Quote from: NathanIW;737621So a private message from Sommerjon about this thread got me thinking about why exactly I held my previous position about nothing existing if it hasn't been established in play and why I had gone to pretty much 100% improv GMing.  I was totally flabbergasted at the idea that anything exists if it has not yet been established in play.  I'd say things like "How could anything exist that hasn't been established in play?"  And I ardently defended the idea that how the player's perspective can't get at this issue made how the GM does things irrelevant in play.

What was the cause of this thinking and approach?  Too much GMing and not enough playing.  When I started playing again and realized that the guy running it actually did have a situation he was running and an actually defined environment I was exploring, I had an "aha" moment about just what I was denying my players.

So I find my methodology allows me to improv but still to provide the PCs with a thing to solve or an environment to explore.   It helps that as the GM you can always think much futher ahead than the players.

In my stront game recently the PCs look on a murder investigation. They saw the bounty - solve these murders and bring this guy in for 50K. So once they decided to investigate and to look for the background etc I decided how the murders were committeed and what evidence would be left behind. By the time they had arrived to investigate the first crime scene I had decided who committed the crime and why and where they came from. By the time they decided to get their precog to find out about the next crime the whole background was done in my head and I could lay it all out like it had been planned for weeks.
The whole investigation took 2 sessions ending with a fight where they raided the guys house. They didn't look into the psychological background of why he started killing people, it was all related to his own experience of being a soldier who was genetically altered to fight in a certain war and who lost his wife to another guy when he came back. Now that was colour and they could have gotten to it but being strontium dogs they just staked his place out and went in blazing. Great combat, mental genetic super soldier versus 3 hard as nails strontium dogs armed to the teeth. They won because they had absolute surprise. Again they were surprised that he was so unprepared but logically he never expected anyone to catch him especially not for a crime he literally had not yet committed.  He still scared the crap out of them though

Quote from: jibbajibba;737629So I find my methodology allows me to improv but still to provide the PCs with a thing to solve or an environment to explore.   It helps that as the GM you can always think much futher ahead than the players.

Oh, it's definitely not all or nothing.  My previous practice of nearly 100% improv and my current desire for next to no improv has put me in the position of doing it partially in actual play.  Like no-improv play and full-improv play, partial-improv play has a level of skill needed as well.  I think you've very clearly presented some great techniques for the approach in this thread.

QuoteBy the time they decided to get their precog to find out about the next crime the whole background was done in my head and I could lay it all out like it had been planned for weeks.

I think the most important aspect is that when the players are actually exploring a given element, that it actually is exploration and not shadow play where the act of opening a door or asking a question creates the room beyond or causes a fact to be generated.  Obviously most of the improv heavy GMs that have participated in this thread are sufficiently skilled to obfuscate this from the players.  I still think it can't help but impact the results of play rather heavily compared to running a situation that has been defined sufficiently in advance.

I think the most enjoyable part of refereeing a game where the situation actually has facts of the matter is that I get to play to see what happens along with everyone else, whereas the times I ran in improv heavy mode, I was essentially making what happens for everyone else.  Or, in the worst form of play, potentially making what happens for myself.

Quote from: NathanIW;737630Obviously most of the improv heavy GMs that have participated in this thread are sufficiently skilled to obfuscate this from the players.  I still think it can't help but impact the results of play rather heavily compared to running a situation that has been defined sufficiently in advance.

I think the most enjoyable part of refereeing a game where the situation actually has facts of the matter is that I get to play to see what happens along with everyone else, whereas the times I ran in improv heavy mode, I was essentially making what happens for everyone else.  Or, in the worst form of play, potentially making what happens for myself.

I'm completely honest with my players about how I GM, and just make sure my decisions about the world are a logical extension of what has gone before. If I need more time to come up with something, I'll say so and call for a 5 minute break. Mostly though I just keep asking the players questions about what they want and what they do, and react accordingly.

I'm constantly surprised when I play improv GM, but I'm always asking questions like "(character name), what have you heard about X element?" And subtly getting them to add stuff to the world, and reacting to it.

Quote from: NathanIW;737630Oh, it's definitely not all or nothing.  My previous practice of nearly 100% improv and my current desire for next to no improv has put me in the position of doing it partially in actual play.  Like no-improv play and full-improv play, partial-improv play has a level of skill needed as well.  I think you've very clearly presented some great techniques for the approach in this thread.



I think the most important aspect is that when the players are actually exploring a given element, that it actually is exploration and not shadow play where the act of opening a door or asking a question creates the room beyond or causes a fact to be generated.  Obviously most of the improv heavy GMs that have participated in this thread are sufficiently skilled to obfuscate this from the players.

Totally Agree.

QuoteI still think it can't help but impact the results of play rather heavily compared to running a situation that has been defined sufficiently in advance.

I think the most enjoyable part of refereeing a game where the situation actually has facts of the matter is that I get to play to see what happens along with everyone else, whereas the times I ran in improv heavy mode, I was essentially making what happens for everyone else.  Or, in the worst form of play, potentially making what happens for myself.

Well I woudl obviously argue that I don't think it matters is those facts are made up 2 weeks ago or 2 seconds ago so long as they come from the same place and aren't influenced by what is going on in the world now.

I do get annoyed sometimes when my NPCs can't stick to the plan and start wandering off on their own and getting sidetracked but you can never really control those buggers.

Quote from: jibbajibba;737604Fine.

For me I found my improv games were turning into railroads becuase I wasn't making the clear mental split to provide genuine options to the PCs.

Now railroads are not always terrible despite the Sandbox is god schtick common of some fora.  I definitely think the next game I run for my current players will have a more pronounced plot arc as they have spent a year wandering freely round space with no limits besides the cost of travel.
But railroads were a thing I wanted to avoid if I could.  

So I have come up with a methodology that allows me the freedom to improvise whilst still maintaining a sandbox style environment. It works for me YEMV of course

Without actually checking, I hope I haven't suggested my way is somehow superior (only that it's not inferior).  I'm all for what works for each GM and group.  And no argument that even so-called "bad practices" can be right for a given group or situation.

Quote from: NathanIW;737612You could try asking your players what they'd think if you had a murder mystery coming up in the game and who actually committed the crime wasn't set yet and the direction of play would determine who actually killed the victim.*  Then ask them if they'd want every fact you describe about the game world to be like that.

Sorry, I see zero point in that exercise, except to possibly screen for people I don't want to game with.  I'd be shocked if even 1 in 20 of the people I've gamed with gave a shit and I'd be more shocked if 1 in 10 of them thought it was in any way bad.  I'd then be really shocked if it stopped any of them from actually gaming with me.  Some of my players do know how I do it and to date, I've never had a complaint about it.

Quote from: NathanIW;737612...When I told the players after the session that this is how I did it, well, you can guess their reaction.  ..

If it was negative you need to remember not to invite them back.  Seriously.  They had a wonderful experience, but because they saw behind the curtain it was all undone?  Frankly, that's just dumb to me.

Quote from: jibbajibbaIn my stront game recently the PCs look on a murder investigation. They saw the bounty - solve these murders and bring this guy in for 50K. So once they decided to investigate and to look for the background etc I decided how the murders were committeed and what evidence would be left behind. By the time they had arrived to investigate the first crime scene I had decided who committed the crime and why and where they came from. By the time they decided to get their precog to find out about the next crime the whole background was done in my head and I could lay it all out like it had been planned for weeks.

This is totally cool - if the improvisation can be as deft, precise, complex, coherent, and richly described as a prepared scenario.  If a GM can improvise so flawlessly that the players literally can't tell the difference between an improvised and prepared scenario, of course improvisation is fine!  But most people simply cannot prepare scenarios of as rich and deep detailed on the fly as they can with forethought and planning.

For me, with something like a complex murder mystery, I'd be very hesitant to improvise because of the multitude of moving parts - the importance of foreshadowing, the need for red herrings and a suitably complicated network of clues and motives, requiring multiple credible suspects, perhaps seemingly conflicting evidence, a timeline of the crime(s) in question.  Screw up something small in a murder mystery and it can leave plotholes or the whole thing can unravel like a spool of yarn.  Mystery is a fussy genre.   If you can do fussy and meticulous on the fly and produce something of the same quality as a prepared scenario, that is awesome - although I'd say you're one of the few.  Most of us mortals have to prepare

Quote from: NathanIW;737621...I had an "aha" moment about just what I was denying my players.

Wait, you are saying that making up the ending for your players was somehow denying them something.  What, do they think that the answer you might have made up before the game was somehow less fictional?  You added value to the game by taking account of their ideas, not took anything away.  They wanted a mystery, you gave them one.  End of story.

Quote from: NathanIW;737630...

I think the most enjoyable part of refereeing a game where the situation actually has facts of the matter is that I get to play to see what happens along with everyone else, whereas the times I ran in improv heavy mode, I was essentially making what happens for everyone else.  Or, in the worst form of play, potentially making what happens for myself.

I think the most enjoyable part of refereeing a game where the situation is in flux is that I get to play to see what happens along with everyone else, whereas the times when I ran in heavy prep mode, the players were much more passive participants.  Or, in the worst form of play, completely railroaded.

Quote from: Adric;737636...
I'm constantly surprised when I play improv GM, but I'm always asking questions like "(character name), what have you heard about X element?" And subtly getting them to add stuff to the world, and reacting to it.

I love it when I get pro-active PCs who are not just waiting for a hook from me, but actively out there rooting out new ideas.

Quote from: Brander;737740I love it when I get pro-active PCs who are not just waiting for a hook from me, but actively out there rooting out new ideas.

This is the most satisfying style of play for me, when everyone is actively listening to everyone else and contributing, and the game feels like a living thing. I'm not showing them my world or scenario, we're discovering one together that none of us could come up with alone.

As a player, I enjoy both a prepped GM, and an full-improv GM, though the latter is often much rarer. In a prepped game, I enjoy discovering another person's vision, though it feels like a more passive experience, but it also requires less energy. In an improv game, I feel more engaged in creating that vision, but it is a more active experience, requiring more attention.

Really, the only Roleplaying experiences I don't enjoy is drawn-out combats where I have to wait 10 minutes before I get to take an action that feels limited to taking the "optimum damaging action", which lasts for 30 seconds. Then I usually go back to doodling players' characters until I get to act for another 30 seconds.

That has nothing to do with prep VS improv though.

When I do prep for a session, it is maps mostly. Map out the rooms of a locale so I can describe them propperly from the players perspective. Usually with notes on whats where or minor furniture quirks that might be relevant.

*If 2 Orcs make it into room #3 then they can flip the large table and use as cover.

I do like to plot out patrol routes if the place is organized.

I usually then also prep at least the leaders stats and any non-generic NPCs and monsters.

*Leader is a fighter level XYZ and using items ABC.
*The happy little trained rust monster. Follows PCs trying to eat their stuff.
*The surly guard outside the stables. Knows a secret if PCs can get on good side.

And then try to consider contingencies if/when the players do something unforeseen.

*Players recruited orcs in room #3 with their show of prowess and fast talking. Might speak for group in room #8 if fighting is avoided and are treated well. Otherwise improv reactions based on treatment.

And so on.

On rare occasion I'll work up something really elaborate that ends up looking like a module.

Quote from: Steerpike;737731This is totally cool - if the improvisation can be as deft, precise, complex, coherent, and richly described as a prepared scenario.  If a GM can improvise so flawlessly that the players literally can't tell the difference between an improvised and prepared scenario, of course improvisation is fine!  But most people simply cannot prepare scenarios of as rich and deep detailed on the fly as they can with forethought and planning.

For me, with something like a complex murder mystery, I'd be very hesitant to improvise because of the multitude of moving parts - the importance of foreshadowing, the need for red herrings and a suitably complicated network of clues and motives, requiring multiple credible suspects, perhaps seemingly conflicting evidence, a timeline of the crime(s) in question.  Screw up something small in a murder mystery and it can leave plotholes or the whole thing can unravel like a spool of yarn.  Mystery is a fussy genre.   If you can do fussy and meticulous on the fly and produce something of the same quality as a prepared scenario, that is awesome - although I'd say you're one of the few.  Most of us mortals have to prepare

Becuase of the murder mystery business I can sadly probably write one in my sleep... shit there was one where I went out on an all night bender lost my house keys had to sleep in my car and then still was at the hotel by 8:30am with a 1500 word solution I had written that morning so I have done it in my sleep

You don't need too may red herrings but sub-plots are great and just bear in mind means, motive and opportunity and generate a very tight timeline, you can totally do this in your head. So long as there are 6 people with a motive and the opportunity the players will provide their own red herrings.
My favourites of course are when the players have an "of course moment" and once they discover the solution they realise how obvious it was. I also love when they are insisting it can't be that easy. In one the murderer was a mad priest who didn't think women should be allowed to join universities (Edwardian setting) he was entirely mysoginistic all weekend, and his walking stick was found at the crime scene as the murder weapon covered in blood and when cross examined he said they (the victims, a man and woman who were having an affair) deserved to die as it was God's will. And still no one suspected him of hte crime ......

If in doubt just nick the plot of an episode of Murder She Wrote and change the charcters and setting. No one ever watches a whole episode so you're probably safe

Quote from: Brander;737726If it was negative you need to remember not to invite them back.  Seriously.  They had a wonderful experience, but because they saw behind the curtain it was all undone?  Frankly, that's just dumb to me.

Then you just don't get human nature.  People don't like being shown the meaninglessness of their choices.  Or that a situation they thought they were engaging with was something else entirely.  People don't like being subject to bait and switch tactics.

It's cool that you've found people that are okay with being treated like that.  You've talked yourself into thinking that you are protecting player input when you're actually nullifying it.

I am going to guess though, that you pretty much exclusively GM and rarely, if ever play.

Quote from: NathanIW;737840Then you just don't get human nature.  People don't like being shown the meaninglessness of their choices.  Or that a situation they thought they were engaging with was something else entirely.  People don't like being subject to bait and switch tactics.

It's cool that you've found people that are okay with being treated like that.  You've talked yourself into thinking that you are protecting player input when you're actually nullifying it.

I am going to guess though, that you pretty much exclusively GM and rarely, if ever play.

I'm not sure how deciding on consequences and influences of a situation during play makes those consequences less meaningful than ones written beforehand.

If a player is aware of the potential consequences of their actions before they act, and make an informed decision based on that awareness, their decision is meaningful. It's about applying logical cause and effect to the situation described.

There's no bait and switch at play, unless the GM lies about what is actually at stake and what the consequences may be, but that has nothing to do with prep VS improv. That's about misleading the players about what is going on in the current situation.

I'm not sure what part of the GM creating the situation as they describe it is more dishonest than the GM describing a situation the created beforehand. The GM is still describing the situation as it appears to the players. and how it appears to the players is how it is in the game world.