. A Packard being more to type than a specific model. Similar to asking what kind of sword a guy is carrying..."a claymore or something", meaning a big two handed job.  Doesn't seem like I communicate well at all on here.

Quote from: rgrove0172;936438I distinctly said "or something", implying a generality woukd be fine. A Packard being more to type than a specific model. Similar to asking what kind of sword a guy is carrying..."a claymore or something", meaning a big two handed job.  Doesn't seem like I communicate well at all on here.

Well I, for one, hope you don't leave. I may disagree with something you post, but I'd rather discuss the whys and the hows and actually have something to discuss. I like talking about GM techniques, and am always looking for ways to improve my game.

Quote from: rgrove0172;936345Not at all unless some poor jerk thinks that simplistic descriptor applies to.him.

So you're proving CRKrueger's point. You seem to ignore *everything* other than your own simplistic viewpoint on GMing. And yes, it *is* simplistic relative *everything* else almost everyone here is replying with - including those that advocate a nuanced version of what you believe is "best practices" (which ironically includes me). But all you can do is ask the same question repeatedly, ignore anything that differs from your qualitatively simplistic view.

Here's a simple litmus test for you: Let's pretend every GMing method has equal value (I don't personally believe this - but for sake of argument let's just pretend). And let's say we can safely identify /random number - SIX. Six different methods. And then let's examine those methods and come to some consensus on how those methods should be implemented - regardless if you like them or not.

Your perspective as presented by *YOU* (at least when you're not moving the goal-post on your position) is squarely in one method.

Many of us are saying all six have their place and can be used to much greater effect than using one. You take this naive and childish view that everyone but you is wrong. Sure, feel free to be dismissive and say it's "just an opinion" - well it should be pretty clear to you by now, after all these threads where you're asking the same thing, essentially, over and over - and people keep telling you the same thing over and over - and you keep responding the same way over and over - it does make the case pretty strongly that the problem is with you. But that's just an opinion.

Where I put further nuance on this - again which you seem to not understand (which directly supports my view of your GMing as simplistic relative to GMing in general) is that these methods of GMing tend to happen in a certain order. You go from GM vs. Player Murderhoboing, to Storytime etc. and they *tend* (but not always) to happen in succession. And! Some people never move out of them. You are one of those people. I'm not saying you're a horrible person. I don't even pretend to know you. I admire the fact you GM - I afford that to *everyone* that GM's. We're the ones that make the hobby happen. But you pretend that our points aren't really salient. We're only going based on what *you* have told us and you continue to defend your position on your "style". But *you* dismiss our experiences with far less measure. You don't see how this is a problem for you? Do you think it's some silly coincidence that those of us responding to you don't have the problems you have? Yeah, there's a reason for that. You just don't want to listen.

But again - notice I've said repeatedly: your method works for you and your group. *awesome*. Keep doing what you're doing if it makes everyone happy. At this point why do *YOU* care about posting these questions, if you're so dismissive of our views on your repeated questions? Either you want validation, or you're a troll.

MY interest here is simple: I like GMing and helping GM's raise their game if they ask questions I think I can offer some advice on. I'm waiting to see you swallow your own bullshit ego and try flipping your script and doing something about your issue (and it IS an issue otherwise why in the fuck would you keep asking the same questions over and over and getting all pissed off at what, by now, you should be expecting from many of us). I wanna hear you come back with a thread that says "GUYS !!! Check this out!!!"  and you tell us about something you did differently that shocks your players and in return shocks YOU and you say "Holy crap - my game went to a new level!"  Rather than getting on the same merry-go-round where you're dancing around your ever-changing hypotheticals that lead us directly back to your Storytime Island?

I'm not dismissive of your style of GMing. I've said many times on many of your threads - IT HAS ITS PLACE. But your examples of how you use it is like a sledghammer to the exclusion of everything else we've been talking about - which ultimately is for your benefit. And despite this you cherry-pick when to apply your sensitivities free of the conceit that we too are part of this conversation you started.

Quote from: rgrove0172;936438Doesn't seem like I communicate well at all on here.

Well, so let's work together to change your writing and my reading so we do communicate well.

Quote from: tenbones;936454Either you want validation, or you're a troll.

(https://crayfisher.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/troll.jpg?w=640)

I can only reply that it is evident I don't communicate well in this medium. What tenbones just posted may well apply to me in the view of those reading my post but it doesn't reflect my own thinking at all. Ive sat here and tried to conjure up some means of making myself understood but at this point I think its a fruitless endeavor. Due in a great part to my own stubbornness in starting these related posts, being drawn into arguments and doing a horrible job of making my own opinions clear I think its fair to say there is no way to proceed on these topics from here without mammoth preconceptions.

Its funny though, I reading tenbones post, I agree with totally with some of what he relates and yet somehow he, and apparently others, think Im on the other side. Its nuts!

Im not going to run off in a huff, I really enjoy the forum and respect the members, but I guess I  will have to just thrown in the towel on these particular GM style conversations. Some might find it fun to log on and insult one another but I have enough conflict in my life without inviting more.

My gaming group took some serious hits in the past few years, dropping from about 8 or 9 (military miniatures, boardgames and RPGs) regular players to only 2 now available for roleplay and then only once in a while. Im simply too old and tired to try to recruit and have no real connection with 17 year old kids that might want to play. Its this reason that I checked out the forum, believing my hobby is taking a turn - from actively playing to more of a study and collection aspect, finding the social element here rather than at the table.  Evidently I need to come at it from a different angle, it certainly wasn't my plan to form adversaries.

Quote from: rgrove0172;936186"So the car the gangsters are in, what? Is it a like a big Packard or something?"...

"Huh? I don't know, its a big black car, what does it matter?"

Quote from: rgrove0172;936438I distinctly said "or something", implying a generality woukd be fine. A Packard being more to type than a specific model. Similar to asking what kind of sword a guy is carrying..."a claymore or something", meaning a big two handed job.  Doesn't seem like I communicate well at all on here.

"Packard" is oddly specific.  You're either contradicting yourself unintentionally, or you're using a specific word in a nonspecific way.  I say this not to belittle, but to try to clarify.

"Claymore" is also oddly specific.  "He's carrying a one handed sword" or "a two handed sword." If it's something odd like a Flamberge I'd mention it.

Serious question; might it be that you want specific sounding words even if you don't actually take them specifically?  You want me to say "He's riding an Andalusian" even though you don't know what an Andalusian is?  But it makes the world feel more detailed to you if specific nouns are used?  I guess I could see where that might be a thing.

Again, I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I'm trying to assume that what you say makes sense to you, even though it baffles me.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;936460(https://crayfisher.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/troll.jpg?w=640)

Cool troll!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936462"Packard" is oddly specific.  You're either contradicting yourself unintentionally, or you're using a specific word in a nonspecific way.  I say this not to belittle, but to try to clarify.

"Claymore" is also oddly specific.  "He's carrying a one handed sword" or "a two handed sword." If it's something odd like a Flamberge I'd mention it.

Serious question; might it be that you want specific sounding words even if you don't actually take them specifically?  You want me to say "He's riding an Andalusian" even though you don't know what an Andalusian is?  But it makes the world feel more detailed to you if specific nouns are used?  I guess I could see where that might be a thing.

Again, I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I'm trying to assume that what you say makes sense to you, even though it baffles me.

Right on the second count, using 'Packard' as, what I believed, to be a stereotypical car of the old Gangster movies, sort of like calling any off road, small, open topped vehicle a "jeep". Totally blew my meaning there. I suppose such terms vary from group to group. In ours a "claymore" is not so much a description of a specific weapon as the 'huge, heavy, ridiculously long sword" thing, used in general speak rather than trying to describe a specific weapon, unless it is actually a Claymore!

Your Andalusian comment is right on target!

When narrating, especially on the fly, I often insert 'apparent detail' to add color and depth, even without full understanding of that detail. Ive seen it done in countless books and movies and watched a few DMs do it to great effect over the years. Its become almost habit with me.

"A guy in a leather jacket and a Stetson steps from the shadows and levels a Beretta at your midsection."   Hat? Gun? The descriptors are there for flair more than actual ID.

In fantasy settings its even easier, taking advantage of the player's ignorance of the world (mostly as its not created yet) but the character's knowledge.

"The three warriors at the back of the bar are tribesman, of the Venerhorn clan it would seem, their beards braided and laced with Olmat beads, a religious practice held by their folk."

In my notes for the encounter, I may well have only written down "Three barbarian tribesman" but to make the encounter more interesting, I add the fluff - probably ironing out the details and adding it to my world later.

Quote from: rgrove0172;936466Your Andalusian comment is right on target!

When narrating, especially on the fly, I often insert 'apparent detail' to add color and depth, even without full understanding of that detail.

OH!

As the saying goes, "dawn breaks on Marble Head."

I, on the other hand, am a very literal minded person.  Not on purpose, that's just how my brain meats work.  If I say "Andalusian" I mean a very specific breed of horse.  If I say "Packard" I mean a specific automobile.  A "Claymore" is a 16th or 17th century basket hilted one handed sword, with a name derived from an earlier two handed sword, the exact spelling of which I can't be arsed to look up.  A Colt M1911A1 is not a Glock.

Part of the problem for me is that my players would then ask "What are Olmat beads?  What color are they?  What colors are possible?  What is the significance?  How many beads are they using?" The more irrelevant the detail, the more likely they are to want more and more specifics.  So if it's important, I write it down.  Or else I will sometimes say "Your character knows all that but I personally don't give a shit."  Yes, the blacksmiths' wife's brother's friend's nephew's dog has a name.  I don't fucking care what it is.

"She was packing a pair of 38s.  She was also aiming a pistol at me."

My players tend to get fixated on any detail given, so I vary depending on the urgency of the matter and setting. If this is "fast-paced action moment", I'm not bothering with minute details - there are four ogres barreling down the hallway! In this case, if I describe too much, they are asking questions about ultimately meaningless elements when every second counts.

If, on the other hand, this is "eerie investigation moment", I give something of a chaff-cloud of details and let them investigate. In this case, if I describe too little, they think "search that one thing he described in detail".

You pick the right tools for the right moment/effect. In my case, I run different campaigns with different tones (and within the same campaign as well), so I mix things up as needed.

Regarding the interpersonal/religious kerfluffle, do continue! This stuff is amusing to read.

(http://i.giphy.com/GjYjLvGErsggg.gif)

Quote from: rgrove0172;936466When narrating, especially on the fly, I often insert 'apparent detail' to add color and depth, even without full understanding of that detail.

Ohdearfuckingchristonastick.

Quote from: rgrove0172;936466Ive seen it done in countless books and movies and watched a few DMs do it . . .

Bad books, worse movies, and clueless DMs, Grover.

One of the more ridiculous moments of the wildly ridiculous Stephen Herek The Three Musketeers* is a conversation between the Cardinal and the Queen, in which the screenwriter decided to make an allusion to the Queen's title 'Anne of Austria.' The Cardinal says that he'd hoped that the Queen's marriage to Louis XIII would improve relations between France and Austria, indicating that the screenwriter was completely oblivious to the fact that Ana de Austria was the daughter of the King of Spain, that her honorific came to her through her mother.

It was an 'apparent detail' that made the film look silly to anyone who's read the novel with two neurons firing in their skulls.

Seriously, this is the hallmark of complete hacks.


* And somehow Paul W(hat!) S(hite!) Anderson managed to make Stephen Herek look like fucking Orson Welles.

Here's why you suck so hard, Grover.

Quote from: rgrove0172;936312"Ok, you have broken camp and with the groans of travelers 2 weeks on the road you set out."

Have you ever spent two weeks on the trail, Grover? I have. Sleeping on the ground gets easier after two or three days such that you don't notice it anymore. Moreover, your body gets what we called in the Park Service 'trail-hard,' such that you don't really notice the miles anymore. The longer you're out, the easier it gets, which is why backcountry rangers seem like deities to ordinary backpackers and hikers as they blast past them on the trails.

Quote from: rgrove0172;936312"The sun is just peaking over the mountains off to east and its first light promises a warm and pleasant day."

The sun doesn't tell me shit about the weather, Grover. The wind and the clouds and the season do. I've encountered many sunny mornings that turned into wrath-of-gawd thunder-and-lightning shit-shows by afternoon.

Quote from: rgrove0172;936312"The fields to either side of the road are thick with spring flowers . . ."

Why are the fields full of flowers, Grover? Shouldn't fields be full of crops? or livestock? Is this part of the kingdom depopulated?

See, your imagination is vastly inferior to my own, which means that trying to impose your vision over mine creates a disconnect between me and the game-world. If your players are just as ignorant as you, then you found a match made in (one of the lower, inferior) heaven(s). For me, your 'apparent detail' is just fucking noise.

Quote from: rgrove0172;936461I can only reply that it is evident I don't communicate well in this medium. What tenbones just posted may well apply to me in the view of those reading my post but it doesn't reflect my own thinking at all. Ive sat here and tried to conjure up some means of making myself understood but at this point I think its a fruitless endeavor. Due in a great part to my own stubbornness in starting these related posts, being drawn into arguments and doing a horrible job of making my own opinions clear I think its fair to say there is no way to proceed on these topics from here without mammoth preconceptions.

Its funny though, I reading tenbones post, I agree with totally with some of what he relates and yet somehow he, and apparently others, think Im on the other side. Its nuts!

Im not going to run off in a huff, I really enjoy the forum and respect the members, but I guess I  will have to just thrown in the towel on these particular GM style conversations. Some might find it fun to log on and insult one another but I have enough conflict in my life without inviting more.

My gaming group took some serious hits in the past few years, dropping from about 8 or 9 (military miniatures, boardgames and RPGs) regular players to only 2 now available for roleplay and then only once in a while. Im simply too old and tired to try to recruit and have no real connection with 17 year old kids that might want to play. Its this reason that I checked out the forum, believing my hobby is taking a turn - from actively playing to more of a study and collection aspect, finding the social element here rather than at the table.  Evidently I need to come at it from a different angle, it certainly wasn't my plan to form adversaries.

Bullshit, you're too old. I started up an RP group with kids at the HS where I used to teach. All of them are heavy RP'ers now, even though I don't see them all that often. I was nearing 50 then. Just this year, when the weather sucked and we couldn't do recess, I ran 6 4th graders through an off the cuff Swords & Six-Siders game. They keep asking to play again. I just don't want to give up my afternoons at this point to herd cats (which is sorta what it would be like with those guys) or I'd do it.:-) The group I'm running now has an age range of 20 to my current 54.

There are still curious folks. D&D is a mainstream term. Hell, the Big Bang Theory has at least mitigated the stigma of nerdism that has always hovered around the hobby. If you want more players, go get them. Then run the game the way you're used to, and see what happens. The only person who can turn you into a relic is you, man.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;936473See, your imagination is vastly inferior to my own, which means that trying to impose your vision over mine creates a disconnect between me and the game-world. If your players are just as ignorant as you, then you found a match made in (one of the lower, inferior) heaven(s). For me, your 'apparent detail' is just fucking noise.

Hey, if it works for him and his players, more power to 'em.  It isn't my style, but that's OK.

At least I now have some understanding of why his posts made no sense to me; we're using words differently.

"Trail hard," hurr hurr hurr.

You got a boner while hiking.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;936473Here's why you suck so hard, Grover. Have you ever spent two weeks on the trail, Grover? I have. Sleeping on the ground gets easier after two or three days such that you don't notice it anymore. Moreover, your body gets what we called in the Park Service 'trail-hard,' such that you don't really notice the miles anymore. The longer you're out, the easier it gets, which is why backcountry rangers seem like deities to ordinary backpackers and hikers as they blast past them on the trails.


The sun doesn't tell me shit about the weather, Grover. The wind and the clouds and the season do. I've encountered many sunny mornings that turned into wrath-of-gawd thunder-and-lightning shit-shows by afternoon.


Why are the fields full of flowers, Grover? Shouldn't fields be full of crops? or livestock? Is this part of the kingdom depopulated?

See, your imagination is vastly inferior to my own, which means that trying to impose your vision over mine creates a disconnect between me and the game-world. If your players are just as ignorant as you, then you found a match made in (one of the lower, inferior) heaven(s). For me, your 'apparent detail' is just fucking noise.

Well, to be fair, Black, Grove can only describe things the way he sees them.  I mean, I get your point here, and I do think it's all a bit frilly, too, but I think it's a bit unfair to use an "imagination vs. experience" war with the GM as a big stick to shut down the guy's style. I know if I had to take into account everyone's real life expertise, I'd be stuck as to what to say, and, to me, that kind of indecision is worse than a few frills.

Hey, grove, you HAVE to go with your strengths. It is a lot easier to become excellent at what you're good at, than mediocre at what you're not. Stick with it. Now, if you get adventurous, try a system like Dungeon World to see how it meshes with your style. It's quite collaborative, and encourages leaving gaps. This may or may not be your thing, but, assuming your players dive in with you, it would give you a taste of how the other half lives.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936477"Trail hard," hurr hurr hurr.

You got a boner while hiking.

:p :p

A veritable Shecky Gronan.

Shemek

Quote from: Black Vulmea;936473The sun doesn't tell me shit about the weather, Grover.

The wind and the clouds and the season do. I've encountered many sunny mornings that turned into wrath-of-gawd thunder-and-lightning shit-shows by afternoon.

Nope, but the sun tells you about time of day and visibility at the moment he's describing.

And if that late afternoon wrath-of-gawd thunderstorm is as surprising as you say, then you have to set up the contrast with good weather in the morning.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;936473Why are the fields full of flowers, Grover? Shouldn't fields be full of crops? or livestock? Is this part of the kingdom depopulated?

Because any of the reasons above? Because the locals are growing tulips in response to a booming market by crazy Dutch?

Quote from: Black Vulmea;936473See, your imagination is vastly inferior to my own, which means that trying to impose your vision over mine creates a disconnect between me and the game-world.

Doubtful propositions there. I don't think I care for rgrove's GM style and even less for how he communicates on this forum, but your ridiculous overreactions are unintentionally funny.

Quote from: rgrove0172;936461I can only reply that it is evident I don't communicate well in this medium. What tenbones just posted may well apply to me in the view of those reading my post but it doesn't reflect my own thinking at all. Ive sat here and tried to conjure up some means of making myself understood but at this point I think its a fruitless endeavor. Due in a great part to my own stubbornness in starting these related posts, being drawn into arguments and doing a horrible job of making my own opinions clear I think its fair to say there is no way to proceed on these topics from here without mammoth preconceptions.

So let me stipulate all of this and I'll just accept it might be a communication issue. For my own part - nothing I've said changes a *single* thing about how I perceive your examples and my responses to your questions. The *fact* that you have these questions *is* the issue. Regardless of your experiences and longevity in the hobby - OR MINE. The fact the question exists demands an answer. To pretend that our participation and our own subjectivity doesn't affect that question and answer is nonsense. So we can sit in the dark and yell at the darkness or we can light a candle.

Quote from: rgrove0172;936461Its funny though, I reading tenbones post, I agree with totally with some of what he relates and yet somehow he, and apparently others, think Im on the other side. Its nuts!

Actually... we're on the same side. We're GM's. That's the same side. If you were a player with zero-intention about GMing or just talking about GMing without actually doing it - I wouldn't give a shit and I wouldn't even bother to respond. I fully admit I'm probably at my limit on this topic as it is. But hope springs eternal for GMing with me...

Quote from: rgrove0172;936461Im not going to run off in a huff, I really enjoy the forum and respect the members, but I guess I  will have to just thrown in the towel on these particular GM style conversations. Some might find it fun to log on and insult one another but I have enough conflict in my life without inviting more.

Well all forums have their way of doing things. Every time you (or I) post- you're putting yourself on the line to be criticized, lauded, laughed at, vilified, hailed, for your views. The *best* thing about RPGsite is that it's up to *you* on how you wanna handle it. It's up to us as individuals to police ourselves (for the most part) on how we interact. I hope you appreciate this aspect of the forum like many of us do - because I think of it as a great strength, not a weakness. In my short time here it's proven to be a wonderful crucible to test ones ideas because, frankly, there's very few places where honesty of opinion *can* be discussed and even brutally debated to force you past your own biases when it comes to RPG's. I find this important (even if others here don't). I don't conflate all 'conflict' to be equal. This is a place where 'creative conflict' is inherent to the topic-matter in a lot of cases. To the degree that your sensitivities eclipse the importance of testing your ideas and getting answers which you might not like is something you'll have to grapple with in all arenas of life. Just like the rest of us. And make no mistake - this is an arena of ideas.

Quote from: rgrove0172;936461My gaming group took some serious hits in the past few years, dropping from about 8 or 9 (military miniatures, boardgames and RPGs) regular players to only 2 now available for roleplay and then only once in a while. Im simply too old and tired to try to recruit and have no real connection with 17 year old kids that might want to play. Its this reason that I checked out the forum, believing my hobby is taking a turn - from actively playing to more of a study and collection aspect, finding the social element here rather than at the table.  Evidently I need to come at it from a different angle, it certainly wasn't my plan to form adversaries.

Hyperbole aside - I don't have adversaries online. OUR hobby *is* taking a turn. It's always been turning changing and evolving (and in some cases devolving). And to me that's exactly why the RPGsite is special for it offers perspectives that you simply do not, or worse - are not allowed to discuss - hear about from people with a generally inordinately large breadth of experience. You experience conflict only when you rest comfortably in your own certainty without entertaining the fantastic idea you could be doing it wrong.

I'm totally open to *everything* I do being wrong. But I also try to put my ideas and hobbies into the metaphorical crucible to see what comes out of the other side. Otherwise what's the point? I have no use for what doesn't give me optimal results - the subjectivity of what I like vs. what is in fact optimal being the only moderation required. Obligatory "YMMV"

You know... Black Vulmea's backpacking story is pure gold as a parallel.

It illustrates this exact scenario you're in. You're GMing as you present it is exactly like being a day-hiker. He's pointed out the inconsistencies of your conclusions based on his experiences in *doing* the exact same endeavor but on a much larger scale. But the degree of effort he's put into doing that thing - in this case putting his skills to a more rigorous standard is precisely what drives him to larger conclusions than someone that does it less rigorously.

This is precisely why I say your kind of GMing is pretty basic. It's like you've been backpacking around the local park for 30-years. We're talking about, metaphorically, hiking around the Andes on both sides by way of the Amazon with the goal being our campaign going to Rio De Janeiro for Carnivale knowing fulling well we may not make it. The corollary being: there is room on the trip for you. You just have to decide the effort is worth it. (it is.)

Hopefully we won't catch teh Zika!!!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936477"Trail hard," hurr hurr hurr.

You got a boner while hiking.

The judges would have also have accepted: Description of a BM after a steady diet of trail mix. :D

All right, explain to me why Rove's gming style is "basic" rather than different? It sounds pretty close to mine and I've been running games since I was 12 for allot of different groups and few complaints so far. Everyone doesn't love my methods or style but I seem to at least keep the majority of them entertained and having fun while doing the same. No one's perfect but Rove seems to have had a good run.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936469OH!

As the saying goes, "dawn breaks on Marble Head."

I, on the other hand, am a very literal minded person.  Not on purpose, that's just how my brain meats work.  If I say "Andalusian" I mean a very specific breed of horse.  If I say "Packard" I mean a specific automobile.  A "Claymore" is a 16th or 17th century basket hilted one handed sword, with a name derived from an earlier two handed sword, the exact spelling of which I can't be arsed to look up.

It's claidheamh-mòr, of course, and the first mention of Claymore I can think of is from the 18th century:).
Though in light of his last comment that you quoted, it's funny that rgrove was saying my improvisational methods wouldn't work to give enough depth:p.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936477"Trail hard," hurr hurr hurr.

You got a boner while hiking.

Is that why I've been seeing so many hiking couples above a certain age:D?

Quote from: Nexus;936501All right, explain to me why Rove's gming style is "basic" rather than different? It sounds pretty close to mine and I've been running games since I was 12 for allot of different groups and few complaints so far. Everyone doesn't love my methods or style but I seem to at least keep the majority of them entertained and having fun while doing the same. No one's perfect but Rove seems to have had a good run.

I'll take a shot. Let me stipulate that my opinion is based only on his representation of "how he does things" based on his posts here. So...

It's basic and different. It's basic because the conceits of running a game excessively in that way limits the potential dynamics that might otherwise emerge from a game. (but I still say if that's working for your group - great). It's *different* precisely because his position in these posts is that his way of doings things is, apparently, the only way he's willing to entertain any response to why his way isn't working.

Quote from: cranebump;936479Well, to be fair, Black, Grove can only describe things the way he sees them.  I mean, I get your point here, and I do think it's all a bit frilly, too, but I think it's a bit unfair to use an "imagination vs. experience" war with the GM as a big stick to shut down the guy's style.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936476Hey, if it works for him and his players, more power to 'em.

You missed my point - it''s not a question of "imagination vs. experience" - it's 'imagination versus imagination,' what Grover imagines to be the scene versus what I imagine to be the scene. Several posters earlier in the thread pointed out that shit like Grover's "apparent detail" is unnecessary because their imaginations work just fine already and don't require the full Bulwer-Lytton treatment for 'a spring morning.'

And part of the problem the [strike]troll[/strike] original post mentions, OG, arises when Grover stepped outside his tiny circle of [strike]sycophants[/strike] gamers and discovered his 'style' isn't universally adored by the masses.

Quote from: darthfozzywig;936490And if that late afternoon wrath-of-gawd thunderstorm is as surprising as you say . . .

A Sierra Nevada summer thunderstorm is completely unsurprising, foz - in fact, it's about as predictable as that morning's clear sunrise. That's rather the point - the sun rising tells me nothing about the day ahead, but where I am, what time of year, &c does.

Oh, and an addendum:

Quote from: darthfozzywig;936490. . . your ridiculous overreactions are unintentionally funny.

Of course my overreactions are ridiculous - there's nothing 'unintentional' about it.

Quote from: Nexus;936501All right, explain to me why Rove's gming style is "basic" rather than different? It sounds pretty close to mine and I've been running games since I was 12 for allot of different groups and few complaints so far. Everyone doesn't love my methods or style but I seem to at least keep the majority of them entertained and having fun while doing the same. No one's perfect but Rove seems to have had a good run.

You haven't changed your GMing style since you were 12 and you want to know why that is considered basic?  :D

Quote from: Black Vulmea;936518You missed my point - it''s not a question of "imagination vs. experience" - it's 'imagination versus imagination,' what Grover imagines to be the scene versus what I imagine to be the scene. Several posters earlier in the thread pointed out that shit like Grover's "apparent detail" is unnecessary because their imaginations work just fine already and don't require the full Bulwer-Lytton treatment.

Then there's 'imagination vs (in-game) fact'. If I describe the environment in a particular fashion to my players, that's the fact. In my case, it's probably relevant to the situation, but either way it's how it is. If I don't, then they can imagine it however they want as long as it doesn't break something. E.g. the hawkmen swooping down with the sun at their back. Because they do that sort of thing, you know.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;936518A Sierra Nevada summer thunderstorm is completely unsurprising, foz - in fact, it's about as predictable as that morning's clear sunrise. That's rather the point - the sun rising tells me nothing about the day ahead, but where I am, what time of year, &c does.

No, it's unsurprising for you, but not necessarily for the PCs in question. You might want to tell your players stuff they wouldn't know, or you might want to describe things as they perceive them even if incorrect.

Plus, Kings Canyon weather isn't Mordor. We probably wouldn't go there so often if it were.

Quote from: CRKrueger;936521You haven't changed your GMing style since you were 12 and you want to know why that is considered basic?  :D

(http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/2012/11/OohBurn.gif)

Quote from: Black Vulmea;936518You missed my point - it''s not a question of "imagination vs. experience" - it's 'imagination versus imagination,' what Grover imagines to be the scene versus what I imagine to be the scene. Several posters earlier in the thread pointed out that shit like Grover's "apparent detail" is unnecessary because their imaginations work just fine already and don't require the full Bulwer-Lytton treatment for 'a spring morning.'.

Right. But your imagination is driven by practical experience in an area the GM may not be as well-versed in. I do get the point, I think. Whether I do or not, I'm on your side on the detail issue. But I wouldn't find grove's details insulting so much as time-consuming. I think, though, that asking him to back off of that steers him away from the core of what he does. If we ask an eagle to be a duck, or vice-versa, the bird is going to have problems straying from its natural (or, in this case, honed) instincts. You kinda have to be who you are, in the end. What I DO get from this example is that the more you put out there, the more the players might scrutinize as essential, rather than tangential. My personal tolerance for the tangential is what drives the way I do things, as it does grove's. The thing I can't figure is whether he's seeking validation for the way he does things, or whether he's seeking additional modes of expression. If it's the former, well, we all know this site will give you equal doses of scorn with whatever validation you get, because that's what happens when you have a thousand cooks in the kitchen.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936469OH!

As the saying goes, "dawn breaks on Marble Head."

I, on the other hand, am a very literal minded person.  Not on purpose, that's just how my brain meats work.  If I say "Andalusian" I mean a very specific breed of horse.  If I say "Packard" I mean a specific automobile.  A "Claymore" is a 16th or 17th century basket hilted one handed sword, with a name derived from an earlier two handed sword, the exact spelling of which I can't be arsed to look up.  A Colt M1911A1 is not a Glock.

Part of the problem for me is that my players would then ask "What are Olmat beads?  What color are they?  What colors are possible?  What is the significance?  How many beads are they using?" The more irrelevant the detail, the more likely they are to want more and more specifics.  So if it's important, I write it down.  Or else I will sometimes say "Your character knows all that but I personally don't give a shit."  Yes, the blacksmiths' wife's brother's friend's nephew's dog has a name.  I don't fucking care what it is.

"She was packing a pair of 38s.  She was also aiming a pistol at me."

You know Gronan, you've totally gotten under my skin a few times but I cant help but think Id like you if I met you. Well... sometimes.

Quote from: CRKrueger;936521You haven't changed your GMing style since you were 12 and you want to know why that is considered basic?  :D

Hey--why start jacking off with your left hand NOW?:-)

Quote from: Black Vulmea;936473Here's why you suck so hard, Grover.


Have you ever spent two weeks on the trail, Grover? I have. Sleeping on the ground gets easier after two or three days such that you don't notice it anymore. Moreover, your body gets what we called in the Park Service 'trail-hard,' such that you don't really notice the miles anymore. The longer you're out, the easier it gets, which is why backcountry rangers seem like deities to ordinary backpackers and hikers as they blast past them on the trails.


The sun doesn't tell me shit about the weather, Grover. The wind and the clouds and the season do. I've encountered many sunny mornings that turned into wrath-of-gawd thunder-and-lightning shit-shows by afternoon.


Why are the fields full of flowers, Grover? Shouldn't fields be full of crops? or livestock? Is this part of the kingdom depopulated?

See, your imagination is vastly inferior to my own, which means that trying to impose your vision over mine creates a disconnect between me and the game-world. If your players are just as ignorant as you, then you found a match made in (one of the lower, inferior) heaven(s). For me, your 'apparent detail' is just fucking noise.

Theres a first time for everything and this is it I guess... no way to reply to this utter wad of shit except to say...
(Edited) - Apologies to any that read it.

Quote from: cranebump;936527Hey--why start jacking off with your left hand NOW?:-)

Psssfffttt!

Well, time to dry the drink off my monitor.

Quote from: tenbones;936516I'll take a shot. Let me stipulate that my opinion is based only on his representation of "how he does things" based on his posts here. So...

It's basic and different. It's basic because the conceits of running a game excessively in that way limits the potential dynamics that might otherwise emerge from a game. (but I still say if that's working for your group - great). It's *different* precisely because his position in these posts is that his way of doings things is, apparently, the only way he's willing to entertain any response to why his way isn't working.

Thank you, I don't entirely get what you mean but I have my own biases clouding my understanding in all likelihood and you and some other posters seem to want to be helpful.

Quote from: tenbones;936495You know... Black Vulmea's backpacking story is pure gold as a parallel.

It illustrates this exact scenario you're in. You're GMing as you present it is exactly like being a day-hiker. He's pointed out the inconsistencies of your conclusions based on his experiences in *doing* the exact same endeavor but on a much larger scale. But the degree of effort he's put into doing that thing - in this case putting his skills to a more rigorous standard is precisely what drives him to larger conclusions than someone that does it less rigorously.

This is precisely why I say your kind of GMing is pretty basic. It's like you've been backpacking around the local park for 30-years. We're talking about, metaphorically, hiking around the Andes on both sides by way of the Amazon with the goal being our campaign going to Rio De Janeiro for Carnivale knowing fulling well we may not make it. The corollary being: there is room on the trip for you. You just have to decide the effort is worth it. (it is.)

Hopefully we won't catch teh Zika!!!

Your points are good ones. Black's were utter shit, complete utter shit. A field can be full of grass, flowers, rocks or any other fucking thing one can imagine, maybe it was Ball fields I was talking about too, where were the players? Ive spent weeks in the boonies too, fighting massive grassfires in Texas. Maybe Black is a superman but after a couple weeks my crew groaned everytime we got up from our bags. And... well you know what.. fuck it... his rubbish really isn't worth the effort Ive already spent in responding to it.

Thanks tenbones though, some of your stuff has made me sit back and think.

Quote from: cranebump;936527Hey--why start jacking off with your left hand NOW?:-)

Actually I prefer to sit on my hand until it falls asleep. Then its like being with someone else.

Of course, I've changed gaming styles. Its developed into the style I have today which is similar to Rove's. That's why it felt odd to have it referred to as "basic" likw a just fell of the truck rolled to stop in front of gaming store yesterday. Note I said developed not evolved. I don't think its intrinsically superior but I don't think its innately inferior either. I was more like some of the people here when I started but didn't find that satisfactory so worked towards something that was mroe fun for me.

Quote from: tenbones;936516I'll take a shot. Let me stipulate that my opinion is based only on his representation of "how he does things" based on his posts here. So...

It's basic and different. It's basic because the conceits of running a game excessively in that way limits the potential dynamics that might otherwise emerge from a game. (but I still say if that's working for your group - great). It's *different* precisely because his position in these posts is that his way of doings things is, apparently, the only way he's willing to entertain any response to why his way isn't working.

I would have to throw in here that its 'my preferred way of doing things.' Ive stated many, many times that I sometimes use other methods, some exactly as many of you have offered. It depends on the game. I do however consider the approach I have mentioned in these threads as my favorite.

Quote from: Nexus;936536Actually I prefer to sit on my hand until it falls asleep. Then its like being with someone else.

Of course, I've changed gaming styles. Its developed into the style I have today which is similar to Rove's. That's why it felt odd to have it referred to as "basic" likw a just fell of the truck rolled to stop in front of gaming store yesterday. Note I said developed not evolved. I don't think its intrinsically superior but I don't think its innately inferior either. I was more like some of the people here when I started but didn't find that satisfactory so worked towards something that was mroe fun for me.

Developed, not evolved... that's good. My style of gaming was a result of what my players responded to, the practices that projected the most fun by our group.

I can only assume that these other GMs came across situations, received suggestions, or whatever that caused them modify their games in different ways over the years. I personally think its kind of uppity to consider one's experience over the years to be in some way better than another's but I suppose everyone is entitled to an opinion.

For an analogy its similar, to my mind, to a guy who after 20 years still plays 1st Edition AD&D. Everyone goes on an on about the improvements and how he is missing out by not trying the later editions but he's happy with his modified and houseruled version with which he is comfortable and incredibly familiar with, as are his players. Is his game basic because of this?

Quote from: rgrove0172;936540Is his game basic because of this?

The A in AD&D stands for Advanced, to differentiate it from Basic D&D. So no, it's not Basic. :D

Asking questions about the milieu to find things one can leverage in their favor is part of being a player.  So asking if a car is a Packer may be relevant (if the player knows something about old cars).  I am very used to players asking for all kinds of details, and do so myself as a player.  

Waxing poetic for 5 minutes rarely goes well, but sprinkling details among descriptions and players asking for more details is part of the game I play.

Quote from: rgrove0172;936540Developed, not evolved... that's good. My style of gaming was a result of what my players responded to, the practices that projected the most fun by our group.

I can only assume that these other GMs came across situations, received suggestions, or whatever that caused them modify their games in different ways over the years. I personally think its kind of uppity to consider one's experience over the years to be in some way better than another's but I suppose everyone is entitled to an opinion.

For an analogy its similar, to my mind, to a guy who after 20 years still plays 1st Edition AD&D. Everyone goes on an on about the improvements and how he is missing out by not trying the later editions but he's happy with his modified and houseruled version with which he is comfortable and incredibly familiar with, as are his players. Is his game basic because of this?

Thanks. Developed goes over smoother since it doesn't carry implications of superority to most folks but more growth and experience. I changed over the years to adjust to what I found more enjoyable and seemed to make more fun games for the people that played with me taking things from experience, other gms, articles in magazines like Dragon and similar sources. I think I fall somewhere near the middle on Narrative vs Trad spectrum but leaning more towards Trad but with more interest in genre emulation and creating scenarios. that feel something like the literature and other movies I've enjoyed.

Quote from: CRKrueger;936542The A in AD&D stands for Advanced, to differentiate it from Basic D&D. So no, it's not Basic. :D

Just couldn't let it go could you?

Quote from: rgrove0172;936547Just couldn't let it go could you?

He can't let anything go.

Quote from: Nexus;936545Thanks. Developed goes over smoother since it doesn't carry implications of superority to most folks but more growth and experience..

Heck, I'd go further and say "changed". There are ways that my gaming - and to the point, GMing - have improved over the years, but I'll also say my preferences have changed. It's not about "my way is better than yours", it's "my way may have been badly executed, but I got better at it" or "I liked one thing, now I like something else, but it doesn't mean you liking that that I used to like is somehow lesser."

Quote from: rgrove0172;936547Just couldn't let it go could you?

Worst. Marketing. Ever.

Or best.

I guess it suckered me into buying AD&D before I eventually went back to Molday B/X land.

Caused endless confusion and the need to support two product lines, though. Crazy.

Some of us just play Only D&D.

Quote from: tenbones;936495We're talking about, metaphorically, hiking around the Andes on both sides by way of the Amazon with the goal being our campaign going to Rio De Janeiro for Carnivale knowing fulling well we may not make it. The corollary being: there is room on the trip for you. You just have to decide the effort is worth it. (it is.)

Hopefully we won't catch teh Zika!!!

That's not much of pitch, is it? Your itinerary doesn't make any sense.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;936518You missed my point - it''s not a question of "imagination vs. experience" - it's 'imagination versus imagination,' what Grover imagines to be the scene versus what I imagine to be the scene. Several posters earlier in the thread pointed out that shit like Grover's "apparent detail" is unnecessary because their imaginations work just fine already and don't require the full Bulwer-Lytton treatment for 'a spring morning.'

I don't either, frankly.  I have had a horror of misusing words since I was a small child; I would never say "Packard" if I did not intend that the car was a by God Packard and nothing else.

Hitchcock said that imagination was stronger than anything he could supply, which is why so much in his movies was left off screen.  I find I would rather have somebody say "It's a fine spring morning" and let my brain paint a fine spring morning.  Rather like sex in gaming; saying "She loves all your favorite kinks" is far more effective than enumerating them.

And then there is the "using words wrong" issue.  "Riders in silks and leathers" is a favorite among third rate fantasy authors and it absolutely grates on me.  "Silks" are what a jockey wears.  "Leathers" are what attaches stirrups to the saddle.  SO a bunch of people ride up wearing jockey suits with inch wide straps hanging off them?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936556Rather like sex in gaming; saying "She loves all your favorite kinks" is far more effective than enumerating them.

And then there is the "using words wrong" issue.  "Riders in silks and leathers" is a favorite among third rate fantasy authors and it absolutely grates on me.  "Silks" are what a jockey wears.  "Leathers" are what attaches stirrups to the saddle.  SO a bunch of people ride up wearing jockey suits with inch wide straps hanging off them?

I was talking elf-games. Are we talking about that roleplaying?

All y'all basic bitches best knock it off lest you make baby Jesus cry for Christmas! :mad:

Can't you muff cabbages fuckin read the topic's title, "A Calm Conversation (hopefully)..." :p

Quote from: darthfozzywig;936522Then there's 'imagination vs (in-game) fact'.

Warm.

Quote from: darthfozzywig;936522If I describe the environment in a particular fashion to my players, that's the fact.

Warmer.

Quote from: darthfozzywig;936522In my case, it's probably relevant to the situation, but either way it's how it is.

Hot.

Quote from: darthfozzywig;936522If I don't, then they can imagine it however they want as long as it doesn't break something.

And once again we return to the point made by multiple posters in this thread, that everyone at the table has an imagination capable of understanding 'a warm spring day' without the Bulwer-Lytton. 'A cheap saloon' sets a scene all by its own self, and when I'm describing the scene, I'm going for those things which make it distinctive from another cheap saloon, to highlight resources, draw attention, misdirect, whatever, but not bore the shit out of the players with bad prose describing what they can see more sharply in their own mind's-eyes than I could ever hope to describe.

Quote from: darthfozzywig;936522No, it's unsurprising for you, but not necessarily for the PCs in question. You might want to tell your players stuff they wouldn't know, or you might want to describe things as they perceive them even if incorrect.

Plus, Kings Canyon weather isn't Mordor. We probably wouldn't go there so often if it were.

This both wanders rather wide of the point and is what we call 'picking the flyshit out of the pepper,' so I'm not going to waste my time with it.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;936584This both wanders rather wide of the point and is what we call 'picking the flyshit out of the pepper,' so I'm not going to waste my time with it.

Then you're missing the point, but that's ok.

Quote from: Opaopajr;936582All y'all basic bitches best knock it off lest you make baby Jesus cry for Christmas! :mad:

Can't you muff cabbages fuckin read the topic's title, "A Calm Conversation (hopefully)..." :p

A calm conversation about different game styles.. on the rpg site...?

That would be a Christmas miracle. :)

Quote from: rgrove0172;936461Im simply too old and tired to try to recruit and have no real connection with 17 year old kids that might want to play.

It's worth the effort. And you don't need teens. There are plenty of adults who are gamers, ex-gamers or missed out on gaming who know about D&D from various media who would be interested in playing with you.

Forum wank is fun, but its not a substitute for gaming.

If there are any regional game cons near you, I highly suggest attending. It's a good way to meetup with the local RPG scene, as are actual Meetup groups.

Go for it. When you have a rocking table again, you'll skip being old and tired.

Quote from: Nexus;936536Actually I prefer to sit on my hand until it falls asleep. Then its like being with someone else.

Drop the mic, Nex. (That was some funny shit!)

Quote from: Black Vulmea;936473Here's why you suck so hard, Grover.


Have you ever spent two weeks on the trail, Grover? I have. Sleeping on the ground gets easier after two or three days such that you don't notice it anymore. Moreover, your body gets what we called in the Park Service 'trail-hard,' such that you don't really notice the miles anymore. The longer you're out, the easier it gets, which is why backcountry rangers seem like deities to ordinary backpackers and hikers as they blast past them on the trails.

Bullshit, but you knew that already.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;936473The sun doesn't tell me shit about the weather, Grover. The wind and the clouds and the season do. I've encountered many sunny mornings that turned into wrath-of-gawd thunder-and-lightning shit-shows by afternoon.

And vastly more sunny mornings that lead to sunny afternoons, but don't the the majority of time get in your way of trumpeting all about the exceptions.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;936473Why are the fields full of flowers, Grover? Shouldn't fields be full of crops? or livestock? Is this part of the kingdom depopulated?

So much for you imagination

Quote from: Black Vulmea;936473See, your imagination is vastly inferior to my own, which means that trying to impose your vision over mine creates a disconnect between me and the game-world. If your players are just as ignorant as you, then you found a match made in (one of the lower, inferior) heaven(s). For me, your 'apparent detail' is just fucking noise.

Imagination?  I see an outright lie, a gross exaggeration of weather, and a lack of understanding basic agriculture.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;936518You missed my point - it''s not a question of "imagination vs. experience" - it's 'imagination versus imagination,' what Grover imagines to be the scene versus what I imagine to be the scene. Several posters earlier in the thread pointed out that shit like Grover's "apparent detail" is unnecessary because their imaginations work just fine already and don't require the full Bulwer-Lytton treatment for 'a spring morning.'

And part of the problem the [strike]troll[/strike] original post mentions, OG, arises when Grover stepped outside his tiny circle of [strike]sycophants[/strike] gamers and discovered his 'style' isn't universally adored by the masses.

No. you lack imagination

Quote from: Black Vulmea;936518A Sierra Nevada summer thunderstorm is completely unsurprising, foz - in fact, it's about as predictable as that morning's clear sunrise. That's rather the point - the sun rising tells me nothing about the day ahead, but where I am, what time of year, &c does.

Yep you lack imagination.

Quote from: CRKrueger;936521You haven't changed your GMing style since you were 12 and you want to know why that is considered basic?  :D

Ahh so you were a story gamer when you were 12, but saw the light after a bit of time and now punch-preach the glories of a particular style of supposed old school gaming?
No?

Yeah that's right you've been playing the same exact way since you were a wee lad.

Some will no doubt vomit when watching this but the GM's style is fairly similar to my own so I thought it might be useful to post in lieu of some of the misunderstandings present here. (Im referring to useless flowery descriptions not the original topic ) Kind of fun to watch too with a celebrity playing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLEMb_RIZ3o

Quote from: Spinachcat;936614It's worth the effort. And you don't need teens. There are plenty of adults who are gamers, ex-gamers or missed out on gaming who know about D&D from various media who would be interested in playing with you.

Forum wank is fun, but its not a substitute for gaming.

If there are any regional game cons near you, I highly suggest attending. It's a good way to meetup with the local RPG scene, as are actual Meetup groups.

Go for it. When you have a rocking table again, you'll skip being old and tired.

Seriously.  If Gary Gygax could find 20 players in the goat's anus of Lake Geneva, Wisconsin in the 1970s, anybody can find a player or three.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936680Seriously.  If Gary Gygax could find 20 players in the goat's anus of Lake Geneva, Wisconsin in the 1970s, anybody can find a player or three.

I have a sense you gave Lake Geneva, Wisconsin's Tourism Bureau a sad...

Quote from: rgrove0172;936669Some will no doubt vomit when watching this but the GM's style is fairly similar to my own so I thought it might be useful to post in lieu of some of the misunderstandings present here. (Im referring to useless flowery descriptions not the original topic ) Kind of fun to watch too with a celebrity playing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLEMb_RIZ3o

(shrug) They're playing a game. No one seems immersed, but presumably seem to be enjoying themselves.

So, ignore what you think everyone else here thinks is good GMing....what do you want from a game?
What do you think is your greatest strength as a GM? What would you say is your greatest weakness? (and I mean you, not what you think a group of posters on here would say)
What is missing from your games or your experience GMing that you'd like?
Is there some aspect to roleplaying that you've only heard about online and don't know how to achieve?

Actually, some more background is probably necessary to really analayze those answers...

What system do you run the most often?
What system do you like the most? (if different)? Why?
What other systems have you run? Which ones did you like and dislike?
Were there any you liked but your players did not? If so, why?
Is there anything about your GMing that your players have specifically said they dislike? What were the reasons?
What do you look for in a "good" RPG system?

Have you ever played in a freeform game?
Have you ever played in a heavily railroaded game?
What was your experience of both, and which did you like or dislike?

Do any of your players also GM? If so, what do they do differently than you? Do you like or dislike this?

Which of the following would you say is your primary goal when playing RPGs, either as a GM or player? What appeals most to you, satisfies you the most, or is the most fun?

A. The feeling of having for a short time existed in an alternate reality
B. The feeling of having participated in a interesting and satisfying narrative
C. The creation or exploration of an unknown and interesting environment
D. Having fun spending time with friends
E. Creating an interesting story with a logical and dramatic location
F. Acting like another person or persons, hamming it up or really throwing yourself into the role
G. Accomplishing a goal within the game, achieving a "win" condition

In no way am I exhorting the player's play, nor even the game only using the GM'S colorful and descriptive narrative as an example of I try to produce at the table.

Quote from: Tristram Evans;936704(shrug) They're playing a game. No one seems immersed, but presumably seem to be enjoying themselves.

See my last post. Although I think most of those reading this thread could care less or at least are pretty sick of talking about my gaming, Ill try to answer your questions as I appreciate the time it took you to answer them.

So, ignore what you think everyone else here thinks is good GMing....what do you want from a game?
Assuming we are talking only about roleplaying games, I want a fairly immersive experience, a period of disconnect from our mundane world and a touch of adventure, drama, or whatever from some setting of fiction. As a GM I want to provide this experience, as a Player I want to get lost in it for a little while. The term game really isn't that accurate when I think about what I want as the usual elements of winning, losing, strategizing, analyzing opponents etc. doesn't play much of a part unless of course the story line pits some antagonist against the players.

What do you think is your greatest strength as a GM? What would you say is your greatest weakness? (and I mean you, not what you think a group of posters on here would say)

Strength would be the ability to create and present detailed and seemingly realistic settings. My weakness would be managing all of the various sub plots, NPC activity and player actions without scripting. When things get overwhelming and confusing the simplest solution is often to minimize options and narrow the plot.(yep, that's when I have been guilty of railroading, no denying it.)

What is missing from your games or your experience GMing that you'd like?

Believe it or not what I find missing is a clean, logical and dramatic plotline most of the time. For the very reasons many on this board rave about randomness, storylines often suffer anti-climaxes, fruitless sidetracks, deadends and other unfortunate occurances which to my mind detract from the flow of the game. Granted, sometimes they can be entertaining in themselves but when looking back afterward usually seem as 'badly written scenes' in a movie, ones the editors usually pull before release. I allow them to occur, most of the time but prefer it when the drama comes off properly paced, the story follows a logical path. I could give examples but Im sure you know what I mean.

Is there some aspect to roleplaying that you've only heard about online and don't know how to achieve?

Cant say there is. Ive heard of a few ideas and tried them with mixed results. Some have become permanent fixtures (like some random rolls) others Ive dropped permanently (such as players taking over narrative)

Actually, some more background is probably necessary to really analayze those answers...

What system do you run the most often? Cant answer that one, I have bounced around a lot in recent years. Rarely do I stick with one system through more than a campaign or two.

What system do you like the most? (if different)? Why? At the moment I am enamored with Ebiquity, perfect balance between ease of play and grit.
 
What other systems have you run? Which ones did you like and dislike? Wow, many. Ubiquity Leagues of Adventure and Gothic Horror, D&D in several editions, Savage Worlds(several different settings), Deadlands, Conan d20, Twilight:2000, Traveller 2300AD, Classic Traveller, Fantasy Trip, Rolemaster, Spacemaster, Call of Cthulhu, Chill, FFG Star Wars, FFG End of the World, Don't Rest Your Head,  and on and on, lots of the older games, not many of the currently popular ones.

Were there any you liked but your players did not? If so, why? Only Rolemaster and Spacemaster - the players felt it was too complicated.

Is there anything about your GMing that your players have specifically said they dislike? What were the reasons?
Only the new individual mentioned during our Star Wars game. I have had players suggest I abstract combat to make it faster, award more experience, crap like that but nothing major.

What do you look for in a "good" RPG system? The right mix of freedom for player and GM improvisation and narrative and sufficient rules to govern action.

Have you ever played in a freeform game? No, Ive played scarcely over the years, almost always serving as GM and when I did, it was typically conventional games such as D&D.

Have you ever played in a heavily railroaded game? Yes, a D&D module. The direction of the GM was felt but I thought it was necessary to run through the module so I didn't have a problem with it.

What was your experience of both, and which did you like or dislike? As player I don't feel I would have issue with either, its the GM's game afterall. I don't have to play if I don't like it but am there from the standpoint of my character and such things are, in my opinion, beyond his knowledge and unimportant. As a player I try to view the entire experience through the character and so even ridiculously strict railroading or completely random goofiness wouldn't be noticed by him, more than likely.

Do any of your players also GM? If so, what do they do differently than you? Do you like or dislike this?
They aren't as descriptive in their presentation of the setting and I find it a shortcoming. Telling me we see a car parked off to the side of the road and get a spooky feeling as we approach just doesn't compare to a well described scene that instead "makes us feel spooked' naturally. I realize everyone has skills and I have never complained but its a bit of a let down when I come across it. In some of these games it seems to me that the emphasis is on WHAT is happening instead of HOW WE PERCIEVE it. I get that, but too me that is pushing the GAME element of the experience and minimizing the ROLE aspect.

Which of the following would you say is your primary goal when playing RPGs, either as a GM or player? What appeals most to you, satisfies you the most, or is the most fun?

A. The feeling of having for a short time existed in an alternate reality. Sounds silly as you don't really FEEL anything but the illusion can be awesome.

B. The feeling of having participated in a interesting and satisfying narrative Not for the narrative's sake, I don't care about actually writing a story, just experiencing it.

C. The creation or exploration of an unknown and interesting environment That's a good one

D. Having fun spending time with friends. Sorry but nah... I can have a great game with a stranger. In not a particularly social individual. I have a few friends of course but gaming is a separate interest for me.

E. Creating an interesting story with a logical and dramatic location This one is pretty high up there personally, but I understand as I stated above, its a rarity.

F. Acting like another person or persons, hamming it up or really throwing yourself into the role. nah
G. Accomplishing a goal within the game, achieving a "win" condition Not at all

Read through above.

Grove here's something to mull on a bit (or not)...

Quote from: GroveMy weakness would be managing all of the various sub plots, NPC activity and player actions without scripting. When things get overwhelming and confusing the simplest solution is often to minimize options and narrow the plot.(yep, that's when I have been guilty of railroading, no denying it.)

See, RIGHT HERE is why Tenbones is calling your style Basic and suggesting there is more for you to learn.  It might seem condescending, but bear with me.

For many of us, we found ourselves in similar situations, and we handled them pretty much the way you say might be a weakness - control the chaos by restricting options.  Grab the reins and start steering.  Get things under control again.  The "advanced" method Tenbones is advocating is to not control the chaos by turning it to order, not ride the chaos like a horse and grab the reins, but more surf the chaos, stay on top and see where it goes.  When you do that and succeed, you'll find out that even though you were still GM the whole time, the players had more freedom than ever before, and the plot might have ended up nowhere close to what you originally had planned, but Goddamn, what a run.  

Once you get really good at that, and do it enough times, then you'll notice something.  Your players, consciously or not know that you control the chaos, they know you railroad at times, grab the reins, whatever, and they play accordingly.  Once they Ride the Lightning a few times because you have Let Go, then they will adjust their play subtly and then more confidently.  As you keep GMing and Playing together it becomes a new cycle of reinforcing behaviors.  Once this happens enough, you'll find you're no longer prepping Plots, you're prepping Situations.  Your characters are no longer in a Story, they are in a World of a hundred simultaneous events that result organically from the setting and its NPCs which have a life of their own, which the PCs are free to become entangled in...or not.

Quote from: GroveBelieve it or not what I find missing is a clean, logical and dramatic plotline most of the time. For the very reasons many on this board rave about randomness, storylines often suffer anti-climaxes, fruitless sidetracks, deadends and other unfortunate occurances which to my mind detract from the flow of the game. Granted, sometimes they can be entertaining in themselves but when looking back afterward usually seem as 'badly written scenes' in a movie, ones the editors usually pull before release. I allow them to occur, most of the time but prefer it when the drama comes off properly paced, the story follows a logical path. I could give examples but Im sure you know what I mean.

We do know what you mean, but your evaluation of the results of past is constrained by context - you're still evaluating it based on the rules of Story and Drama as if you were directing a performance.  You are not.

Once you move Beyond Story, you'll find you really are taking it to another level. It is much harder to deliver a good game this way, but you have an advantage in that you are a Mad Prepper, so there are probably thousands of details floating around in your head about the setting that don't immediately apply to any given structured plot you have.  But when you're running the World in Motion, any of them could potentially come into play.  Your shit has to be quicker, your setting has to be tighter, your planning and logic of how NPCs and the world who aren't present are going to be affected by PC action has to be quicker, sometimes in Real.Time.  It's an absolute cast-iron bitch to do.  But when it fires on all cylinders...Holy Christ it's awesome.

Will there be anti-climaxes along the way, easy victories and surprising defeats?  Yes, that's what Chaos gets you, Chaos.  But the game will be alive in the way a controlled Plot can never be.

So anyway, that might explain the "Basic" idea in hopefully a way that makes sense.

I'd say that was a pretty good explanation:).

Quote from: CRKrueger;936779Will there be anti-climaxes along the way, easy victories and surprising defeats?  Yes, that's what Chaos gets you, Chaos.  But the game will be alive in the way a controlled Plot can never be.
.

what becomes clear over time is this stuff can be totally fine. In order to consistently have things like a predictable climax, a 'perfect' challenge in each fight, etc, you have to rig the game somehow (through methods like railroading or baking it into the system itself). But the trade off with that is potential loss of player freedom. When you accept the game-side of the equation, that this is meant to be a game of chance at times where outcomes are not known...and when you give the player's the ability to decide what they do (to really decide), it can be so much fun on both sides of the screen. Is it for everyone? Probably not, tastes vary. But rather than dismiss it because things might not always build to a climax, folks should really give it a shot. And by give it a shot, I mean try it for at least six sessions back to back.

Also, you can mix it up if you desperately need to. If the players aren't doing anything with the freedom you've handed them, then by all means, throw them an obvious hook (or ween them into the new approach slowly if you must).

I used to GM the more railroady way, and even on my side of the screen that started to suck after a while. I was basically running the game the way the books said to at the time. Once I realized I didn't have to do it that way, that the bulk of GMing advice floating around wasn't working for me, I started to enjoy myself once again. When everything is a foregone conclusion though, why even play?

There 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.

Quote from: AsenRG;936815I'd say that was a pretty good explanation:).

It was, and void of the spit and vinegar that sometimes ruins an honest attempt to give advice. I really appreciate the time and thought within.

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.

This isn't the argument I was making. I think different strokes for different folks. What I am mainly reacting to is advice that says games have to be climactic, that they have to have a certain level of challenge, and that outcomes need to be a certain way. For a lot of us, that isn't what we are after. That doesn't mean sandbox is the only solution. In my mind I wasn't talking about sandbox, but about providing a living adventure/setting. That could be a living setting constructed like a sandbox, but it could be more like a situational adventure or one that revolves around active power groups.

For 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. I've run a lot of modern games, and my approach is to play them more like chemical reactions with NPCs, groups, situations, etc. I've been in games where they've been like sandboxes. I think it is about knowing what structures work for you.

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.

I 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.

Once 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 say this as someone who's had to teach this bullshit). A living campaign is a web of mostly connected actions. I mean, our own lives are some well-planned, ascending line toward a particular moment. A lot us fumble around, only to discover that the fumbling around is the point. Most of us end up satisfied with where we are, never having followed such a neat progression.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;936822This isn't the argument I was making. I think different strokes for different folks. What I am mainly reacting to is advice that says games have to be climactic, that they have to have a certain level of challenge, and that outcomes need to be a certain way. For a lot of us, that isn't what we are after. That doesn't mean sandbox is the only solution. In my mind I wasn't talking about sandbox, but about providing a living adventure/setting. That could be a living setting constructed like a sandbox, but it could be more like a situational adventure or one that revolves around active power groups.

For 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. I've run a lot of modern games, and my approach is to play them more like chemical reactions with NPCs, groups, situations, etc. I've been in games where they've been like sandboxes. I think it is about knowing what structures work for you.

I was referring to the overall thread not your post specifically. :)

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;936818what becomes clear over time is this stuff can be totally fine. In order to consistently have things like a predictable climax, a 'perfect' challenge in each fight, etc, you have to rig the game somehow (through methods like railroading or baking it into the system itself). But the trade off with that is potential loss of player freedom.

Worse, if every event has to have a climax, the fact that there will be a climactic event and "le dénouement" is, by itself, predictable and gets boring, thus making the climax anticlimactic:).

Sometimes, I want the murderer of a PC's wife to be killed in a duel, or administered a long and gruesome death.
And sometimes, I want to roll a die, murder him back and then go after his masters who put him in charge until the PC gets the emotional payback (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braveheart) he was fighting for;). Even if it's by spitting in their faces while he dies.

And most importantly, I don't want to know in advance which one is going to be the case, even if one of the results is more likely.
If I was to know that in advance, I could as well ditch the system and just narrate everything, like we do in freeform games:D!

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. :D

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. :D

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. :D

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'...

Quote from: rgrove0172;936754

Quote from: Tristram Evans;936704What would you say is your greatest weakness? (and I mean you, not what you think a group of posters on here would say)

. . . My weakness would be managing all of the various sub plots, NPC activity and player actions without scripting. When things get overwhelming and confusing the simplest solution is often to minimize options and narrow the plot.(yep, that's when I have been guilty of railroading, no denying it.)

Quote from: rgrove0172;936754

Quote from: Tristram Evans;936704What is missing from your games or your experience GMing that you'd like?

Believe it or not what I find missing is a clean, logical and dramatic plotline most of the time. For the very reasons many on this board rave about randomness, storylines often suffer anti-climaxes, fruitless sidetracks, deadends and other unfortunate occurances which to my mind detract from the flow of the game. Granted, sometimes they can be entertaining in themselves but when looking back afterward usually seem as 'badly written scenes' in a movie, ones the editors usually pull before release. I allow them to occur, most of the time but prefer it when the drama comes off properly paced, the story follows a logical path. I could give examples but Im sure you know what I mean.

Quote from: rgrove0172;936754

Quote from: Tristram Evans;936704A. The feeling of having for a short time existed in an alternate reality.

Sounds silly as you don't really FEEL anything but the illusion can be awesome.

Reading back through some posts I merely skimmed earlier, I think these three responses to TeeEee's 'questionaire' are the most informing, or revealing, or damning, depending on your perspective. Plaintive bleats of, 'But that's how I do that, too!' don't jibe with Grover's emphasis on plot and story line and rejection of immersion in the game-world (http://black-vulmea.blogspot.com/2013/01/immersion.html).

From this I thread I draw two conclusions:

• There are quite a few gamers out there, and more than a few designers as well, who try to use the 'cool kids' lingo' to describe their games without really understanding what the fuck they're talking about. I speak from experience here: I fucked this up for years when I used 'System Matters' wrong.
• With the noteworthy exception of Los Diablos Hotshots, Texas firefighters are fucking pussies.

Seriously, Los Diablos are badass fire-eaters.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936877A 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.

What's interesting about this is that THAT is the heart of a good story -- what do the characters want? Do they get it? That's why we bother following the story in the books, AND why we end up rolling the dice at the table.

Sorry, I tried to read the last 20 posts but could not. I have read this stuff before.

As a DM/GM, I toss out general descriptions. If a player latches onto one, then I ad lib and develop it. If a player doesn't "catch on" to a description important to "my plot" as a DM and lets it flow by, I let it go by too. It later might play a role in the "narrative," which is created by my players. If not, as a DM either I drop it or bring it up in a later adventure.

This technique seems difficult for OP to understand. Again, sorry for not reading the last 20 posts intensively, but they seem at a stand-still.

I want to say this: GMs/DMs are also players in the game. They prepare 10-20 times more than "players" do, so I'm guessing that their investment in the game is greater. DMs want to give their players a good time; they want their players to catch the hints they're throwing out. If players don't catch the hints, then the DM might try a second time.

As a DM, I won't tell my players the color of my duke's soldiers' boots unless my players want to know. If they do, I expect them to do something about it (make a play). I don't give a shit about my players' "immersive" experience--as a DM, I present a scenario; if the player wants to engage or not, that is his problem.

OP wants DM to do everything, including wipe his butt.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936877A 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: cranebump;936888What's interesting about this is that THAT is the heart of a good story -- what do the characters want? Do they get it? That's why we bother following the story in the books, AND why we end up rolling the dice at the table.

And THAT is why I've found that telling people to roleplay characters with goals and to stay IC is about 123 times more efficient if you want a good story to emerge than using most narrative mechanics;).

Quote from: CRKrueger;936832I'm not the one to talk to about GMing a narrative game. :D

So Conan 2D20 hasn't arrived yet?

Quote from: AsenRG;936854It 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!

That is excellent advice.

Quote from: AsenRG;936907And THAT is why I've found that telling people to roleplay characters with goals and to stay IC is about 123 times more efficient if you want a good story to emerge than using most narrative mechanics;).

Are you sure it isn't 83 times more efficient? That extra 40 times is hard to quantify!

But yes, if your players spend game time roleplaying characters who strive to achieve their goals, the end result is something really fun to talk about afterwards.

And that talk after the game is called the story.

Quote from: Spinachcat;936933That is excellent advice.

Thank you:)! That was, I admit, a flash of inspiration.
I was introducing newbies to RPGs and during the pre-campaign speech I noticed that the players seemed to pay more attention when I was explaining about the character sheet, and less attention when I was explaining about "the characters need to have goals".
"So here you write your character's goals, and I'm going to award XP based on your efforts to achieve them", I added. That got their attention, if it's written down, it's obviously important:p!
It worked;).

QuoteAre you sure it isn't 83 times more efficient? That extra 40 times is hard to quantify!

It's an interesting question. We should ask for funding to research it, if there's some kind of grants;)!

QuoteBut yes, if your players spend game time roleplaying characters who strive to achieve their goals, the end result is something really fun to talk about afterwards.

And that talk after the game is called the story.

We're obviously (http://storiescharactersandsystemsinrpgs.blogspot.bg/search/label/Actual%20Play%20report) in agreement on that account:D!

Quote from: Spinachcat;936933So Conan 2D20 hasn't arrived yet?

(https://thecatholicgeeks.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/oh-snap-house.gif?w=640)
Yeah you got me. :D
Hasn't arrived yet.  
Even if I run it occasionally, pretty sure I won't be the Voice of Wisdom for narrative GMing. (I know, why would that be any different? ;))

Quote from: Spinachcat;936933But yes, if your players spend game time roleplaying characters who strive to achieve their goals, the end result is something really fun to talk about afterwards.

And that talk after the game is called the story.

You've been getting more vocal lately, sounding a bit annoyed with our Story Brethren. You running into some proselytizers down in LA, or is it just companies snapping up every classic IP worth anything to publish using a narrative Jay Little system? :D

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936877A 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.

You know, this is absolutely fucking golden. Characters have motivations. It is also so Goddamn obvious that a tabletop gamer has to be a fucking idiot not to grasp that concept intuitively.

Quote from: CRKrueger;936779Grove here's something to mull on a bit (or not)...

See, RIGHT HERE is why Tenbones is calling your style Basic and suggesting there is more for you to learn.  It might seem condescending, but bear with me.

For many of us, we found ourselves in similar situations, and we handled them pretty much the way you say might be a weakness - control the chaos by restricting options.  Grab the reins and start steering.  Get things under control again.  The "advanced" method Tenbones is advocating is to not control the chaos by turning it to order, not ride the chaos like a horse and grab the reins, but more surf the chaos, stay on top and see where it goes.  When you do that and succeed, you'll find out that even though you were still GM the whole time, the players had more freedom than ever before, and the plot might have ended up nowhere close to what you originally had planned, but Goddamn, what a run.  

Once you get really good at that, and do it enough times, then you'll notice something.  Your players, consciously or not know that you control the chaos, they know you railroad at times, grab the reins, whatever, and they play accordingly.  Once they Ride the Lightning a few times because you have Let Go, then they will adjust their play subtly and then more confidently.  As you keep GMing and Playing together it becomes a new cycle of reinforcing behaviors.  Once this happens enough, you'll find you're no longer prepping Plots, you're prepping Situations.  Your characters are no longer in a Story, they are in a World of a hundred simultaneous events that result organically from the setting and its NPCs which have a life of their own, which the PCs are free to become entangled in...or not.

Complete and utter horseshit.

Quote from: CRKrueger;936779We do know what you mean, but your evaluation of the results of past is constrained by context - you're still evaluating it based on the rules of Story and Drama as if you were directing a performance.  You are not.

Once you move Beyond Story, you'll find you really are taking it to another level. It is much harder to deliver a good game this way, but you have an advantage in that you are a Mad Prepper, so there are probably thousands of details floating around in your head about the setting that don't immediately apply to any given structured plot you have.  But when you're running the World in Motion, any of them could potentially come into play.  Your shit has to be quicker, your setting has to be tighter, your planning and logic of how NPCs and the world who aren't present are going to be affected by PC action has to be quicker, sometimes in Real.Time.  It's an absolute cast-iron bitch to do.  But when it fires on all cylinders...Holy Christ it's awesome.

Will there be anti-climaxes along the way, easy victories and surprising defeats?  Yes, that's what Chaos gets you, Chaos.  But the game will be alive in the way a controlled Plot can never be.

So anyway, that might explain the "Basic" idea in hopefully a way that makes sense.

Yeah cuz careening from RNG to RNG is rpg nirvana?  wtf ever.

Quote from: rgrove0172;936821It was, and void of the spit and vinegar that sometimes ruins an honest attempt to give advice. I really appreciate the time and thought within.

Only because you are on your back showing them your belly.  You took a stand for a brief moment then capitulated for some reason.

Quote from: Sommerjon;936963Yeah cuz careening from RNG to RNG is rpg nirvana?  wtf ever.

I'm not familiar with the term: RNG. What does it stand for?

Quote from: Nexus;936964I'm not familiar with the term: RNG. What does it stand for?

Random Number Generator?

Random Number Goddess?

Quote from: Nexus;936964I'm not familiar with the term: RNG. What does it stand for?

It means "random new guy," but honestly, it's sommerjon, so who the fuck cares?

Quote from: Nexus;936964I'm not familiar with the term: RNG. What does it stand for?

Random Number Generator.  It's possible he means not having a structured plot and enforcing it means your game will be procedurally generated via random tables or some other inane point (random new guy??) it's not worth the time to invest in engaging with.

Who knows, it's Sommerjon.  There is no point.  It's a useless driveby comment to throw a "fuck you" to someone and move on, like damn near every one of his posts, a quick contentless threadcrap for the lolz.  At least I hope it's for the lolz, no one should actually have that much bile, especially at Christmas.

Oh, ok. In hindsight, the meaning should have been pretty clear. :)

Since it's 100% incorrect, and purposely so (if that's even what he meant), not sure the meaning is that obvious.

Quote from: Sommerjon;936963Complete and utter horseshit.

Yeah cuz careening from RNG to RNG is rpg nirvana?  wtf ever.

Only because you are on your back showing them your belly.  You took a stand for a brief moment then capitulated for some reason.

The advise was given in a respectable and logical tone. I mentioned later that I couldn't buy it full tilt but when presented that way its much easier to at least consider. Theres nothing to "stand" for here, all opinions are equally valuable as far as Im concerned. The only time I get riled is when someone dismisses mine outright.

Quote from: Nexus;936964I'm not familiar with the term: RNG. What does it stand for?

"Role Naying Game."  It's where you refuse to play a role and build a story instead.

(The above definition may contain satire, humor, irony, flatulence, or any combination.)

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;937003...

(The above definition may contain satire, humor, irony, flatulence, or any combination.)

I'll take a 16oz satire with extra flatulence please.

Quote from: trechriron;937013I'll take a 16oz satire with extra flatulence please.

That's what makes it fizzy!

Quote from: Nexus;937031That's what makes it fizzy!

Christonastick, man, TMI!

Quote from: CRKrueger;936941You've been getting more vocal lately, sounding a bit annoyed with our Story Brethren. You running into some proselytizers down in LA, or is it just companies snapping up every classic IP worth anything to publish using a narrative Jay Little system? :D

Modiphius...just agony. I know they're gonna get Star Wars, probably Alien and Blade Runner too. They shitsauce all my favs.

As for LA, I'm getting asked to run Conan, Mutant Chronicles and Star Trek...

I'm - mulling - the Star Trek playtest.

Quote from: Spinachcat;937082I'm - mulling - the Star Trek playtest.

Using a houseruled SW:EoE, no doubt;)?

Quote from: Spinachcat;937082Modiphius...just agony. I know they're gonna get Star Wars, probably Alien and Blade Runner too. They shitsauce all my favs.

Modiphius can license Star Wars, but they will never get Star Wars. Star Wars was grokked in the WEG d6 RPG version so well that it still exists today! Don't believe me? Look at my attachment! Content is still being created for that "dead game".

Quote from: Nexus;936970Oh, ok. In hindsight, the meaning should have been pretty clear. :)

Well...  There's actually a little more nuance to it than that.

Literally, yes, it just means "Random Number Generator", but the abbreviation is most often used by people bitching about computer games that have random elements plus a significant level of difficulty (e.g., X-COM, Darkest Dungeon, etc.), generally in arguments that boil down to "this game is pure luck, with no skill or strategy at all, because even if I have a 99% chance to succeed, I still fail if the computer decides it wants me to fail!"  I wouldn't go quite so far as to call it a pejorative term, because I do also occasionally see it used in the technical sense by mathy people, but it definitely has connotations in that direction.

Quote from: CRKrueger;936779Grove here's something to mull on a bit (or not)...

See, RIGHT HERE is why Tenbones is calling your style Basic and suggesting there is more for you to learn.  It might seem condescending, but bear with me.

For many of us, we found ourselves in similar situations, and we handled them pretty much the way you say might be a weakness - control the chaos by restricting options.  Grab the reins and start steering.  Get things under control again.  The "advanced" method Tenbones is advocating is to not control the chaos by turning it to order, not ride the chaos like a horse and grab the reins, but more surf the chaos, stay on top and see where it goes.  When you do that and succeed, you'll find out that even though you were still GM the whole time, the players had more freedom than ever before, and the plot might have ended up nowhere close to what you originally had planned, but Goddamn, what a run.  

Once you get really good at that, and do it enough times, then you'll notice something.  Your players, consciously or not know that you control the chaos, they know you railroad at times, grab the reins, whatever, and they play accordingly.  Once they Ride the Lightning a few times because you have Let Go, then they will adjust their play subtly and then more confidently.  As you keep GMing and Playing together it becomes a new cycle of reinforcing behaviors.  Once this happens enough, you'll find you're no longer prepping Plots, you're prepping Situations.  Your characters are no longer in a Story, they are in a World of a hundred simultaneous events that result organically from the setting and its NPCs which have a life of their own, which the PCs are free to become entangled in...or not.

We do know what you mean, but your evaluation of the results of past is constrained by context - you're still evaluating it based on the rules of Story and Drama as if you were directing a performance.  You are not.

Once you move Beyond Story, you'll find you really are taking it to another level. It is much harder to deliver a good game this way, but you have an advantage in that you are a Mad Prepper, so there are probably thousands of details floating around in your head about the setting that don't immediately apply to any given structured plot you have.  But when you're running the World in Motion, any of them could potentially come into play.  Your shit has to be quicker, your setting has to be tighter, your planning and logic of how NPCs and the world who aren't present are going to be affected by PC action has to be quicker, sometimes in Real.Time.  It's an absolute cast-iron bitch to do.  But when it fires on all cylinders...Holy Christ it's awesome.

Will there be anti-climaxes along the way, easy victories and surprising defeats?  Yes, that's what Chaos gets you, Chaos.  But the game will be alive in the way a controlled Plot can never be.

So anyway, that might explain the "Basic" idea in hopefully a way that makes sense.

Your words make me want to fire up a game right here at work. CHAOS indeed. Beautiful chaos.

This was ultimately a good thread, so I dumped my resolution to stop reading 400+ post threads. Since Nexus loved lit classes, I offer a quotation (https://books.google.com/books?id=tb274aBSOdwC&lpg=PA155&pg=PA155#v=onepage&q&f=false): Treplyov critiques his writing compared to the conventional and more successful writer Trigorin:

Quote from: Anton Chekhov, Act IV of The Sea-GullI'll start with the hero waking to the sound of rain, and get rid of all the rest. The description of the moonlit night's too long and contrived. Trigorin has perfected a technique for himself, it's easy for him ... He has a shard of broken bottle glisten on the dam and a black shadow cast by the millwheel -- and there's your moonlit night readymade. But I've got to have the flickering light, and the dim twinkling of the stars, and the distant strains of a piano, dying away in the still, fragrant air ... It's excruciating. (Pause.) Yes, I'm more and more convinced that the point isn't old or new forms, it's to write and not think about form, because it's flowing freely out of your soul.

A few comments I thought of while reading the thread:

Quote from: The Butcher;936169What does it avail the players if I decided their next encounter on whim, or on a dice roll?

People are bad at choosing random numbers that are actually random. Common multiple choice testing advice is to eliminate every option that is definitely not right, and then choose the first of the remaining options, because "choosing one at random" ends up being influenced by plausible but wrong answers and people do worse when they pick without being random. (The "first" strategy depends on the test setters ordering the answers randomly, of course; it does have the counter intuitive result that there is never a point to reading the last choice, because it would only be selected after eliminating all of the preceding ones.)

In an RPG, I expect that a GM choosing on whim will not actually get a random result; the players will over the long haul notice any pattern, and very unlikely events will either be too common or never occur. Even if it does turn out to be random, some players will find patterns in the randomness and start trying to use those patterns to influence decisions, leading to what are from the point of view of the character illogical choices, which damages the game for me. Better from my point of view that any decisions be: determined in preparation, a nearly inevitable consequence of what has happened, or a purely random roll, or a combination of the latter two (e.g., the inevitable consequence of what has happened so far is "there is a 30% chance of a guard showing up" and then rolling that chance).

Quote from: cranebump;936339Well, sure. But I subscribe to the no bullshit theory of writing. Not just what the Poetics says, but modern interpretations, aka David Mamet's True and False. Detail can be a smokescreen for a flimsy plot or premise*, like an effects-driven movie with little in the way of anything else. I guess the litmus test is, "Am I driving the story here, or am I just showing off?" If it's the latter, I shouldn't be doing it, unless, of course, I expect an audience of one.

*actually, fuck premise--everything comes out of action, and anything that doesn't logically drive the action is simply bullshit, no matter how well it's described.

But there has to be some room for red herrings, or it would be difficult to have a mystery of any sort, and occasional irrelevant detail makes good camouflage for what is significant.

Quote from: Spinachcat;936614If there are any regional game cons near you, I highly suggest attending. It's a good way to meetup with the local RPG scene, as are actual Meetup groups.

Go for it. When you have a rocking table again, you'll skip being old and tired.

I would suggest local gaming stores if they have space for gaming (most do, and would be happy to have you run stuff there to fill their schedule and attract players who will buy whatever goes with the game, be it rule books, miniatures, dice or just snacks). A convention, even if it is right where you live, has people who want to try one-shots and new things that they are unlikely to continue doing on a regular basis, or who may just come from farther away than would work for a regular table, so I would think it would be easier to find more new players from a game store. If you have no such game store, consider running a game at meeting rooms in a library or community center where you can publicize it.

Raw: I think the Red Herring idea still fits in with "nothing that isn't essential to the plot." Misdirection, or misinterpretation could be a step on the road to Discovery. If my litmus test is, "it must drive the story," then a red herring will still drive the story toward the inevitable conclusion, because it's a part of paring away the non-essential.  Given the genre you mentioned, the false lead is simply another part of the plot, imho.  

On the whole, I'm not arguing against description, because description is often a matter of style, as indicated in the quote you've offered. I suppose, on that score, if you've still got a solid story within all your window dressing, then, on the whole, I'd say you're doing it right, from an author's perspective.

Quote from: cranebump;938147Raw:

It's rawma, please.

QuoteI think the Red Herring idea still fits in with "nothing that isn't essential to the plot." Misdirection, or misinterpretation could be a step on the road to Discovery. If my litmus test is, "it must drive the story," then a red herring will still drive the story toward the inevitable conclusion, because it's a part of paring away the non-essential.  Given the genre you mentioned, the false lead is simply another part of the plot, imho.  

On the whole, I'm not arguing against description, because description is often a matter of style, as indicated in the quote you've offered. I suppose, on that score, if you've still got a solid story within all your window dressing, then, on the whole, I'd say you're doing it right, from an author's perspective.

Obviously a story is different from an RPG, since what the players do will not always be driven by details that the GM includes, so some of what would have driven the plot in a story and was justified thereby ends up being extraneous. But I think "nothing that isn't essential to the plot" is too much even for a story; the skillfully applied misdirection may exist only to make the final plot twist both surprising and inevitable, and manipulating the reader's reaction to the plot is not itself part of the plot.

But I agree it's a matter of perspective, and skill in writing is perhaps the ability to break rules successfully. Consider these competing Chekhov quotes:

"Remove everything that has no relevance to the story. If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter it absolutely must go off. If it's not going to be fired, it shouldn't be hanging there."

"Don't tell me the moon is shining; show me the glint of light on broken glass." (Chekhov used Trigorin's description in the previous quotation in his own short story and as an example in a letter.)

To follow the first would require that someone get cut by that broken glass. Even if you limit the first advice to memorable elements of the story, I have to observe that I remembered that broken bottle from reading "The Sea-Gull" 35+ years ago (although I had to search a bit for the exact quotation).

But anyway I would be more than satisfied if the box text in published adventures would simply be free of typos, even if they had no other virtue as writing.

Quote from: rawma;938161Obviously a story is different from an RPG . . .

Full stop.

Quote from: rawma;938161To follow the first would require that someone get cut by that broken glass.

Whereas in a roleplaying game it may become a hazard to avoid or a resource to use by the adventurers.

Stuff in my game-world is there because it's there, not because it's a fucking plot device.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;938163Full stop.


Whereas in a roleplaying game it may become a hazard to avoid or a resource to use by the adventurers.

Stuff in my game-world is there because it's there, not because it's a fucking plot device.

Anything in your world can become a plot device, which you just noted in your own (fucking) example.

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.

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

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

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!):-)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

Or an armory?

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

Yup:-)

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: rawma;938450Description 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.

True, though I'd say that description of irrelevant detail is of greater necessity for immersion than for world building.

If I'm building an RPG world, I'm not going to use non-essential information.

If I'm going to get flowery about the throne room of Princess Ella IV, then I'm likely to throw in something I consider irrelevant, from a plot standpoint (well, it will be irrelevant until someone reacts to it in some way).

"The hotel commode was of polished amboyna, edged in macassar ebony, fluted down into ormolu feet -- a tying motif to the ivory and mother-of-pearl marquetry upon the resting surface above...

"... yes, you may insert your used chamberpot into my irrelevantly detailed commode."

/dies a thousand deaths inside. :(

It seems like if someone is entirely doing away with the idea of plot (as in general path/goal of the game outside of immersion in an imaginary world) then there isn't any irrelevant details. Any detail could be come significant just like a real person might notice or even fixate on anything around them. The only difference is the degree of description the speaker/gm is comfortable with giving,.

Quote from: Nexus;938522It seems like if someone is entirely doing away with the idea of plot (as in general path/goal of the game outside of immersion in an imaginary world) then there isn't any irrelevant details. Any detail could be come significant just like a real person might notice or even fixate on anything around them. The only difference is the degree of description the speaker/gm is comfortable with giving,.

Ex-fuckin'-zactically.

And detail can become important if the player chooses to interact with it through the character. Frex, I probably won't describe the presence of a chamberpot or a spittoon where logical inference would suggest the characters will imagine it without my help. If the chamberpot or spittoon is full to overflowing or otherwise noteworthy, then it may earn a mention as catching the players' attention for being out of the ordinary.

In any case, a chamberpot or a spittoon is a resource, just like a trade blanket or a silk fan or anything else lying about a room might be, and I don't presume to know what the players and their characters will use from their environment.

I don't disagree entirely with the notion being presented here but I can imagine where a minimalist approach to description could, in some cases, result in misunderstandings. As long as there is sufficient description to insure both player and GM are imagining the same thing, then I agree superfluous detail is in the very least just an option and not necessary but it may require some dialogue to make sure this is the case. In the course of a typical exchange during a game that dialogue may or may not take place and the players continue playing with a faulty image in mind.

Lets say the GM minimally describes the tavern as a run down shack at the end of town. The players envision an actual shack, a tiny structure, four dilapidated walls, a leaning roof of leaking planks and a rusty length of pipe jutting from one side as a chimney. The GM however has the tavern set up as a weather beaten but still sound building of decent size with chipped paint, boarded over windows and missing a number of roof shingles. Unless someone starts asking for details or they come up for some other reason the players will have a very different and in this case errant view of the tavern. This may affect a decision where it is concerned at some later time or at least change how they are viewing a scene where it is an element.

I think this is the danger in assuming players imaginations are best left to forming their own scenes with bare bones descriptions. It may not be necessary to wax-eloquent on every scene but a few lines of apparently trivial description are a healthy part of GMing in my opinion.

Well, if I were the player, I would ask "How run-down do you mean?"

Everything I have ever said about description assumes that, when necessary, players will ask and referees will answer.

You need to give enough information that the players and GM are all working with *compatible* images in their heads.

[existential ennui] *[le sigh]* [/existential ennui]

Let's get this bullshit out of the way first.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938532. . . bare bones descriptions . . . wax-eloquent on every scene . . .

You could fit a [insert absurdly large object here] in the excluded middle between those two extremes.

And can we at long last agree that the 'warm spring morning' example isn't 'waxing eloquent' - it's first-degree prose-icide.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938532Lets say the GM minimally describes the tavern as a run down shack at the end of town. The players envision an actual shack, a tiny structure, four dilapidated walls, a leaning roof of leaking planks and a rusty length of pipe jutting from one side as a chimney. The GM however has the tavern set up as a weather beaten but still sound building of decent size with chipped paint, boarded over windows and missing a number of roof shingles. Unless someone starts asking for details or they come up for some other reason the players will have a very different and in this case errant view of the tavern.

And I think we're getting to the dark heart of this discussion at last: this is about CONTROL over the narrative, keeping an IRON GRIP on what the players know about the game-world because otherwise they could start gettin' all sorta uppity ideas of their own and not PLAY ALONG WITH MAH STOREH.

It also misses the 43-stone primate sitting two seats down on the right.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;938552Everything I have ever said about description assumes that, when necessary, players will ask and referees will answer.

Or the referee will correct a misapprehension, before committing the players to a course of action, say if I were, frex, to refer to something as a "shack" which clearly isn't a shack at all, as in the ridiculously contrived example quoted above.

Players miss shit, and in my experience, the more verbose and roundabout the description, the more they're likely to miss.

ROTFLMAO.

It took vulva a mere two sentences to go from stop using extremes to using an extreme.

And I think we're getting to the dark heart of this discussion at last: this is about CONTROL over the narrative, keeping an IRON GRIP on what the players know about the game-world because otherwise they could start gettin' all sorta uppity ideas of their own and not PLAY ALONG WITH MAH STOREH.

Well the original discussion possibly, control is certainly an element there but the recent turn of this discussion towards detail in description has nothing to do with that whatsoever. Unless the GM is leaning his descriptions in an attempt to sway the player's perceptions and thus influence or even cajole their choices its irrelevant. A thorough description is just that, a more lengthy and involved one than something simpler and direct. Good, bad, appreciated, hated... whatever but it has nothing to do with controlling the plot of the game.... in my opinion of course. I put as much time into my descriptions in my sandbox sessions as I do when Im..ahem.. railroading.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938532I think this is the danger in assuming players imaginations are best left to forming their own scenes with bare bones descriptions. It may not be necessary to wax-eloquent on every scene but a few lines of apparently trivial description are a healthy part of GMing in my opinion.

Hence why I note that theres a point where theres too little data to base from. Too minimalist.

Otherwise see me and Gronan's comments on the Q&A style of play where you give the players the "at a glance" data and then let them ask for details.

And the Q&A atyle can handle more description as needed. Sometimes at a glance you get alot of things. Like you walk into the villains office and you see her desk and its style, the rug on the floor, her very expensive statuette of Tiamat on the desk, her paperwork on the desk shes filling out, the villain herself, and other details like other exits from the room. Whereas the PCs walk into their guest rooms and see the bed, desk, window table and some chairs. Because thats all thats there.

Dont just say "You walk into your guest room."... The players should not have to quiz the DM on obvious details.

YMMV, But thats my view on that style.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938575And I think we're getting to the dark heart of this discussion at last: this is about CONTROL over the narrative, keeping an IRON GRIP on what the players know about the game-world because otherwise they could start gettin' all sorta uppity ideas of their own and not PLAY ALONG WITH MAH STOREH.

Well the original discussion possibly, control is certainly an element there but the recent turn of this discussion towards detail in description has nothing to do with that whatsoever. Unless the GM is leaning his descriptions in an attempt to sway the player's perceptions and thus influence or even cajole their choices its irrelevant. A thorough description is just that, a more lengthy and involved one than something simpler and direct. Good, bad, appreciated, hated... whatever but it has nothing to do with controlling the plot of the game.... in my opinion of course. I put as much time into my descriptions in my sandbox sessions as I do when Im..ahem.. railroading.

Heh-heh. Nice touch.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938532I think this is the danger in assuming players imaginations are best left to forming their own scenes with bare bones descriptions. It may not be necessary to wax-eloquent on every scene but a few lines of apparently trivial description are a healthy part of GMing in my opinion.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;938561And I think we're getting to the dark heart of this discussion at last: this is about CONTROL over the narrative, keeping an IRON GRIP on what the players know about the game-world because otherwise they could start gettin' all sorta uppity ideas of their own and not PLAY ALONG WITH MAH STOREH.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938575Well the original discussion possibly, control is certainly an element there but the recent turn of this discussion towards detail in description has nothing to do with that whatsoever.

On the contrary.  While I'll agree with you that it (probably) doesn't have anything to do with controlling "the narrative" or "MAH STOREH", you do seem to be somewhat concerned with controlling how the players envision the scene, to ensure that they see it exactly as the GM sees it (or at least extremely close to the same way).  But I doubt that most of us here are concerned with maintaining that degree of control over what the players envision.  I know that I almost never do (and, on the rare occasions that I do specifically want my players to see things the same way as I do, I'll find an appropriate picture online and show them that rather than trying to describe it in exacting detail).

If I carelessly describe a serviceable, but run-down, building as a "shack" and my players take me at my word and envision a dilapidated shack, then so what?  If they behave in a way that doesn't make sense in my conception of the surroundings, then I'll ask them about it, find out that they understood things to be different than what I intended to present, correct the misunderstanding, and move on.  And if it doesn't lead them to behave inappropriately, then the different pictures of the surroundings don't matter.

As long as I don't have to play "guess what I'm thinking!" with the GM I am fine. I will gladly take a GM who errs on the side of more description than not. Just please don't torture me with jargon fapping in public. (And that jargon fapping applies most often to guns, swords, and martial arts fans, IME, by a magnitude more than any other extraneous "irrelevant" detail, such as meteorologists, decorators, or fashionistas.)

Quote from: rgrove0172;938575And I think we're getting to the dark heart of this discussion at last: this is about CONTROL over the narrative, keeping an IRON GRIP on what the players know about the game-world because otherwise they could start gettin' all sorta uppity ideas of their own and not PLAY ALONG WITH MAH STOREH.

Well the original discussion possibly, control is certainly an element there but the recent turn of this discussion towards detail in description has nothing to do with that whatsoever. Unless the GM is leaning his descriptions in an attempt to sway the player's perceptions and thus influence or even cajole their choices its irrelevant. A thorough description is just that, a more lengthy and involved one than something simpler and direct. Good, bad, appreciated, hated... whatever but it has nothing to do with controlling the plot of the game.... in my opinion of course. I put as much time into my descriptions in my sandbox sessions as I do when Im..ahem.. railroading.

The way I feel is abpiy is presenting as detailed description is both helping immersion and presenting options rather emphasizing what's important. Making sure everyone is on the same page, IME, saves more time than doing the description "wastes" since players don't spend time acting on false impressions and assumptions drawn from them. MMV, of course but I don't think it has anything to do with controlling the "story" for most that go in for more detailed descriptions.

Quote from: nDervish;938694On the contrary.  While I'll agree with you that it (probably) doesn't have anything to do with controlling "the narrative" or "MAH STOREH", you do seem to be somewhat concerned with controlling how the players envision the scene, to ensure that they see it exactly as the GM sees it (or at least extremely close to the same way).  But I doubt that most of us here are concerned with maintaining that degree of control over what the players envision.  I know that I almost never do (and, on the rare occasions that I do specifically want my players to see things the same way as I do, I'll find an appropriate picture online and show them that rather than trying to describe it in exacting detail).

If I carelessly describe a serviceable, but run-down, building as a "shack" and my players take me at my word and envision a dilapidated shack, then so what?  If they behave in a way that doesn't make sense in my conception of the surroundings, then I'll ask them about it, find out that they understood things to be different than what I intended to present, correct the misunderstanding, and move on.  And if it doesn't lead them to behave inappropriately, then the different pictures of the surroundings don't matter.

I suppose, one again, the difference is in how the GM envisions his own role in the game too. I have made it clear I hold to the notion that the GM's primary role is that of narrator, the chief conduit to the world the characters are interacting with. Therefore I place a lot of importance on that performance. If I as GM have taken the time to create this make believe setting the players are going to adventure in, then I want to make sure I relate it in a way that allows them to see it as I do. Its not sufficient enough for me that they have a general idea or can strap on some conventional trope to my brief description in order to make it through the scene. I want them to experience the setting the way I intend. I realize that other GMs, other groups, don't place as much importance in this and rather prioritize the action, the choices, the tactics, the roleplaying or some other nuance and relegate the setting to just a backdrop to what is really important to them. That's fine but for my taste the SETTING IS THE GAME, the main reason to play is to explore and experience it, so description is obviously a major element for us.

Im not sure exactly how to explain this next point but Ill give it a shot. It came to mind while dusting off my book shelves and coming across some old paperback novels from the 80s. I have a series of books called the "Survivalist", but a guy named Jerry Ahern. There are many series like his and his writing style was, and is somewhat common in the genre of pulpy, heroic, combat fiction.

For Jerry it was never enough to say a guy got shot with a gun - rather something like "He squeezed the pacmyer grips and pulled the trigger on the nickel-plated .357 Colt Python, sighting down the front ramp at the center of the brigand's chest. The 200 grain, semi-hollow point round rocketed toward the target at over 1200 feet per second with deadly accuracy. There was an audible thump as the round's soft metal tip penetrated the thug just above his sternum, the impact mushrooming on impact and forming a savage cavitation wave and trail of destruction through the man's chest."

Now nobody is going to argue that most of that little blurb wasn't necessary information - but the intense detail served a purpose. It set a mood, it fostered emotion and for lack of a better term, it was 'cool' and those kinds of books were and are very popular. I can see how a GM may want to bring some of that into his game.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938703Im not sure exactly how to explain this next point but Ill give it a shot. It came to mind while dusting off my book shelves and coming across some old paperback novels from the 80s. I have a series of books called the "Survivalist", but a guy named Jerry Ahern. There are many series like his and his writing style was, and is somewhat common in the genre of pulpy, heroic, combat fiction.

For Jerry it was never enough to say a guy got shot with a gun - rather something like "He squeezed the pacmyer grips and pulled the trigger on the nickel-plated .357 Colt Python, sighting down the front ramp at the center of the brigand's chest. The 200 grain, semi-hollow point round rocketed toward the target at over 1200 feet per second with deadly accuracy. There was an audible thump as the round's soft metal tip penetrated the thug just above his sternum, the impact mushrooming on impact and forming a savage cavitation wave and trail of destruction through the man's chest."

Now nobody is going to argue that most of that little blurb wasn't necessary information - but the intense detail served a purpose. It set a mood, it fostered emotion and for lack of a better term, it was 'cool' and those kinds of books were and are very popular. I can see how a GM may want to bring some of that into his game.

I like to try. The level of detail is probably a little lengthy for at table narration (an online game it could be fine) and either case not for every bullet fired in a prolonged fire fight but for specific moments to set the mood, yeah, I like to do put in more detail. It seems like a "bullet time" kind of scene or a tracking shot that follows the path of the round. You have to pick the moments and considering pacing and mood (of the game and the tablez) but it can be great especially if the players get into it too.

OTOH, some will consider it florid overblown purple prose that takes the long way to say "You hit doing max damage and he goes down." on the other extreme or just prefer something more in the middle "Your shot hits and he falls, blood spreading across his chest" or similar. I don't think any of it is objectively better as a matter of preferences. Its going to vary from person to person, group to group.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938703Im not sure exactly how to explain this next point but Ill give it a shot. It came to mind while dusting off my book shelves and coming across some old paperback novels from the 80s. I have a series of books called the "Survivalist", but a guy named Jerry Ahern. There are many series like his and his writing style was, and is somewhat common in the genre of pulpy, heroic, combat fiction.

For Jerry it was never enough to say a guy got shot with a gun - rather something like "He squeezed the pacmyer grips and pulled the trigger on the nickel-plated .357 Colt Python, sighting down the front ramp at the center of the brigand's chest. The 200 grain, semi-hollow point round rocketed toward the target at over 1200 feet per second with deadly accuracy. There was an audible thump as the round's soft metal tip penetrated the thug just above his sternum, the impact mushrooming on impact and forming a savage cavitation wave and trail of destruction through the man's chest."

Now nobody is going to argue that most of that little blurb wasn't necessary information - but the intense detail served a purpose. It set a mood, it fostered emotion and for lack of a better term, it was 'cool' and those kinds of books were and are very popular. I can see how a GM may want to bring some of that into his game.

I understand the sentiment. But I can tell you, as writer and game master, that there is a difference between evocative specificity and tedious detail.

Part of writing is knowing what NOT to say: what you can cut to get down to the best part of what you're trying to convey. It requires having an awareness of your word-choice and structure's impact on the reader.

As a GM, it is an art of knowing what NOT to detail: where you're fine letting the player fill in the specifics of the world according to their contribution to the shared world of the game, versus your vision of it. This requires trust and rapport with your players.

As a compromise between (what I perceive to be) your style of running VS mine, I would say: let the player propose some details and dramatic consequences for their actions/interaction with the game world. Retain veto power, so if they describe something that is impossible (or just ruins the broth for you or whatever) you can just amend it with them until you find a workable compromise between their vision of the game world and yours.

Quote from: Nexus;938707I like to try. The level of detail is probably a little lengthy for at table narration (an online game it could be fine) and either case not for every bullet fired in a prolonged fire fight but for specific moments to set the mood, yeah, I like to do put in more detail. It seems like a "bullet time" kind of scene or a tracking shot that follows the path of the round. You have to pick the moments and considering pacing and mood (of the game and the tablez) but it can be great especially if the players get into it too.

OTOH, some will consider it florid overblown purple prose that takes the long way to say "You hit doing max damage and he goes down." on the other extreme or just prefer something more in the middle "Your shot hits and he falls, blood spreading across his chest" or similar. I don't think any of it is objectively better as a matter of preferences. Its going to vary from person to person, group to group.

I agree entirely. I just cant buy the notion some have expressed here that such descriptions are a waste of time, amateurish and have no place at the roleplaying table.

Quote from: Azraele;938710I understand the sentiment. But I can tell you, as writer and game master, that there is a difference between evocative specificity and tedious detail.

Part of writing is knowing what NOT to say: what you can cut to get down to the best part of what you're trying to convey. It requires having an awareness of your word-choice and structure's impact on the reader.

As a GM, it is an art of knowing what NOT to detail: where you're fine letting the player fill in the specifics of the world according to their contribution to the shared world of the game, versus your vision of it. This requires trust and rapport with your players.

As a compromise between (what I perceive to be) your style of running VS mine, I would say: let the player propose some details and dramatic consequences for their actions/interaction with the game world. Retain veto power, so if they describe something that is impossible (or just ruins the broth for you or whatever) you can just amend it with them until you find a workable compromise between their vision of the game world and yours.

I take no issue with that at all and encourage my players to do just that, although I will admit its rarely the case. You might note my other currently running thread on Player Roll Enterpretation that mentions a group of players I spotted on Youtube that do this very thing, very well.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938712I agree entirely. I just cant buy the notion some have expressed here that such descriptions are a waste of time, amateurish and have no place at the roleplaying table.

I read and got allot of gming advice that said the opposite but everyone's got an opinion and preferences. Depends on what works for you.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938703I have a series of books called the "Survivalist", but a guy named Jerry Ahern.

This explains a lot, for there is men's fiction, there is bad men's fiction, then there is Jerry Ahern.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938703For Jerry it was never enough to say a guy got shot with a gun - rather something like "He squeezed the pacmyer grips and pulled the trigger on the nickel-plated .357 Colt Python, sighting down the front ramp at the center of the brigand's chest. The 200 grain, semi-hollow point round rocketed toward the target at over 1200 feet per second with deadly accuracy. There was an audible thump as the round's soft metal tip penetrated the thug just above his sternum, the impact mushrooming on impact and forming a savage cavitation wave and trail of destruction through the man's chest."

After reading that, I want somebody to put a .40 S&W Black Talon through the mid-line of my supraorbital ridge.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938703. . . those kinds of books were and are very popular.

Ah, the ever popular argumentum ad populum.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938703I can see how a GM may want to bring some of that into his game.

Can you also understand how a referee or especially a player many NOT want "some of that" in her game?

Quote from: rgrove0172;938703Im not sure exactly how to explain this next point but Ill give it a shot. It came to mind while dusting off my book shelves and coming across some old paperback novels from the 80s. I have a series of books called the "Survivalist", but a guy named Jerry Ahern. There are many series like his and his writing style was, and is somewhat common in the genre of pulpy, heroic, combat fiction.

Ahern is a bad writer. Sure he has his fans, and so does Stephenie Meyer, they may be successful but the quality of their writing is shit. Ahern is like the retarded love-child of Richard Marcinko and Clive Cussler pretending to be Tom Clancy. All of them are bad writers (I'll cut Clancy a break). Ahern actually *apes* their style. But as I said - he has his market and he's getting paid.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938703For Jerry it was never enough to say a guy got shot with a gun - rather something like "He squeezed the pacmyer grips and pulled the trigger on the nickel-plated .357 Colt Python, sighting down the front ramp at the center of the brigand's chest. The 200 grain, semi-hollow point round rocketed toward the target at over 1200 feet per second with deadly accuracy. There was an audible thump as the round's soft metal tip penetrated the thug just above his sternum, the impact mushrooming on impact and forming a savage cavitation wave and trail of destruction through the man's chest."

Yeah this is combat-porn that usually caters to a very specific audience. It's overly worded. Filled with pointless (and inaccurate) detail best used for bad 80s action movies. Why not mention how a 30-foot rooster tail of bright arterial spray blinded the monkey in the palm-tree above him as he died?. But it illustrates a more important point I've been making in many of your posts I'll get to...

Quote from: rgrove0172;938703Now nobody is going to argue that most of that little blurb wasn't necessary information - but the intense detail served a purpose. It set a mood, it fostered emotion and for lack of a better term, it was 'cool' and those kinds of books were and are very popular. I can see how a GM may want to bring some of that into his game.

Double-negative's aside (more bad writing!). The detail is intense and served a purpose/set a mood/fostered emotion/was cool TO WHOM? The goalpost of this thread has moved - you keep ignoring the larger issue by homing in on these little points that when corralled together spell out my larger point -

That is: you're making it about you. You think these things serve a purpose/set a mood/foster emotion/is cool - to you. You've absorbed fiction narrative *as* a method of GMing - which is what I have called "basic", because you're concerned with the PC's dancing to your narrative that you, by your examples, railroad them into despite whatever they might actually want or expect. You're trying to evoke a narrative feeling from bad works of fiction that have *nothing* to do with the actual game, rather they have to do with you making you get what you want.

You seem to not understand that in a work of fiction - this is fine (to a point) because the writer writes a story with only himself as the audience while he's writing it. If you run your RPG's like that - it's pretty basic because ultimately you're only trying to satisfy the needs of ultimately one person: yourself. The PC's are just along for the ride, in varying degrees, using this method.

And even poorly-written fiction will find its fans. There are, in fact, people that watch porn and are concerned about the story. That doesn't mean it's good fiction. Same goes with GMing RPG's.

It's a balancing act, I'm not saying over-the-top shit in a game is bad. It totally is legitimate, but those things ideally should arise from gameplay not because you want to verbally jerk-off to your players. You're examples seem to center only around your need for control. Almost none of your examples concern how you set things up around your PC's FOR their PC's rather than you discussing how you DO things TO your PC's.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;938725This explains a lot, for there is men's fiction, there is bad men's fiction, then there is Jerry Ahern.


After reading that, I want somebody to put a .40 S&W Black Talon through the mid-line of my supraorbital ridge.


Ah, the ever popular argumentum ad populum.


Can you also understand how a referee or especially a player many NOT want "some of that" in her game?

Of course. I wouldnt argue one over the other only the appropriateness of both.

Quote from: tenbones;938731Ahern is a bad writer. Sure he has his fans, and so does Stephenie Meyer, they may be successful but the quality of their writing is shit. Ahern is like the retarded love-child of Richard Marcinko and Clive Cussler pretending to be Tom Clancy. All of them are bad writers (I'll cut Clancy a break). Ahern actually *apes* their style. But as I said - he has his market and he's getting paid.



Yeah this is combat-porn that usually caters to a very specific audience. It's overly worded. Filled with pointless (and inaccurate) detail best used for bad 80s action movies. Why not mention how a 30-foot rooster tail of bright arterial spray blinded the monkey in the palm-tree above him as he died?. But it illustrates a more important point I've been making in many of your posts I'll get to...



Double-negative's aside (more bad writing!). The detail is intense and served a purpose/set a mood/fostered emotion/was cool TO WHOM? The goalpost of this thread has moved - you keep ignoring the larger issue by homing in on these little points that when corralled together spell out my larger point -

That is: you're making it about you. You think these things serve a purpose/set a mood/foster emotion/is cool - to you. You've absorbed fiction narrative *as* a method of GMing - which is what I have called "basic", because you're concerned with the PC's dancing to your narrative that you, by your examples, railroad them into despite whatever they might actually want or expect. You're trying to evoke a narrative feeling from bad works of fiction that have *nothing* to do with the actual game, rather they have to do with you making you get what you want.

You seem to not understand that in a work of fiction - this is fine (to a point) because the writer writes a story with only himself as the audience while he's writing it. If you run your RPG's like that - it's pretty basic because ultimately you're only trying to satisfy the needs of ultimately one person: yourself. The PC's are just along for the ride, in varying degrees, using this method.

And even poorly-written fiction will find its fans. There are, in fact, people that watch porn and are concerned about the story. That doesn't mean it's good fiction. Same goes with GMing RPG's.

It's a balancing act, I'm not saying over-the-top shit in a game is bad. It totally is legitimate, but those things ideally should arise from gameplay not because you want to verbally jerk-off to your players. You're examples seem to center only around your need for control. Almost none of your examples concern how you set things up around your PC's FOR their PC's rather than you discussing how you DO things TO your PC's.

And your opinion, more than another's, about Ahern or gaming or whatever is so absolutely indisputable because???

Know your audience. Tenbones is right in that Ahern's poor fiction caters to a specific subset (so did "50 Shades of Grey").  Other than that:

Grove's statement about how he sees his role is key. He feels is the narrator, the gateway into the world he's created. Therefore, his descriptions are going to reflect how he sees it, right down to the 10-penny nail, if need be. In any case, it explains and justifies his approach, for better or worse (or both).:-)

I see myself as an someone who presents a scenario, that arbitrates the outcome, sometimes by fiat, other times with help from dice rolls. For me, scenarios are people-driven (or "entity-driven," as the case may be). So, while I don't drop a ton of frilled into setting, I DO put some oomph behind acting out characters voices and mannerisms. In cases where I have no set visage in mind, we short hand the description using familiar touchstones (which is how one of our NPCs ended up looking like Ivanka Trump [this is what happens when you let a player tell you what someone looks like]).:-)

Stating the obvious here, but, how you see your role as GM is likely going to determine how much effort you put in, and where. We act each according to his or her own gifts.

P.S. And, yeah, if that example was indicative of Mr. Ahern's work, then it really is just poor writing. There's a lot of showing off his favorite esoterica, instead of just writing what's going on.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938734And your opinion, more than another's, about Ahern or gaming or whatever is so absolutely indisputable because???

Who is making the claim that it's indisputable? Feel free. But to the degree that one can say "this is good fiction" vs. "this is bad fiction" implies that no standard can ever be used is a post-modernist bullshittery. It's bad fiction because it's bad grammar, it's bad narrative, it's bad perspective, it's bad character development, it's bad pacing, it's bad structure, it's bad ON PURPOSE. The Survivalist is not an attempt at being remotely realistic - ON PURPOSE . I'm not saying that Ahern or his fans are horrible people. They like what they like and pay their money for it and he delivered. Some people loved Megaforce.

Only no one is pretending it's trying to be realistic. As Black Vulmea pointed out about your lack of understanding when it comes to living in the wilds. You're operating out of your own limited perspective and calling out *everyone* else that might differ - as only "having an opinion".

The answer is simple - an opinion is only as valuable as the individuals capacity to understand it. Yes, some opinions are, indeed, more valuable than others. Hence you ignored the larger point I've been making in almost every single thread you've posted the same questions to over and over. You're making it about you, not your PC's.

Quote from: tenbones;938739Who is making the claim that it's indisputable? Feel free. But to the degree that one can say "this is good fiction" vs. "this is bad fiction" implies that no standard can ever be used is a post-modernist bullshittery. It's bad fiction because it's bad grammar, it's bad narrative, it's bad perspective, it's bad character development, it's bad pacing, it's bad structure, it's bad ON PURPOSE. The Survivalist is not an attempt at being remotely realistic - ON PURPOSE . I'm not saying that Ahern or his fans are horrible people. They like what they like and pay their money for it and he delivered. Some people loved Megaforce.

Only no one is pretending it's trying to be realistic. As Black Vulmea pointed out about your lack of understanding when it comes to living in the wilds. You're operating out of your own limited perspective and calling out *everyone* else that might differ - as only "having an opinion".

The answer is simple - an opinion is only as valuable as the individuals capacity to understand it. Yes, some opinions are, indeed, more valuable than others. Hence you ignored the larger point I've been making in almost every single thread you've posted the same questions to over and over. You're making it about you, not your PC's.

I respectfully disagree on so much of what you posted I'm not sure it's worth going into. I'll just bow out. Have a good one.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938703Im not sure exactly how to explain this next point but Ill give it a shot. It came to mind while dusting off my book shelves and coming across some old paperback novels from the 80s. I have a series of books called the "Survivalist", but a guy named Jerry Ahern. There are many series like his and his writing style was, and is somewhat common in the genre of pulpy, heroic, combat fiction.

For Jerry it was never enough to say a guy got shot with a gun - rather something like "He squeezed the pacmyer grips and pulled the trigger on the nickel-plated .357 Colt Python, sighting down the front ramp at the center of the brigand's chest. The 200 grain, semi-hollow point round rocketed toward the target at over 1200 feet per second with deadly accuracy. There was an audible thump as the round's soft metal tip penetrated the thug just above his sternum, the impact mushrooming on impact and forming a savage cavitation wave and trail of destruction through the man's chest."

Now nobody is going to argue that most of that little blurb wasn't necessary information - but the intense detail served a purpose. It set a mood, it fostered emotion and for lack of a better term, it was 'cool' and those kinds of books were and are very popular. I can see how a GM may want to bring some of that into his game.

Here's the thing with "Ahern Gming" - he's an author, not a GM and when I'm reading about Dr. Rourke or Mack Bolan, or whoever, I'm not roleplaying them.  You go into detail like that when my PC is in a gunfight, I may have other things on my mind, like the other three guys that are about to start shooting at me after I shot their gang boss.

That's the difference between playing like you are generating scenes in literature or movies, and playing like you are there, experiencing an event in that world.

You say the setting is the game, I agree, but my setting is a World, not a Book or Movie.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938742I respectfully disagree on so much of what you posted I'm not sure it's worth going into. I'll just bow out. Have a good one.

Germane to your micro-point.

https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/05/19

If you can find this much to disagree with, surely in your certainty-bubble there exists some evidence of substance that supports your view other than your feelings?

I'll accept you think he's good at gonzo-over-the-top guilty-pleasure. Good writing? That's burden is on you.

Or you can cut and run and leave your poor defenseless positions laying there... dying... like someone shot them with 393-grams of 7.62NATO glory (unlike that limp-dick Russian knockoff) through their supraorbital ridge, where the shattered fragments of the copper jacket and bone shred the pre-frontal cortex driving white-hot spikes of dragon-fire, like the heart of a thousand-suns, behind their eyes. As the newly birthed full-metal steel-core, free of its copper egg-case, claws itself in naked hyper-velocity glory like a phoenix born at the dawn of creation, hurtling through the corpus callosum and exploding through the occipital ridge into a crimson explosion that for a moment appeared like a red rose before evaporating into a vermilion puddle of bone and brain-matter on the floor of the forum, shivering and twitching as the lifeless and brainless thing it was.

alas... maybe Grove was right after all.

I was thinking about Torg recently and something struck me that seems appropriate here. I see my settings rather like the Cosms in the Torg setting. They are "worlds" in that they physically exist outside of the fictional medium. But part of their makeup, their laws so to speak or World Laws are fictional tropes and to some degree events play out like they do in stories in the genre they represent. I think that's why games like Torg and The Strange appeal to me. I'm not saying that's the only way or the best way but its how I like it and its allowed me to create fun games for many people over the years.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938733I wouldnt argue one over the other only the appropriateness of both.

(http://i.imgur.com/nxSwBk7.gif)

Who the fuck do you think you're kidding?

Quote from: rgrove0172;938703For Jerry it was never enough to say a guy got shot with a gun - rather something like "He squeezed the pacmyer grips and pulled the trigger on the nickel-plated .357 Colt Python, sighting down the front ramp at the center of the brigand's chest. The 200 grain, semi-hollow point round rocketed toward the target at over 1200 feet per second with deadly accuracy. There was an audible thump as the round's soft metal tip penetrated the thug just above his sternum, the impact mushrooming on impact and forming a savage cavitation wave and trail of destruction through the man's chest."

"And then the EARS, I get the IDEA, get ON with it."

Yes, like/dislike for writing is opinion.  It is my opinion that that paragraph is one of the worst pieces of shit I have ever read in my life.

Sometimes, what people consider "good gaming" is so far apart from each other that they cannot have a good game together.  This happens.

However, by now you should realize that at least in this community, your taste in prose and prolixity are at the far tail end of the local distribution curve.  Which is neither good nor bad, but simply means you aren't likely to get much support for your taste around here.

I don't like green peppers, so I don't go to websites that feature "1001 ways to cook green peppers."

Quote from: rgrove0172;938702Its not sufficient enough for me that they have a general idea or can strap on some conventional trope to my brief description in order to make it through the scene. I want them to experience the setting the way I intend.

I'm going to be charitable and assume that this reflects naivite rather than arrogance.

First, you absolutely cannot succeed.  You want (it seems) to insure that the pictures your players have in their heads is EXACTLY AND PRECISELY the picture you have in your head.

Ain't happening.

Different people are different, and they will never ever envision things the way you do.

Second, you said yourself that you want me to say "he's riding an Andalusian," even though you don't know what an Andalusian looks like.  So if you tell your players "He's riding an Andalusian" and none of your six players know what an Andalusian looks like either... THEY WILL ALL HAVE A DIFFERENT PICTURE IN THEIR HEADS.  You yourself have said you use words without knowing or caring exactly what they mean, and now you're saying you want your players to have exactly the correct picture in their heads.

These statements are literally antithetical; if you cannot see that then further discussion is literally impossible.  You cannot "use words without worrying about their precise meaning" AND  have them "experience the setting the way I intend."

Thirdly, the vast majority of the hundreds of people I've gamed with over the last 44 years DON'T GIVE A FUCK.  Seriously.  I have a BA in medieval history and a fairly sizeable library in both text and photos.  I have found:

They don't really care how a castle is built or what it looks like
They don't care what actual medieval clothes are called or what they look like
They don't care if the knight is wearing alwhyte, Gothic, Maximillian, or Greenwich armor.
They don't care what the inside of a medieval smithy actually looked like

They're there to play a game and have adventures.  If I say "the nobles are dressed like the nobles in 'The Princess Bride,' " they all nod happily and we get on with the game.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938712I agree entirely. I just cant buy the notion some have expressed here that such descriptions are a waste of time, amateurish and have no place at the roleplaying table.

And some of us can't buy the notion of fapping to long meaningless paragraphs of adjectives.

Substitute the word "opinion" in your sentence above and try again.

If it works for your table, nothing else actually matters.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;938725After reading that, I want somebody to put a .40 S&W Black Talon through the mid-line of my supraorbital ridge.

"Just kill me," said the barbarian.

But they will care if you make any of those things actually meaningful via PC interaction with them directly as a result of their desire to interact with them either by action or reaction.

We've been saying this to Grover dozens of times, dozens of different ways. His own contradictions as you, others, and myself continue to point out only fuels his cognitive dissonance to the real issue which he continues to ignore or rather chooses to be blind to.

Not that it matters - that's just your opinion, Geezer.


Edit: but I loves me some cognitive dissonance.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938703Now nobody is going to argue that most of that little blurb wasn't necessary information - but the intense detail served a purpose. It set a mood, it fostered emotion and for lack of a better term, it was 'cool' and those kinds of books were and are very popular. I can see how a GM may want to bring some of that into his game.

Yes, it set a mood and fostered emotion.

The mood is "Oh for fuck's SAKE will you shut up," and the emotion is disgust.

You may think it's cool.  Good for you.

Stop proclaiming that everyone who disagrees with you is objectively wrong.

Quote from: tenbones;938758Germane to your micro-point.

https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/05/19

If you can find this much to disagree with, surely in your certainty-bubble there exists some evidence of substance that supports your view other than your feelings?

I'll accept you think he's good at gonzo-over-the-top guilty-pleasure. Good writing? That's burden is on you.

Or you can cut and run and leave your poor defenseless positions laying there... dying... like someone shot them with 393-grams of 7.62NATO glory (unlike that limp-dick Russian knockoff) through their supraorbital ridge, where the shattered fragments of the copper jacket and bone shred the pre-frontal cortex driving white-hot spikes of dragon-fire, like the heart of a thousand-suns, behind their eyes. As the newly birthed full-metal steel-core, free of its copper egg-case, claws itself in naked hyper-velocity glory like a phoenix born at the dawn of creation, hurtling through the corpus callosum and exploding through the occipital ridge into a crimson explosion that for a moment appeared like a red rose before evaporating into a vermilion puddle of bone and brain-matter on the floor of the forum, shivering and twitching as the lifeless and brainless thing it was.

alas... maybe Grove was right after all.

Its really not your points I disagree with tenbones, often I find myself leaning your way despite having felt differently for years. Your posts however are not so much presented as opinions but as inarguable facts. THIS is bad writing, THIS guy sucks. THIS is bad grammer, THIS is bad narrative, and so on. Your entitled to your opinion, and a worthy one it might well be but to voice it in such a manner just comes off hotty, egotistical and frankly detracts from whatever influence your reputation may have earned you here. That's just my $.02, take it or leave it. I would find your posts far more intriguing and motivating if they weren't shoved down my throat. End your posts with "IMHO" and we are good!

Quote from: Nexus;938760I was thinking about Torg recently and something struck me that seems appropriate here. I see my settings rather like the Cosms in the Torg setting. They are "worlds" in that they physically exist outside of the fictional medium. But part of their makeup, their laws so to speak or World Laws are fictional tropes and to some degree events play out like they do in stories in the genre they represent. I think that's why games like Torg and The Strange appeal to me. I'm not saying that's the only way or the best way but its how I like it and its allowed me to create fun games for many people over the years.

Yes, exactly. On the scale of cold, stark reality v.s. Hollywood overdrama - my games lean more to the latter and I work to make sure they do! That's just the way we like to play.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;938772(http://i.imgur.com/nxSwBk7.gif)

Who the fuck do you think you're kidding?

Take a break from you self proclaimed mastery of the great outdoors or whatever and READ. I have taken great strides to assert my opinion as just that, one opinion among many with no claim to superiority in any way. My threads are full of apologies and frustrated explanations but some of you just don't care. Its just too fun to bask in your own understanding and beat up on the minority.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;938776"And then the EARS, I get the IDEA, get ON with it."

Yes, like/dislike for writing is opinion.  It is my opinion that that paragraph is one of the worst pieces of shit I have ever read in my life.

Sometimes, what people consider "good gaming" is so far apart from each other that they cannot have a good game together.  This happens.

However, by now you should realize that at least in this community, your taste in prose and prolixity are at the far tail end of the local distribution curve.  Which is neither good nor bad, but simply means you aren't likely to get much support for your taste around here.

I don't like green peppers, so I don't go to websites that feature "1001 ways to cook green peppers."

Well Ill be fucked, the first bit of honesty Ive heard from you or several of your cronies yet. Im not likely to get much support around here, we don't like your kind in these parts, best you light a shuck!  I think I got it.

This will be my last thread, you can fucking bank on it.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938805Well Ill be fucked, the first bit of honesty Ive heard from you or several of your cronies yet. Im not likely to get much support around here, we don't like your kind in these parts, best you light a shuck!  I think I got it.

This will be my last thread, you can fucking bank on it.

Oh, boo fucking hoo.  I'm not going to tell you how wonderful your green pepper recipe is.  There are undoubtedly plenty of people who like green peppers, I'm just not one of them.  I make no apology for not liking green peppers.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938793Its really not your points I disagree with tenbones, often I find myself leaning your way despite having felt differently for years. Your posts however are not so much presented as opinions but as inarguable facts. THIS is bad writing, THIS guy sucks. THIS is bad grammer, THIS is bad narrative, and so on. Your entitled to your opinion, and a worthy one it might well be but to voice it in such a manner just comes off hotty, egotistical and frankly detracts from whatever influence your reputation may have earned you here. That's just my $.02, take it or leave it. I would find your posts far more intriguing and motivating if they weren't shoved down my throat. End your posts with "IMHO" and we are good!

Well that's because I'm treating you, like I treat everyone else here: like a fucking adult (well not like and adult I'd fuck, but you understand). Not like a semi-adult that needs to be coddled for the sake of their feelings. When in the context of describing someone's work in a negative light, with appropriate qualifiers, do I *need* to explain every little bit of minutiae and do a complete breakdown of a piece of work to make my point? Are some things not patently *obvious* to anyone with a shred of reason? Or is your opinion so tied to your emotions that you can't take a statement for face-value and simply put a counterpoint, or even a question? You know, like an adult? Or do you ascribe to this immature and naive post-modern view that all views are equal? All opinions are equally valid? All values are the same. They aren't. That's a childish notion and a childish demand and frankly I find it a bit crazy that any adult would literally demand that I treat them as such (even when your posts call for it through false-modesty.)

Instead you get passive-aggressive and say "well that's just your opinion." Which is what an immature thinker does. Case in point: WHAT doesn't fall into "IMHO"? Who am I being humble to in my opinion by saying Jerry's books are bad writing? Jerry's dead, Zed. If he were a client for editorial services - I'd probably be harsher. I didn't attack *him* as a person, I didn't even attack his fans. I said *clearly* he has them (fans). I said *clearly* it (his shitty writing) works for them - great! They gave him money for his work! But his writing is shit. WTF does that have to do WITH YOU, other than you brought it up as an example of something that inspires you in your GMing style? What emotional attack have I launched at YOU because I don't like Jerry's shitty writing and you do?

OH wait... that's right - this among many other threads is about YOU and your GMing style and YOU brought this up as example. YOU are the one asking questions. The same questions repeatedly, I might add - I'm not certain you even realize it. But in the interests of my love for GMing advocacy - here I am answering you alongside many others. You seem to be more interested in us agreeing with your feelings rather than actually listening to us constructively. When we call you on it - you "bow out" or move on. You don't see the thread that connects all of your posts that lead to the exact same spot: your feelings and beliefs about how you think you've been doing things based purely on your ego.

As for my "reputation" here... perhaps it might be of help to understand a few things about this place at least from my relatively short-time here: any reputation one has here, one has earned. Good or bad. This is a forum that largely attempts to allow all ideas onto the table. Good or bad. *I* personally have no clue what my reputation is around here nor do I care insofar as I find the chemistry here good for talking about gaming among other things. So that should tell you how much emotional stock I put into my concern with my reputation (hint: zero).

What I do put stock in is ideas and the weighing and measuring of ideas for use at the game-table. The folks on this forum have *LITERALLY* centuries of gaming experience added together. CENTURIES. Let that sink into your head for a second, beyond your incessant self-absorption that only cares about yourself. This forum is a ridiculously good resource for anyone wanting to learn a few things about our hobby. I try to put some thought and/or humor into my posts because people here will dissect and attack and defend and sometimes even agree on various observations lensed through these shared experiences. This is a place where you can have your ideas examined/attacked/tweaked/ruminated upon by others with a VASTLY larger set of perspectives greater than your own. You are the one that shows an amazing of naive blindness to that fact - you act like everyone here objectively is either wrong or doesn't seem to understand what you're talking about. I assure you: they do. The odd thing is you don't seem to be listening. You are not posting in good faith if you're not willing to have your positions criticized/supported in discussion.

I *sure* as fuck don't agree with everyone here on everything, and I sure as hell haven't been right on every position I have taken here and have had many people cause me to rethink those positions. I have zero problem telling anyone anything here that I don't agree with them and back it up (like right now) because I'm mature enough to let my ideas stand or fall on their own. So pull up your big-boy pants and stop pretending to ignore your problems which you post here and stop trying to get me to wet-nurse your feelings, because frankly I don't really care about your feelings as it pertains to these things. I find them abhorrently inappropriate and over-exaggerated.

Ideally, I'd like for you to let some of what your detractors have said and take a stab at it in good faith. Or not. But if you keep asking the same shit, you'll get the same response.


Oh, me so hotty. (sorry I couldn't help it!)

Quote from: rgrove0172;938798Yes, exactly. On the scale of cold, stark reality v.s. Hollywood overdrama - my games lean more to the latter and I work to make sure they do! That's just the way we like to play.

Which we've said many many many many times - there is *nothing* wrong with that. It's the methods you use to run your games concerning this Hollywood overdrama that is the root of your problems in all these threads.

You're confusing all the tools with how those tools could be used based solely on the singular way you've used them.

The analogy is like this: We all are carpenters. The first thing we all learned is how to use a wrench, for whatever reason. You, on your island, like to use a 12-inch wrench for a hammer AND a ruler. When you could use a tape-measure and a hammer respectively. But for the things you build - it works for you and your group. Then you sail over to our island insisting that all our power-tools and shit are exactly the same expressions as your trusty 12-inch wrench and anything I could do with my /random tool - 'jackhammer' you could achieve with your 12-inch wrench. You tell us about the huts you build with your 12-inch wrench and some of us are saying "Great hut. My group like to play in a skyscraper because it gives them a lot more options." Conversely - it takes more skill to make a skyscraper and are more prone to come crashing down with tremendous force. Huts don't typically do that, but that's because they're more basic to create and maintain. But you're insisting your hut and my skyscraper are the same thing. They are insofar as they keep rain off our heads. (i.e. they're games) but they aren't the same thing. You can put all the work you want on your hut - paint it, add a second story, put in a fireplace etc - but you're using the same method of your 12-inch wrench to do it. You could make a skyscraper sized hut and it would be as flimsy as fuck and wouldn't withstand the stresses required of a structure that size because ultimately your method only allows for certain narrow options of play.

You couldn't have the scale of campaigns I have doing things your way based on what you've told us. All of these threads are you trying to convince us of that. You seem to take offense that we don't agree. There's a fix to that.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;938725This explains a lot, for there is men's fiction, there is bad men's fiction, then there is Jerry Ahern.

Actually Jerry's combat descriptors were pretty good (nod necessarily 100% accurate. But at least entertaining) and he didnt really overuse the technique as I recall. This guy was very savvy on guns so its no surprise his prose follows suit. I knew him back in the 90s but didnt connect him to the novels till later. He passed away in 2012.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938805Well Ill be fucked, the first bit of honesty Ive heard from you or several of your cronies yet. Im not likely to get much support around here, we don't like your kind in these parts, best you light a shuck!  I think I got it.

This will be my last thread, you can fucking bank on it.

Oh for the love of Pete this again?

So you are totally ignoring the people here who agree on one or several points in any given thread or who just happen to also be diametrically opposed to Gronan or mine or your styles of play?

We open threads for discussion. We get discussion. Theres never a guarantee anyone will agree with us. Not here, not anywhere.

Personally I find it a little annoying that you rarely ever engage with the ones that agree with you. Its nigh invariably responses to the ones that dont.

Quote from: Omega;938853Actually Jerry's combat descriptors were pretty good and he didnt really overuse the technique as I recall. This guy was very savvy on guns so its no surprise his prose follows suit. I knew him back in the 90s but didnt connect him to the novels till later. He passed away in 2012.

Generally I find his descriptors are like you're in bullet-time with a narrator explaining every bit of minutiae in the nano-second that  happening. He was Matrix-fu before there was a Matrix. He was good with the *specifics* of guns and weaponry but not realistic on their actual effects in combat. You're not going to notice how your .45 round shattered someone's sternum and mushroomed out doing whatever-damage to your opponents body in the midst of combat. But it's not *supposed* to, it never was, it's gonzo over-the-top and very much a product of its time. He's great like "Metalstorm: The Destruction of Jared Synn" was great. But I wouldn't call those Corman movies great movies.

He's fun like Cussler, Marcinko, and Poyer etc. To be honest - I should add Cussler has *really* fun stories that work amazingly well for adventures. But his writing is still shite.

Quote from: Omega;938853Actually Jerry's combat descriptors were pretty good . . .

. . . if you enjoy gun-bunny-porn, perhaps.

Me? Not a fan.

Quote from: tenbones;938857He's great like "Metalstorm: The Destruction of Jared Synn" was great. But I wouldn't call those Corman movies great movies.

He's fun like Cussler, Marcinko, and Poyer etc. To be honest - I should add Cussler has *really* fun stories that work amazingly well for adventures. But his writing is still shite.

1: Saw that in the theaters.

2: Hence why I noted he was not allways accurate but at least he was entertaining even when not. Which is more than some others can claim. Others Im familliar with to one degree or another are Death Merchant, The Destroyer, and Mat Bolan since the local book store stocked those. All at once.

Back on topic, assuming Grove hasnt actually left...

Perhaps the better question would have been... How much detail is too much and how much is too little at YOUR table? Because what fits for one sure as hell isnt going to fit at some other table. Probably sooner than later.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938803I have taken great strides to assert my opinion as just that, one opinion among many with no claim to superiority in any way.

Other than the incessant passive-aggressive swipes at other gamers, you mean?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;938784. . . [Y]ou said yourself that you want me to say "he's riding an Andalusian," even though you don't know what an Andalusian looks like.  So if you tell your players "He's riding an Andalusian" and none of your six players know what an Andalusian looks like either... THEY WILL ALL HAVE A DIFFERENT PICTURE IN THEIR HEADS.  You yourself have said you use words without knowing or caring exactly what they mean, and now you're saying you want your players to have exactly the correct picture in their heads.

These statements are literally antithetical; if you cannot see that then further discussion is literally impossible.  You cannot "use words without worrying about their precise meaning" AND  have them "experience the setting the way I intend."

The thing that's kinda funny for me in all this, is that I'm exactly the sort of gamer who will go to the effort of knowing what kind of horse a character is riding, or what kind of sword swings at his side, or what kind of hogleg rests in her holster, or the titles of books on a library shelf, because I enjoy the shit out of that stuff.

One of my characters in our BH campaign is the youngest son of a prosperous Nebraska rancher - he attended secondary school and college at the St Louis Academy and University, until he was kicked out by the Jesuits for gambling, and then completed a baccalaureate at the Missouri School of Mines and Metallurgy. Among his personal effects are copies of Rossiter W. Raymond's Silver and gold: an account of the mining and metallurgical industry of the United States, with reference chiefly to the precious metals (https://ia601409.us.archive.org/28/items/silverandgoldan00raymgoog/silverandgoldan00raymgoog.pdf) and volume fifteen of the Engineering and Mining Journal (https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951000862487t;view=1up;seq=7). I wanted to know what a budding mining engineer might have on his bookshelf in 1874, so I researched the subject and came away with those two titles as likely candidates.

But while I want to know those kinds of details for myself, and I will take the time to get them right, I don't for a moment pretend they are of any interest to anyone else until or unless they ask, and perhaps not even then. It's enough for me to describe a character as reading a book of poetry, and if an adventurer inquires, then I can say it's Whitman's Leaves of Grass or Quevedo's "Afectos varios de su corazón, fluctuando en las ondas de los cabellos de Lisi" because the player wants to know, not because I want to show off the depth of my research or add a layer of faux-verisimilitude.

What I don't do is turn every description at the table into an expository lump big enough and cheesy enough to choke gawdamn Galactus. My descriptions are in layers, adding details where needed but trusting that the scene the players envision in their heads is close enough to mine that I don't need to wrestle their imaginations to the floor and beat them into submission, until proven otherwise.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;938859. . . if you enjoy gun-bunny-porn, perhaps.

Me? Not a fan.

I appreciate the descriptors and effort even if I dont understand 75% of whats being described.

I know at least three professional artists who are gun experts and one who gave demonstrations for the military. So Im used to not knowing what the heck they are talking about half the time. Much like when my security tech explains some program or function.

Remember me lamenting about gun jargon fapping? Yeah, that, for the past few pages. I could definitely do with much less of that at the game table.

(Which now gives me a great idea for my future RPG gaming as a player: when gun bunnies start copulating at the table, arguing gun minutiae, I will bust out Jerry Ahern and lustily read his tumescent descriptions as background narration.)

Quote from: tenbones;938847Which we've said many many many many times - there is *nothing* wrong with that. It's the methods you use to run your games concerning this Hollywood overdrama that is the root of your problems in all these threads.

You're confusing all the tools with how those tools could be used based solely on the singular way you've used them.

The analogy is like this: We all are carpenters. The first thing we all learned is how to use a wrench, for whatever reason. You, on your island, like to use a 12-inch wrench for a hammer AND a ruler. When you could use a tape-measure and a hammer respectively. But for the things you build - it works for you and your group. Then you sail over to our island insisting that all our power-tools and shit are exactly the same expressions as your trusty 12-inch wrench and anything I could do with my /random tool - 'jackhammer' you could achieve with your 12-inch wrench. You tell us about the huts you build with your 12-inch wrench and some of us are saying "Great hut. My group like to play in a skyscraper because it gives them a lot more options." Conversely - it takes more skill to make a skyscraper and are more prone to come crashing down with tremendous force. Huts don't typically do that, but that's because they're more basic to create and maintain. But you're insisting your hut and my skyscraper are the same thing. They are insofar as they keep rain off our heads. (i.e. they're games) but they aren't the same thing. You can put all the work you want on your hut - paint it, add a second story, put in a fireplace etc - but you're using the same method of your 12-inch wrench to do it. You could make a skyscraper sized hut and it would be as flimsy as fuck and wouldn't withstand the stresses required of a structure that size because ultimately your method only allows for certain narrow options of play.

You couldn't have the scale of campaigns I have doing things your way based on what you've told us. All of these threads are you trying to convince us of that. You seem to take offense that we don't agree. There's a fix to that.

I will resist the temptation to start any more threads on GM theory as promised but I intend to post when I think I have something to offer.

What you seem to be missing through all that explanation above is that while you are describing your skyscraper, in all its glory, all I and probably a few others see is another hut. It doesn't look so grandiose or even worth the effort of all those fancy tools you are flashing around. Its a habitat to me, people live in it, just like over on my island. Its different but not any better. The evolution of construction on your island went one way, ours went another - that's nature! Your declarations on the primitiveness of my tools, the simplicity of my design and the lack of progress my little island has shown over the years are just opinions, you have a lot of those. I respect them but it doesn't make me an ass if I fail to accept them as fact.

You assume my games must be inferior (You couldn't have the scale of campaigns I have) and then berate me for imagined similar slights. If I have in any way suggested my opinions are superior let me once and for all scream at the top of my lungs for all to hear that I DID NOT INTEND TO AND I APOLOGIZE. The very fact that I bring up these subjects to me proves I am eager to hear alternatives and discuss other methods. The fact that I don't grovel to someone's description of their vastly superior methodology puts me right there in league with most of the members posting on these threads. Singling me out as some sort of egotist is just bull. I am entitled to my opinion, to hold it against all contests if I so desire and have the right to be just as stubborn as those accosting me. In fact however, I am not. I have learned a great deal from these discussions and even put some of what I have learned into play in recent game sessions. I believe Ive made that very clear numerous times but as said, apparently I am just too inviting a target.

Quote from: Omega;938856Oh for the love of Pete this again?

So you are totally ignoring the people here who agree on one or several points in any given thread or who just happen to also be diametrically opposed to Gronan or mine or your styles of play?

We open threads for discussion. We get discussion. Theres never a guarantee anyone will agree with us. Not here, not anywhere.

Personally I find it a little annoying that you rarely ever engage with the ones that agree with you. Its nigh invariably responses to the ones that dont.

I believe I have responded in support of those who agreed or at least seemed to understand my perspective. I don't go overboard responding however as typically it invites a slanderous response from someone accusing me of sucking up.

Quote from: Omega;9388601: Saw that in the theaters.

2: Hence why I noted he was not allways accurate but at least he was entertaining even when not. Which is more than some others can claim. Others Im familliar with to one degree or another are Death Merchant, The Destroyer, and Mat Bolan since the local book store stocked those. All at once.

Back on topic, assuming Grove hasnt actually left...

Perhaps the better question would have been... How much detail is too much and how much is too little at YOUR table? Because what fits for one sure as hell isnt going to fit at some other table. Probably sooner than later.

Ill admit to leaving too much to the imagination in my thread titles I suppose. Not a mistake I will make again. Im flat sick of my threads turning into shit storms like this one.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938874Ill admit to leaving too much to the imagination in my thread titles I suppose. Not a mistake I will make again. Im flat sick of my threads turning into shit storms like this one.

A lot of them do because of the general tenor of approach here. And some folks believe being an over the top dickwad somehow makes them more honest. But you WILL get exactly what people think. It comes unvarnished because you're not expected to buy it, if you don't want.

So let's say I think you're overly dramatic in your description. That you railroad your way through perils and princesses. Well, so what?  In all honesty, I find the other extreme unfathomable, as well --fiddling with tappy-tap 10' poles, fucking around with door hinges, worrying about ranks of archers and pikemen. Fuck THAT. I'm not sure how the fuck anybody finds THAT shit fun, either. But that's okay. I'm not required to okay the way you play, or gronan plays. But I still might find something in your styles I can use. I can say truthfully that, while I'll never wax poetic, grove-style, reading about your style leads me to think I can (and maybe should) bring a wee bit more effort in that venue, just to see if improves our experience at our table.

So, even though I personally don't cotton to your style, it doesn't mean there isn't something I can't use. The key to survival among the fascists here is to just stop worrying and love the bomb. We're only talking about games. And in a way in which I might argue Mantle vs. Mays vs. DiMaggio vs. Griffey. There really won't be an answer that isn't personal, comtextualized, and maybe even heated (it's Mays, by the way--discussion over).:-)

Quote from: rgrove0172;938872What you seem to be missing through all that explanation above is that while you are describing your skyscraper, in all its glory, all I and probably a few others see is another hut.

Probably? How would you know? I actually understand the use of a railroad in a game - and I know how to use it (which is fairly rarely). By your own multitude of threads and examples and fiction-inspirations you've painted a fairly clear picture that by my standards - you don't.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938872It doesn't look so grandiose or even worth the effort of all those fancy tools you are flashing around. Its a habitat to me, people live in it, just like over on my island. Its different but not any better. The evolution of construction on your island went one way, ours went another - that's nature! Your declarations on the primitiveness of my tools, the simplicity of my design and the lack of progress my little island has shown over the years are just opinions, you have a lot of those. I respect them but it doesn't make me an ass if I fail to accept them as fact.

I see the carpentry metaphor is lost on you. You're literally saying there is no difference between a hut and a skyscraper. By your OWN words you've said you've been running games for the same group for three-decades. Whereas I have run games for hundreds of people for over three-decades. All things being equal - the safe money is that you are the one gaming in relative isolation. Yes, yes it's all just opinions. Well so it seems that evolution itself is just an opinion. Tic-tac-toe is just as complex as Chess. Putting your chip on the Black is the same as putting it on the OO - you either win or lose! it's all 50/50 and equal. /eyeroll.

You could not run a campaign that I do using your method with my players on either side of this continent. It would collapse under the weight of your attempts at controlling everything - which you couldn't do, and it would be glaringly obvious and implode. None of which means anything if you have no concept of scale. So.../shrug.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938872You assume my games must be inferior (You couldn't have the scale of campaigns I have) and then berate me for imagined similar slights.

Any assumptions I'm making is based on your multitude of examples and your self-afflicted sense of ego. You're excluding yourself from the participation-aspect of having a discussion simply because you don't like the responses. The *assumptions* of inferiority are *yours* - because I've said many times that if what you do works for your group GREAT!<--- how many times do I have to say that? Care to answer that? I think your games are basic compared to mine. I suspect others here have far more complex games than mine. Do I care? Nope. But having said that - I'd love to know what they're doing and why, and how, and what amounts, and which systems they're using, and why those systems, and I'm open to listening to their advice if I have questions because I'm always looking at learning something new I could implement in my games which is why I have discussions on forums. Why do you?

See the difference in approach? You are overly sensitive to a lot of stuff said and dodge the substance of most of these posts in order to get validation for the style of game you run.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938872If I have in any way suggested my opinions are superior let me once and for all scream at the top of my lungs for all to hear that I DID NOT INTEND TO AND I APOLOGIZE.

No need to apologize because I don't care about your feelings about my feelings - which are not in any way affected by you.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938872The very fact that I bring up these subjects to me proves I am eager to hear alternatives and discuss other methods. The fact that I don't grovel to someone's description of their vastly superior methodology puts me right there in league with most of the members posting on these threads. Singling me out as some sort of egotist is just bull. I am entitled to my opinion, to hold it against all contests if I so desire and have the right to be just as stubborn as those accosting me. In fact however, I am not. I have learned a great deal from these discussions and even put some of what I have learned into play in recent game sessions. I believe Ive made that very clear numerous times but as said, apparently I am just too inviting a target.

So here's where I call bullshit. You're not eager to hear or discuss any methods. I have not seen you engage on these things beyond defending the shitty examples you've volunteered after others including myself, have given you many responses in good faith but you dismiss out of hand. How do I know? Because you've not once mentioned any attempts at doing anything different after all this time asking the SAME QUESTIONS. Likewise who in the fuck is asking you to grovel about anything?!?!?

And you keep tossing out this value-claim about opinions like they're sacrosanct. No one said you can't have an opinion. No one claimed your opinion was invalid. No one said you're not allowed to defend your opinion (what's funny is you don't even do that - you cut and run the moment someone calls you out). What I *will* call bullshit on is that you're under this dumb impression that all opinions are equal in value. Opinions can be weighed and measured. They most certainly are not the same. They most certainly do not have the same value. So why in the fuck, at this point, after all these threads, should we *value* your opinion? What have you said that I haven't already agreed with you on that I should be valuing?

Care to take a shot at that?

As an equal member of this forum my opinion has value regardless. Basic decency between civilized participants require we value even the worst, most rediculous or seemingly errant opinions. We can say what we may about them but should not dismiss them.

Oh and I have gamed with various groups and individuals over the years. Perhaps not the multitudes you have but certainly not the same group for 30 years. I wish!

Quote from: rgrove0172;938927Basic decency between civilized participants require we value even the worst, most rediculous or seemingly errant opinions.

Actually... no.  "One has a right to one's opinion" does not equal "all opinions are equally valid."  That fallacy has destroyed political discourse in this country and almost destroyed news reporting.  I do not value an opinion that "Fox news is the most reliable news source there is," for instance.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938927As an equal member of this forum my opinion has value regardless.

A member of the forum is entitled to share an opinion, but no one is guaranteed their opinions will be valued.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938927Basic decency between civilized participants require we value even the worst, most rediculous or seemingly errant opinions.!

Only a garbage can accepts everything thrown its way.

The most essential gift for a critical thinker is a built-in, shockproof, shit detector.*


* With apologies to Papa (http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/22956-the-most-essential-gift-for-a-good-writer-is-a).

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;938785If it works for your table, nothing else actually matters.

Yes.

Often said, but always worth repeating.

We play games with PEOPLE. If the people are happy, we are doing it right.

Quote from: tenbones;938731Ahern is a bad writer. Sure he has his fans, and so does Stephenie Meyer, they may be successful but the quality of their writing is shit. Ahern is like the retarded love-child of Richard Marcinko and Clive Cussler pretending to be Tom Clancy. All of them are bad writers (I'll cut Clancy a break).

One day, I hope to fail as badly as Meyer, Marcinko or Cussler.

The Part 2 of that Penny Arcade comic is the best part.
https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/05/22/the-song-of-the-sorcelator-part-two

Quote from: robiswrong;938557You need to give enough information that the players and GM are all working with *compatible* images in their heads.

Absolutely.

And we can argue all day what "enough" means, but it should mean "whatever amount works for your players".

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;938784Thirdly, the vast majority of the hundreds of people I've gamed with over the last 44 years DON'T GIVE A FUCK.  Seriously.  I have a BA in medieval history and a fairly sizeable library in both text and photos.  I have found:

They don't really care how a castle is built or what it looks like
They don't care what actual medieval clothes are called or what they look like
They don't care if the knight is wearing alwhyte, Gothic, Maximillian, or Greenwich armor.
They don't care what the inside of a medieval smithy actually looked like

They're there to play a game and have adventures.  If I say "the nobles are dressed like the nobles in 'The Princess Bride,' " they all nod happily and we get on with the game.

Oh god, truer words have never been spoken. I run historical games, and I bend over backwords to get the details right. I obsess to the point of knowing the names of the actual residents residing in any given house in London during 1922 that players might pass by. I create tons of supplementary materials, I've even gone so far as actually write entire grimoires and "black books" that I'll post on the campaign website.

And 99.9% of the time the players interest in any of that is akin to what one might expect from the characters from the Knights of the Dinner Table comic strip.

The thing is, I'm fine with that, I do this for myself,for my own enjoyment. It makes the game more real for me, and I don't expect other players to travel along with my obsessive compulsions. However, I do insert campaign secrets into the supplementary material Iproduce an every once in a while a player figures out that they can reap incredible advantages by investing the time to read it.

But its not a requirement. The games wouldn't go any different if it wasnt there.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;938945A member of the forum is entitled to share an opinion, but no one is guaranteed their opinions will be valued.

You can apply that to the way Democracy is supposed to work, as well. The thing I like to tell people is that "free speech" doesn't mean "consequenceless speech." Of course, if you have money and lawyers, you can be a complete dipshit and pay your way out of your fuck ups (because, in America, mo' money=mo' speech [well, mo' everything]).

But, I digress. You can say what you want, but you can also expect that if you say "yin" someone's going to throw their "yang" out there.  I'm pretty sure Grove gets this. He just doesn't like the tone. I think there IS something to be said for discussing things civilly, if only because an off-putting tone drives away your listener. But I'm not sure there's a glaring need for that when discussing our elf games.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;938929Actually... no.  "One has a right to one's opinion" does not equal "all opinions are equally valid."  That fallacy has destroyed political discourse in this country and almost destroyed news reporting.  I do not value an opinion that "Fox news is the most reliable news source there is," for instance.

Bleh, semantics.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;938945A member of the forum is entitled to share an opinion, but no one is guaranteed their opinions will be valued.


Only a garbage can accepts everything thrown its way.

The most essential gift for a critical thinker is a built-in, shockproof, shit detector.*


* With apologies to Papa (http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/22956-the-most-essential-gift-for-a-good-writer-is-a).

And shit is absolutely in the eye of the beholder so your detector is tuned to its operator and essentially useless.

Quote from: Tristram Evans;938967Oh god, truer words have never been spoken. I run historical games, and I bend over backwords to get the details right. I obsess to the point of knowing the names of the actual residents residing in any given house in London during 1922 that players might pass by. I create tons of supplementary materials, I've even gone so far as actually write entire grimoires and "black books" that I'll post on the campaign website.

And 99.9% of the time the players interest in any of that is akin to what one might expect from the characters from the Knights of the Dinner Table comic strip.

The thing is, I'm fine with that, I do this for myself,for my own enjoyment. It makes the game more real for me, and I don't expect other players to travel along with my obsessive compulsions. However, I do insert campaign secrets into the supplementary material Iproduce an every once in a while a player figures out that they can reap incredible advantages by investing the time to read it.

But its not a requirement. The games wouldn't go any different if it wasnt there.

Obviously your experiences with players has been different from mine. I have had a few of those players that approached the game at a very superficial level but a majority have embraced at least in part my priorities. ie. setting, historical detail and accuracy etc. When we are on the same page it is incredibly rewarding but I can understand your frustration when those kinds of players appear.

I get it when ten-bones explains he has had to adjust and develop his game over the years while playing with a variety of players, depending on their priorities, their gaming preferences, personalities etc. I can see where that would be necessary. I consider myself very lucky that I didn't have to. Ive tolerated a few gamers that didn't really fit our approach to gaming but typically they left when the union didnt seem to be working out in their favor, and we wished them well. I never felt a need to change what we were doing in order to accommodate the odd outsider now and then.

Quote from: cranebump;938984You can apply that to the way Democracy is supposed to work, as well. The thing I like to tell people is that "free speech" doesn't mean "consequenceless speech." Of course, if you have money and lawyers, you can be a complete dipshit and pay your way out of your fuck ups (because, in America, mo' money=mo' speech [well, mo' everything]).

But, I digress. You can say what you want, but you can also expect that if you say "yin" someone's going to throw their "yang" out there.  I'm pretty sure Grove gets this. He just doesn't like the tone. I think there IS something to be said for discussing things civilly, if only because an off-putting tone drives away your listener. But I'm not sure there's a glaring need for that when discussing our elf games.

This - Yang is great, tactless yang with a combative bent less so.

I'm one of the people that doesn't care too much about the ostensible accuracy of details. As far as I'm concerned its another, fictional world. It doesn't have to work like ours. Most rpgs make dozens of assumptions and handwave things for various reasons. What I like and want are immersive details: sights, sounds, smells, textures. What its like to be in the setting or particular scene. Cinematic descriptions that set the atmosphere are big parts of what fun for me. If the description includes a reference to a real life thing that's fine, IMO, even if its not totally accurate.

I've game with allot of people on both ends of the table, more than some, less than others. I've fun into allot of nitpickers that want to tear into any perceived inaccuracies from gms or games. For example, Some of the descriptions given in this thread where nitpicked for minor or even trivial issues as far as I'm concerned, I thought that they were fine even enjoyable. It was the mood and imagery that was more important than the technical details. Though, IME, geeks (frankly) do tend to obsess over minutia especially when theydon't like something.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938995Obviously your experiences with players has been different from mine. I have had a few of those superficial players that approached the game at a very superficial level but a majority have embraced at least in part my priorities. ie. setting, historical detail and accuracy etc. When we are on the same page it is incredibly rewarding but I can understand your frustration when those kinds of players appear.

I get it when ten-bones explains he has had to adjust and develop his game over the years while playing with a variety of players, depending on their priorities, their gaming preferences, personalities etc. I can see where that would be necessary. I consider myself very lucky that I didn't have to. Ive tolerated a few gamers that didn't really fit our approach to gaming but typically they left when the union didnt seem to be working out in their favor, and we wished them well. I never felt a need to change what we were doing in order to accommodate the odd outsider now and then.

I think some of the difference is perspective stems from a difference in approach and goals. I'm not really trying to appeal to a vast number of people. If people like my style and want to play in my games, that's great. If they don't that's cool too. Same goes for when I play. I'll stay or leave based on how much I like the game. But I can see how if someone has gm'ed for larger more varied groups it will affect their style as they have to adapt and be more flexible toa broader denominator. In that perspective, a lighter touch does make more sense. The less added, the less chance of over doing it, the more you have to feel out your current audience, etc.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938995Obviously your experiences with players has been different from mine. I have had a few of those superficial players that approached the game at a very superficial level but a majority have embraced at least in part my priorities. ie. setting, historical detail and accuracy etc.

That seems largely inconsistent with several of your previous posts.

QuoteWhen we are on the same page it is incredibly rewarding but I can understand your frustration when those kinds of players appear.

I have no idea what you're saying here. What frustration when who appears?

Quote from: Spinachcat;938965One day, I hope to fail as badly as Meyer, Marcinko or Cussler.

I imagine allot of popular authors that get frequently trashed online cry themselves to sleep at night on their mattresses stuffed with money. :D

But more seriously these people have found their audience; if people like their work they like it. Same with descriptive and play styles.

Quote from: Nexus;939005I think some of the difference is perspective stems from a difference in approach and goals. I'm not really trying to appeal to a vast number of people. If people like my style and want to play in my games, that's great. If they don't that's cool too. Same goes for when I play. I'll stay or leave based on how much I like the game. But I can see how if someone has gm'ed for larger more varied groups it will affect their style as they have to adapt and be more flexible toa broader denominator. In that perspective, a lighter touch does make more sense. The less added, the less chance of over doing it, the more you have to feel out your current audience, etc.

Spot on. Understanding where the other guy is coming from is crucial when attempting to get his full meaning in a post and something rarely in evidence here. Assumptions are made continually and misunderstandings proliferate. Once I got the idea that tenbones was a heavy gamer, lots of different projects, many different groups, cons etc. it changed how I perceived his posts. Im at the other far end of the spectrum. I did my mass gaming, convention stuff with military miniatures. To me RPGs are more personal, I pick and choose my players, the games I want to GM and how I want to GM them. I less likely to adjust how I want to enjoy the game than I would be if GMing on demand for example or for a new group I was trying to lure into gaming. I can afford to be selfish.

Quote from: Tristram Evans;939007That seems largely inconsistent with several of your previous posts.



I have no idea what you're saying here. What frustration when who appears?

I don't see how, Ive mentioned my players seem to enjoy my style of GMing many times, to the consternation of some, but I thought I made it clear I ask out of curiosity, not out of need.

As to frustration;

Players that don't share your vision for how the game is supposed to flow. Don't appreciate detail, concentrate only on combat, aren't self motivated or whatever. You spend time and effort on elements they don't care about etc.

Quote from: rgrove0172;939012Spot on. Understanding where the other guy is coming from is crucial when attempting to get his full meaning in a post and something rarely in evidence here. Assumptions are made continually and misunderstandings proliferate. Once I got the idea that tenbones was a heavy gamer, lots of different projects, many different groups, cons etc. it changed how I perceived his posts. Im at the other far end of the spectrum. I did my mass gaming, convention stuff with military miniatures. To me RPGs are more personal, I pick and choose my players, the games I want to GM and how I want to GM them. I less likely to adjust how I want to enjoy the game than I would be if GMing on demand for example or for a new group I was trying to lure into gaming. I can afford to be selfish.

I think some of the contention in these threads might be coming from that you seem to be asking for advice on how to get a broader appeal then rejecting or arguing with the advice given based on personal preferences. And that's being taken as arrogance or possibly trying to troll and pick fights. There appears to have be misunderstanding regarding the purpose of your threads and its ballooned in a general hostility.

Quote from: rgrove0172;939014Players that don't share your vision for how the game is supposed to flow. Don't appreciate detail, concentrate only on combat, aren't self motivated or whatever.

None of that was from my post. I assumed because you were quoting me you were responding to what I said.

QuoteYou spend time and effort on elements they don't care about etc.

Yeah, I do. Because thats the part of gaming I do for myself. When I GM, I'm primarily concerned with my players enjoyment. When I do prep for a game, I'm mostly engaged in creative masturbation. I think you took my words for resentment; its not. Its merely a recognition that what I do for myself is not an obligation I expect from players.

Quote from: Nexus;939005I think some of the difference is perspective stems from a difference in approach and goals. I'm not really trying to appeal to a vast number of people. If people like my style and want to play in my games, that's great. If they don't that's cool too. Same goes for when I play. I'll stay or leave based on how much I like the game.

Yeah, thats always been my approach. To the point I still think the concept of playing games with strangers at stores or conventions is somewhat bizarre. For me, its always just been something I get together and do with friends.

Quote from: rgrove0172;939012Spot on. Understanding where the other guy is coming from is crucial when attempting to get his full meaning in a post and something rarely in evidence here. Assumptions are made continually and misunderstandings proliferate. Once I got the idea that tenbones was a heavy gamer, lots of different projects, many different groups, cons etc. it changed how I perceived his posts. Im at the other far end of the spectrum. I did my mass gaming, convention stuff with military miniatures. To me RPGs are more personal, I pick and choose my players, the games I want to GM and how I want to GM them. I less likely to adjust how I want to enjoy the game than I would be if GMing on demand for example or for a new group I was trying to lure into gaming. I can afford to be selfish.

Well, if you pick and choose your players, then any discussion of style management is moot, because you're picking folks who will easily adapt to you, and not the other way 'round. This also absolves you from having to adjust in any way, and so therefore makes me wonder what value you get in exploring other styles, unless you're just curious about them?

Quote from: Nexus;939018I think some of the contention in these threads might be coming from that you seem to be asking for advice on how to get a broader appeal then rejecting or arguing with the advice given based on personal preferences. And that's being taken as arrogance or possibly trying to troll and pick fights. There appears to have be misunderstanding regarding the purpose of your threads and its ballooned in a general hostility.

This.

Quote from: Nexus;939018I think some of the contention in these threads might be coming from that you seem to be asking for advice on how to get a broader appeal then rejecting or arguing with the advice given based on personal preferences. And that's being taken as arrogance or possibly trying to troll and pick fights. There appears to have be misunderstanding regarding the purpose of your threads and its ballooned in a general hostility.

Funny thing that.  
When others here get belittled, ridiculed, poke at they respond with arrogance, possible trying to troll and/or picking a fight.
Why is it wrong for grove to respond with arrogance, possible trying to troll and/or picking a fight, when others here are belittling, ridiculing, and/or poking at him?

Quote from: Sommerjon;939031Funny thing that.  
When others here get belittled, ridiculed, poke at they respond with arrogance, possible trying to troll and/or picking a fight.
Why is it wrong for grove to respond with arrogance, possible trying to troll and/or picking a fight, when others here are belittling, ridiculing, and/or poking at him?

You'll notice that I didn't say Grove was wrong or even doing that. I said its' been taken that why. Now everyone is a little pissed heated, defensive and not really listening.  The whole thing is a clusterfuck of misunderstanding classic to online communication with a few folks deliberately trying to stir the pot.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938992And shit is absolutely in the eye of the beholder so your detector is tuned to its operator and essentially useless.

Actually you realize you're a victim of your own definition, which explains your issue. Because you have reduced *everything* down to the lowest common-denominator which is by your own standards: shit. And you can't tell the difference because you don't actually *have* a shit-detector.

See how this works? If your opinion is worth shit and you think all opinions are equal - and you're incapable of understanding anything beyond shit, as your multitude of examples show, so everything is equal to shit.

Edit: I happen to believe there is objectively more than just shit, and I'm happy to discuss the values of those things, including those of the fecal variety.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938991Bleh, semantics.

"Bleh, semantics", "That's your opinion" In context of your posts, Grove, you're proving my larger point about your cognitive dissonance (which I enjoy - but that's my own perverted fetish). At this point you're just trolling.

Quote from: tenbones;939048Actually you realize you're a victim of your own definition, which explains your issue. Because you have reduced *everything* down to the lowest common-denominator which is by your own standards: shit. And you can't tell the difference because you don't actually *have* a shit-detector.

See how this works? If your opinion is worth shit and you think all opinions are equal - and you're incapable of understanding anything beyond shit, as your multitude of examples show, so everything is equal to shit.

That logic is actually pretty funny and not entirely inaccurate. :) it would be perfect if everyone had the same definition of shit, which we dont.

Oh please, let's not pretend Grove isn't attacking back...

Quote from: rgrove0172;939012Spot on. Understanding where the other guy is coming from is crucial when attempting to get his full meaning in a post and something rarely in evidence here. Assumptions are made continually and misunderstandings proliferate. Once I got the idea that tenbones was a heavy gamer, lots of different projects, many different groups, cons etc. it changed how I perceived his posts. Im at the other far end of the spectrum. I did my mass gaming, convention stuff with military miniatures. To me RPGs are more personal, I pick and choose my players, the games I want to GM and how I want to GM them. I less likely to adjust how I want to enjoy the game than I would be if GMing on demand for example or for a new group I was trying to lure into gaming. I can afford to be selfish.

So in other words...Grove understands the shallow "convention stuff" games Tenbones refers to(which are really more like military miniatures, doncha know ;)), he just likes something with more depth.

Except that's not what Tenbones was saying, was it?  Did he say that's the only type of GMing he did?  No, in fact he said the exact opposite, that he purposely expanded his GMing into conventions to try and gain other experiences.

So deliberately misinterpret what was being said (because you don't want to engage that point), and give it a nice passive-aggressive twist into an attack.  "Oh I just needed to see where he was coming from...now it all makes sense..."  fuck's sake.

Granted, Grove has every right to be on the attack, but that's no excuse for being a little bitch about it while simultaneously claiming that you're taking the High Road.

Yes, I know, Grove will marvel at how off the interpretation is, and we'll probably get a "laugh" to boot.

You're not fooling anyone, not even Nexus, he's just playing pretend because he likes narrative stuff too. ;)

Quote from: Nexus;939009I imagine allot of popular authors that get frequently trashed online cry themselves to sleep at night on their mattresses stuffed with money. :D

But more seriously these people have found their audience; if people like their work they like it. Same with descriptive and play styles.

I totally support those writers and their success (they have a direct impact on my livelihood). But can we agree that being monetarily successful is not the sole arbiter of what is "good" in a craft. or No?

Michael Bay makes generally bad movies. Some of them are awesomely fun, others are pure shit. But he's fantastically successful. None of which makes him a great film-maker. Same goes for whatever passes for over-produced top-40 music. Fun, financially successful, sure. But is it "good" by whatever standards one wishes to use? See this is where discerning folks put their chips on the table of examining opinions in light of whatever facts they want to back up their claims. This is where the discussion happens. People not capable of having those discussions just fall back on their "feelings", which really means any form of honest discussion is not really on the agenda.

I think it's a mistake to equate the quality of ones work with their identity as a person. I don't dislike *anyone* because they're successful at finding an audience for their wares. I do think that when third-parties start taking offense that someone doesn't like what they like and don't have the ability to actually have that discussion as to "why" it speaks more of their immaturity than anything else. Same goes for that person who hinges their self-worth on an activity they pursue that they might not be as good at as they actually are (Uwe Boll - are you reading this?) and of course other obvious parties. Because they're intellectually dishonest with themselves on many levels, they will be intellectually dishonest to everyone else too.

Edit: the same principle applies to people that use "storytime" as a their means of expressing how they GM. If it works for them and their group - great. But that's analogous to saying "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" which grossed $241-million dollars is a better movie than "Goodfellas" $46-million dollars. There is definitely a discussion worth having there if this is to be believed.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938992And shit is absolutely in the eye of the beholder so your detector is tuned to its operator and essentially useless.

Quote from: Nexus;939068AFIAC, the measure of "good" is in the eye of the beholder.

'I like it' != 'it is good.'

It's okay to like bad books, bad movies, bad games. My love for Road House is well-established, but that doesn't for a millisecond make it The Godfather.

Quote from: tenbones;939065I totally support those writers and their success (they have a direct impact on my livelihood). But can we agree that being monetarily successful is not the sole arbiter of what is "good" in a craft. or No?

AFIAC, the measure of "good" is in the eye of the beholder. I can't stand Meyer's writing myself.  It just amuses me when popular writers, film makers, etc get trashed as objectively horrible online. Some like them, some don't. The mattress might be stuffed with money but the pillow is stuffed with fan mail. Though there's probably allot of hate mail in the trash.

As Spinchcat said, I could only hope to "fail" like that. :D

Quote from: rgrove0172;939053That logic is actually pretty funny and not entirely inaccurate. :) it would be perfect if everyone had the same definition of shit, which we dont.

Are you actually talking to me or to yourself? I'm not sure what this response substantially means. Please elaborate.

Quote from: tenbones;939065I totally support those writers and their success (they have a direct impact on my livelihood). But can we agree that being monetarily successful is not the sole arbiter of what is "good" in a craft. or No?

Michael Bay makes generally bad movies. Some of them are awesomely fun, others are pure shit. But he's fantastically successful. None of which makes him a great film-maker. Same goes for whatever passes for over-produced top-40 music. Fun, financially successful, sure. But is it "good" by whatever standards one wishes to use? See this is where discerning folks put their chips on the table of examining opinions in light of whatever facts they want to back up their claims. This is where the discussion happens. People not capable of having those discussions just fall back on their "feelings", which really means any form of honest discussion is not really on the agenda.

I think it's a mistake to equate the quality of ones work with their identity as a person. I don't dislike *anyone* because they're successful at finding an audience for their wares. I do think that when third-parties start taking offense that someone doesn't like what they like and don't have the ability to actually have that discussion as to "why" it speaks more of their immaturity than anything else. Same goes for that person who hinges their self-worth on an activity they pursue that they might not be as good at as they actually are (Uwe Boll - are you reading this?) and of course other obvious parties. Because they're intellectually dishonest with themselves on many levels, they will be intellectually dishonest to everyone else too.

Edit: the same principle applies to people that use "storytime" as a their means of expressing how they GM. If it works for them and their group - great. But that's analogous to saying "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" which grossed $241-million dollars is a better movie than "Goodfellas" $46-million dollars. There is definitely a discussion worth having there if this is to be believed.

Nah, this puts you into that subset of pretentious gamers out there with their over inflated sense of self importance.  
You know the type,  they have an opinion on nearly every topic and have no issues climbing onto that soapbox to let everyone know just how important their opinions are.

I'm waiting for the day when you post anything that resembles your opinion on a subject rather than a comment on someone else's opinions.

You know how other sites have scripts that turn one word or phrase into another?

We need one that takes everything Sommerjon posts and turns it into "No. Fuck you."  because really, out of 1477 posts, probably 1473 of them are some variation of that.

Quote from: Nexus;939068AFIAC, the measure of "good" is in the eye of the beholder. I can't stand Meyer's writing myself.  It just amuses me when popular writers, film makers, etc get trashed as objectively horrible online. Some like them, some don't.

Sure sure of course! But don't you think there is level of objectivity in assigning values to things? Meyer's writing is grammatically horrible. The structure of her story is shit. The narrative is shit as it's full of dumb plotholes. This doesn't mean that the story didn't speak to people that had fun with it despite those things. Nothing about the former makes the latter untrue.

The Wright Bros. made a PIECE OF SHIT aeroplane. But that piece of shit flew. It's *not* an F-16. But no one is denying they're both airplanes. I'm saying there is a value-judgement to be made on the criteria for what is "good" vs. "less-good". That same principle can be done with GMing, and RPG's in general. And yes intent of play matters and where you wish to rest your chip on personal satisfaction matters - but those things don't remove the objective facts.

My analogy remains - Grove's group might like taking short-flights around their island in his Cessna. GREAT! I'm suggesting to his persistent questions that his issues can be resolved using methods that the Cessna simply wouldn't be an optimal choice. Conversely where his Cessna-mastery isn't even in question (by me) - I liken my campaigns compared to the examples he's giving to the space portion of the Battle of Endor using X-wings and TIE-Fighters. I couldn't use his Cessna methods to do that. Nor would my players be happy puttering around in a Cessna in space while I'd be forced to narrate 90% of my game to them simply because I was too scared or incapable of letting my players run wild and free to do what they wanted in context of the game.

If I tried to do that it would make my fucking head explode because at scale it would render their PC's meaningless. Which ultimately is my point of why using heavy narrative in my games is almost non-existent. You *can't* have large epic-scale sand-box style games - or even small ones - doing heavy-narrative. The *larger* point of all of this is - Grove is the one asking the questions. We're just answering. I have *none* of the problems he has. So they logically *can't* be equal in opinion - otherwise why would these questions even be asked?

I'm not saying using heavy narrative is wrong. If that's your thing - go for it. But it's limited by dint of the fact that *one* person is curating the experience. It simply creates a more limited set of parameters of what's possible in group-play. I fully concede it has a potential positive in that it probably reduces the chances of TPK's and other negative stuff. But for the kind of games I run - that "other stuff" and TPK's are part of the gig to achieve what I consider those "high peaks" you simply can't get through heavy narrative style play.

Grove takes this to be demeaning because he's apparently aghast that I think it's "basic". Well, it is. It's safer. It takes far less chances because it's ultimately I could do "narrative" style GMing with zero-prep... and technically I actually do it with zero-players as I'm writing a book.

Quote from: One Horse Town;939088I'm waiting for the day when you post anything that resembles your opinion on a subject rather than a comment on someone else's opinions.

Why Billy, what ever is wrong with commenting on someone's opinion?  That is part of discussion you know.
It is scrumptious of you to comment on my comment.

Okay here you go.

There are two distinct definitions of 'roleplay' used here that have very different meanings, yet noone ever acknowledges which one they are referring to.

Version One Roleplay: playing the role of (i.e. Cris is playing the role of the Magic User)

Version Two Roleplay: playing the distinct character (i.e. Brother Bunion Bethel, Bürgermeister of Battenberg)

Quote from: Sommerjon;939085Nah, this puts you into that subset of pretentious gamers out there with their over inflated sense of self importance.  
You know the type,  they have an opinion on nearly every topic and have no issues climbing onto that soapbox to let everyone know just how important their opinions are.

Vs. what? You? Do you represent the antithesis of what you quoted? Then I'm doing just fine.

Quote from: Sommerjon;939119There are two distinct definitions of 'roleplay' used here that have very different meanings, yet noone ever acknowledges which one they are referring to.

Version One Roleplay: playing the role of (i.e. Cris is playing the role of the Magic User)

Version Two Roleplay: playing the distinct character (i.e. Brother Bunion Bethel, Bürgermeister of Battenberg)

This seems to resemble this:

Quote from: Sommerjon;939119You know the type, they have an opinion on nearly every topic and have no issues climbing onto that soapbox to let everyone know just how important their opinions are.

Does it qualify to venture ones opinion on other's opinions, in your mind, of being pretentious? Or does that only mean for those other than yourself?

I smell cognitive bias in the air. I'm getting wood.

Quote from: tenbones;939118Sure sure of course! But don't you think there is level of objectivity in assigning values to things? Meyer's writing is grammatically horrible. The structure of her story is shit. The narrative is shit as it's full of dumb plotholes. This doesn't mean that the story didn't speak to people that had fun with it despite those things. Nothing about the former makes the latter untrue.

The Wright Bros. made a PIECE OF SHIT aeroplane. But that piece of shit flew. It's *not* an F-16. But no one is denying they're both airplanes. I'm saying there is a value-judgement to be made on the criteria for what is "good" vs. "less-good". That same principle can be done with GMing, and RPG's in general. And yes intent of play matters and where you wish to rest your chip on personal satisfaction matters - but those things don't remove the objective facts.

My analogy remains - Grove's group might like taking short-flights around their island in his Cessna. GREAT! I'm suggesting to his persistent questions that his issues can be resolved using methods that the Cessna simply wouldn't be an optimal choice. Conversely where his Cessna-mastery isn't even in question (by me) - I liken my campaigns compared to the examples he's giving to the space portion of the Battle of Endor using X-wings and TIE-Fighters. I couldn't use his Cessna methods to do that. Nor would my players be happy puttering around in a Cessna in space while I'd be forced to narrate 90% of my game to them simply because I was too scared or incapable of letting my players run wild and free to do what they wanted in context of the game.

If I tried to do that it would make my fucking head explode because at scale it would render their PC's meaningless. Which ultimately is my point of why using heavy narrative in my games is almost non-existent. You *can't* have large epic-scale sand-box style games - or even small ones - doing heavy-narrative. The *larger* point of all of this is - Grove is the one asking the questions. We're just answering. I have *none* of the problems he has. So they logically *can't* be equal in opinion - otherwise why would these questions even be asked?

I'm not saying using heavy narrative is wrong. If that's your thing - go for it. But it's limited by dint of the fact that *one* person is curating the experience. It simply creates a more limited set of parameters of what's possible in group-play. I fully concede it has a potential positive in that it probably reduces the chances of TPK's and other negative stuff. But for the kind of games I run - that "other stuff" and TPK's are part of the gig to achieve what I consider those "high peaks" you simply can't get through heavy narrative style play.

Grove takes this to be demeaning because he's apparently aghast that I think it's "basic". Well, it is. It's safer. It takes far less chances because it's ultimately I could do "narrative" style GMing with zero-prep... and technically I actually do it with zero-players as I'm writing a book.

Like I said pretentious windbag full of bullshit.

Heavy narrative in no way stops that "other stuff" and TPK's
Heavy narrative in no way stops epic-scale sand-box style games - or even small ones

Quote from: Sommerjon;939123Like I said pretentious windbag full of bullshit.

Heavy narrative in no way stops that "other stuff" and TPK's
Heavy narrative in no way stops epic-scale sand-box style games - or even small ones

If you actually read my bullshit - you'd see I never said Heavy Narrative stops these things I said it LIMITS these things. And you're operating out of context on purpose. But c'mon Jonny you're not *really* here to discuss this stuff. You never have been!

But I confess - I'm digging your vibe. I'm interested - give us some examples!