I read this (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UnspokenPlanGuarantee), which basically says that the goal of good writing in fiction and for film/television is to make sure that the plans are never revealed. The likelihood that a plan will succeed is inversely proportional to the knowledge that the readers/audience have of it beforehand. If all of the plan is revealed from the outset, then it will fail. If the plan succeeds, then it is because certain aspects of it were surprises to the reader/audience once they are revealed.
This makes sense, because surprises make for good reading/viewing. I think a good GM should surprise his players with unexpected twists. I've had a ball springing monsters onto my players, monsters way more powerful than they were bargaining for. Another trick I used once (and you can only use this once, trust me) was the one where the PCs spoke in a language that they thought the NPCs did not understand, only to hear one of them say at a critical juncture "just how many languages do you think I can speak, you idiot!?" On the other hand, I have presented them with interesting tactical situations too, let them spend most of the time planning their ways through it like it was a puzzle, and then letting them actually play it through without any surprises; in effect rewarding them for good planning and good tactical thinking by allowing their plans to succeed.
What I am wondering is if it is ethical at all to listen in to the players' plans to tackle a situation, and then deliberately change the situation so as to ruin their plans. Is this railroading? Is this ever justified, or is it just plain dick-ish?
Quote from: Walking Paradox;501065What I am wondering is if it is ethical at all to listen in to the players' plans to tackle a situation, and then deliberately change the situation so as to ruin their plans. Is this railroading? Is this ever justified, or is it just plain dick-ish?
I would never change my plans after hearing what the PC's are doing to counter my plans or what have you. In all honesty, a weak DM does that kind of stuff. Now, after there plan goes into effect, things can change from there but NEVER after hearing what they intend to do.
Is it railroading??? No, what you ask has nothing to do with railroading...
Variety is the spice of life. I rarely change things after the fact, but occasionally I'll pull a trick or two out of my hat to keep them on their toes.
Generally, I strongly dislike it when a GM tailors the situation based on his knowledge of the players' plans.
If the GM can't prep the situation independently of the plan, then maybe a good way to handle things would be to look at the plan, decide how good it is and where it seems likely to be risky (basing this all on you-the-GM's preexisting knowledge of the situation, how the setting works, etc.), and then roll some dice against odds that are based on the overall plan or "chunks" of it. The outcome can then be used as a guideline for filling in details.
E.g. at the simplest: roll surprise, if successful, then pretty much everything should have as its premise that the enemies are as unprepared as would be conceivable.
Ultimately it depends on the nature of the game and your relationship with the players. If you've got a group of investigators in a 1920's Call of Cthulhu game who've carefully planned on surviving a trip down to Antarctica to find out what old Pabodie was raving about in those cryptic diary entries of his - shit is going to go wrong. If the players are laying out their plans...well...my god, you're playing Call of Cthulhu! Phone lines are going to be cut! Supply ships are going to be frozen in until summer! etc.
On the other hand, I/we had a GM in a Hero System/Champions game who would literally move the fucking goalposts as soon as we got close to defeating Dr. Destroyer - that was an android, that was a hologram suit on a Silver Avenger who was brainwashed and now you're all framed for his murder, that was a VR simulation, he had xyz gadget in his suit to revive him so he could make good his escape, on and on. Not because he'd already come up with these things - they happened ex nihilo because we were damaging his precious Great Comic Book Plot. Complainants were browbeaten with "Well how many times did the Avengers defeat Dr. Doom 'once and for all'? How many times did the X-Men 'finally' beat the Sentinels?" and on and on. It was fucking tedious. So don't do that.
If your players were dumb and sat in a crowded bus-station and loudly discussed how they're going to beat the bad guy...well...yeah! Hand them their heads at least once! But if they're passing notes at the table to simulate "secure radio transmissions" and/or just beating your foes using solid tactics (whatever the game) just waving your hands and pulling some bullshit "Ha! No! You lose!" makes you into Dexter in the Dexter's Lab episode "D& DD"
Quote from: Walking Paradox;501065What I am wondering is if it is ethical at all to listen in to the players' plans to tackle a situation, and then deliberately change the situation so as to ruin their plans. Is this railroading? Is this ever justified, or is it just plain dick-ish?
I won't change the plans. A few reasons for this:
(1) Like red herrings in a mystery scenario, it's usually a waste of time. Either the PCs or the dice will fuck up the plan all by themselves.
(2) Most plans will allow the bad guys to react as knowledge naturally comes into their hands. This is usually more than enough to fuck up any plan that has survived contact with the PCs/dice.
(3) If by some miracle the PCs do manage to obtain perfect information, put together the perfect plan, and execute it flawlessly... good for them. That's unusual and they'll enjoy deservedly patting themselves on the back.
As GMs we often become hyper-aware that we're supposed to be "challenging" the players and we feel as if we're doing something wrong if the players manage to successfully executed a plan that allows them to bypass a challenge "too easily". If that's happening all the time, of course, you may have a problem. (To rectify it, however, I'd take a long hard look at how the players are getting such perfect information about their opponents all the time.)
But, IME, some of the most-cherished memories my players have is when things go really well for them. For example, in my Ptolus campaign the PCs managed to catch a major evil priestess named Silion completely off-guard with her back to the door. The party rogue put an arrow through the back of her skull and killed her before she even had a chance to turn around.
40 sessions later? That's a memory they keeping bringing up and cherishing. The really challenging fight that followed? They only remember that because they spent most of it taunting the Silion's mate about having killed her in one shot.
Quote from: Walking Paradox;501065What I am wondering is if it is ethical at all to listen in to the players' plans to tackle a situation, and then deliberately change the situation so as to ruin their plans. Is this railroading? Is this ever justified, or is it just plain dick-ish?
Wow, the only answer I can give is "it depends" because there are too many variables involved.
I will say that having been given the railroad as a Player by this situation, I try to not be a dick as a GM when it comes up. I can only think of two situations in which I would screw with the plans of Players.
A) If they didn't do even the least bit of intelligence gathering to base their plan on (which is stupid to not do your homework),
and
B) If I can reasonably ensure that by delaying victory, the Players and myself will get more enjoyment out of the game.
I think it's important to note it cuts both ways. The GM can also make the scenario easier based on listening to the player's plan, or perhaps just more polished. So it really comes down to how much the GM works out in advance and stays fixed in the GM's mind and how much the GM improvises and things retcons behind the scenes.
And even then, the "right way" of doing things kind of depends on your players. I find the book "Robin's Law of Good Gamemastering" covers this quite well.
Basically for the "tactician" style player the fun is coming up with the best plan, that is where the challenge is. If then the execution of the plan is cakewalk, almost boring, that's a good result as it validates the plan as a smart one.
The "buttkicker" on the other hand just craves action. He probably find the long planning session boring and if the plan goes off without a hitch (which usually means avoiding fights) he might find this an frustrating evening.
The "powergamer" is probably okay with the GM messing with the plan as long as there is more XP and treasure in it.
The "storyteller" likes adventures that what have a pleasing structure and build up to an interesting climax. So he too might find a plan that goes down too well somewhat disappointing.
Okay, so that's a bit simplistic take and I don't quite remember how the other examples work, you get the general point - different players want different things and if you figure out what you players like you can adapt your GMing style to meet it or at least find a compromise that pleases most people around the table.
Also there is another option which Fate and I think Mutants & Mastermind uses and that is to award Fate/Hero points to players when the GM does something a little dirty to complicate the current situation.
It is expected in our circles that during important planning sessions, the GM will leave the room.
I don't leave the room-but I also don't change the internally consistent world based of their plans. NPC's react honestly, and in the way that I picture them in the real world reacting. (When people get shot at, most people seek cover or run away. When things on fire they pull alarms and call 911, etc...)
It'd be a dick move on my part to adjust the challenge level or what ever just because I forgot something in my planning-or they found some particularly clever way of acing an NPC.
I don't have a plan when gamemastering. Just NPCs and their motivations vs. PCs and their motivations. Everything else develops organically from there.
Ditto the last two responses.
The only real exception I have to PC non-interference and NPCs following their own plans until otherwise messed with by PCs is when the PCs do something either profoundly obvious and stupid or tangle with ridiculously powerful NPCs.
So openly plotting, quite loudly in a public place, to assassinate a well-known (not necessarily powerful) someone is going to attract attention, because well, it's patently stupid.
However, secretly plotting to assassinate a crazy powerful someone through back room deals and the like will also have a higher chance of interruption, too. The reason I figure is that someone of a particular power level will have institutions in place to anticipate such things, whether they be espionage networks or diviners routinely scrying for threats, etc.
Other than that -- and I make clear to my players I run things as such before play (i.e. "My NPCs are not perfect, nor are they stupid") -- I let the chips fall where they may. In fact, sometimes the consequences of their actions are a greater punishment in their eyes to the indiscreet behavior in the first place. Very much in the vein of, "Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it."
I try not to do so - I generally have a plan of "how things will work out if PCs do not interfere". When they start planning, I begin to rather imagine "what will happen if they manage to succeed" rather then "how to twist things".
Then again, my PCs rarely know everything about the situation ;).
People say its best to have flexible module plans, so players drive the plot. This requires you to do a lot of work.
When players sit at the table, planning on how to assault the Evil Guy's Evil Fortress of Evil, they're writing the module for you.
Bless their black little hearts.
Listen to their plan. Decide if it's reasonable (if it isn't, give them clues indicating that). If t is, let them attempt it. Throw some challenges in their way (an unexpected guard, a monster whatever) but don't hose them.
Making a plan and carrying it out gives them the feeling of a victory well earned.
GM's are supposed to be the engines of fun: interesting adventures, colorful NPC's, whatever. When players make a plan and win, they're making the game fun for themselves. It's no longer your sole responsibility.
Bless their black little hearts.
Listen. Plan a couple of surprises. Give them an honest chance at failure.
But don't f*** them over.
That's my opinion, anyways.
I would prefer the GM do this sort of thing through NPCs using knowledge they might have but not through metagaming. There is going to be a degree of fizziness however. If the pcs are in conflict with a villain and devise a clever plan to defeat him, it is possible the villain would be able to predict their actions if he knows them well enough. I would be very cautious about making that call though ( and for this reason I try to tune out when my players are making plans).
In some styles of roleplaying, it's considered bad form to act on knowledge you gained out of character. Unless the DM had a character in a position to overhear the players' characters, he's acting on OOC knowledge; he's failing to compartmentalize according to this style of roleplaying.
So - under that style, yeah - it's not appropriate for the DM to change things according to a prompt he received OOC.
If you're playing some other style, let your players know. Say: "As the DM, I'm going to modify what the NPCs do according to what I hear you say out of character, even if the NPCs have no way of knowing what you're planning".
If this bothers them, you may have a failure to communicate. Discuss what style they prefer, what you prefer, and come to an agreement.
---
As an aside: If you want to keep things surprising, play the NPCs as devious plotters. Just put surprises in at the beginning, but the NPC has them hidden more carefully than most other portions of the scenario. The players most likely won't figure this stuff out. They'll find the hidden bits, assume they've found everything, and move on. Then - surprise! You don't have to go OOC to surprise people, is what I'm trying to say.
I find it really quite unethical, you could say, but mainly I find it bad GMing NOT because it is somehow "mean" or "unethical" but because it runs counter to the point of GMing, which is neither being "mean" or "nice" (or "generous" or "stingy") with the PCs, but being a good emulator of the world you've created.
The main argument not to pull this "changing plans" shit is that your plans shouldn't be some fiat that comes out of nowhere, they should come out of the world itself. they should be based on what the NPCs opposing the PCs would be planning to do based not on what YOU know but on what THEY know. Or they should be world events that are meant to happen a certain way, and not relative to the PCs' plans (though sometimes relevant as a reaction to things the PCs have actually done).
So I would say its "bad GMing" in the same way that "metagaming" is "bad playing" when a player makes choices based not on what his PC would know but on what the player himself knows.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;501210The main argument not to pull this "changing plans" shit is that your plans shouldn't be some fiat that comes out of nowhere
All of my modules are. Not "fiat" in the sense of pulling arbitrary shit out of my ass, but in the sense that I do everything on the fly. I literally do not know if they're going to find a fortress or a dungeon or a corrupt mayor.
They do stuff, I make things up as we go along (dropping in random stuff I can call back to at a later module to make it seemed all planned out), and we have a damned good time.
It's harder to keep a consistent world this way, but even my players who know I make it up as we go along, swear that it is nonetheless a consistent world. Cities I invent are still there in later modules, NPC's keep a consistent personality (unless it changes for explicable reasons) and so forth.
When I run a campaign, I'm writing a sourcebook as we go along. The world doesn't fully exist until I see what's there. I usually have abroad outline of the world and its initial setup, but the details of who and where and what and how are all off the top of my head.
You, yourself (in pistols at dawn) mentioned how much more satisfying it was to allow a character to grow organically over the course of a campaign, discovering new details about (I infer) their personality or past as you go along. I say the same is true of a campaign world.
And in such a campaign, where I'm making up the entire module from the start, how can it possible be cheating to make up the opposition as I go along?
There's no laws for me to violate, except perhaps for consistency. If they've gone in this fort before, it should be recognizable. But that's it.
So no, it isn't cheating. It's providing the players a fun challenge.
D. Warpig: First off - if you're having fun, and your players are having fun, and you all agree that this is a fun way to play - so be it. The proof is in the pudding.
I wouldn't play with you, though. It's just not the style of game I want to play. For me, roleplaying is making decisions in response to a scenario. In your game, the scenario doesn't exist until I've made the decision. Which makes the decisions meaningless, which makes the game meaningless - for me.
Others play differently.
I think I'd be okay with a fairly high degree of improvised setting, even going in with the "roleplaying is making decisions in response to a scenario" mindset, provided the improvisation is neutral, unmotivated. Probably the best way to achieve this is by using some randomness.
E.g., PCs cross over a mountain, GM has no idea what's on the other side. GM draws a tarot card, or opens a random page in the dictionary, uses it for inspiration, and extrapolates based on a pre-existing vision of the overall setting: okay.
PCs cross over a mountain, GM has no idea what's on the other side. GM decides it's time for a "combat encounter" and then writes up a set of enemies scaled to the party's current size and average level, designed to use up 1/4 of their resources before losing the battle: boring & trite.
Quote from: Kaldric;501259D. Warpig: First off - if you're having fun, and your players are having fun, and you all agree that this is a fun way to play - so be it. The proof is in the pudding.
Agreed.
Quote from: Kaldric;501259For me, roleplaying is making decisions in response to a scenario. In your game, the scenario doesn't exist until I've made the decision.
Sort of. Sort of not.
Real Example (3.0 Campaign, 2nd session): Players hear a rumor of a dungeon. Head north.
I decide, on the spur of the moment, to give them something to do rather than just walk. They come across a wagon, overturned. People are dead around it, and wolves are digging at something under the wagon. They hear a baby crying.
Instant challenge (to morality if nothing else.) A situation they can respond to, take a hand in, or just ignore.
More, I seeded in some clues about something unnatural having overturned the wagon. Didn't know what the details meant at the time, but such details are fodder to build around. Hinted it had to do with the dungeon. Then, when they did get to the dungeon, I had to explain the situation I set up.
The fact that I made all the above up on the fly doesn't mean I had to wait for players to ask "are there any wolf-imperiled babies around?"
Players can choose to go in a hundred different directions. I can either plan a different scenario in each direction, wasting 99% of my time, or see where they go, and put something interesting there.
Games are (in part) about challenges, and this enables me to create challenges in places they wanted to explore anyway.
Quote from: Kaldric;501259Which makes the decisions meaningless, which makes the game meaningless - for me.
Another example, same campaign: Because of some prior events, I decided that the recent war had devastated farms in the area. There was no harvest. All on the fly.
Then the players took the initiative in places I never planned for (which happened often) to set up a flow of supplies into the area (by co-opting a merchant monopoly), to feed the people. That became the focus of the first year of the campaign.
They seemed interested in that, so I seeded more opportunities to do so. And allowed their pro-active attempts a chance to succeed (if they played well enough).
In the end, they negotiated a treaty with another country for importation of food, in exchange for lost and unknown magical knowledge they discovered (knowledge made up on the fly in another dungeon crawl). Their initiative saved hundreds of thousands of lives from starvation.
They chose to do that, in response to a situation that I created to explain details I had seeded in at random, and achieved it by taking advantage of other things I had also created on the fly.
I don't think that equals having no impact on the world. IMHO, running things on the fly gives them a greater opportunity to have an impact, because I don't have any set details or conflicts, until the players discover them. It keeps "plot" and other such garbage far away from my game.
Not that you're wrong. My style of GM'ing is definitely not for everyone. And sometimes it can go badly wrong. But when it goes right... it's really, really cool.
D.W: I wouldn't say that your style means the players have no impact - it's more that I would feel that my decisions are meaningless.
To boil it down to absolute simplicity:
If I go left, you make sure something exciting's going on. It's just as likely something exciting's going on if I go right. So, whether I go right or left is ultimately meaningless. In either case, I know when I make the decision that nothing is there - I might as well flip a coin, or just wait for you to tell me what happens.
Eliot: Procedural generation of a world is fine - you make decisions about what comes up based on logic and reason, with an added soupçon of randomness? Okay. I can make my decisions based on the logic of the setting, and expect that the outcomes will be at least in part influenced by my ability to parse that logic.
I would guess that DW also makes his decisions about what he puts in at least partially based on logic and reason - otherwise his players would just give up instantly - and it sounds like they're enjoying his style.
I, personally, don't like to feel that my decisions aren't meaningful, as decision-making is the core of the experience, for me. Take that away, make it so that I feel that 'it doesn't matter what I decide', and I don't even need to be involved - the main reason for me to be there is gone.
Quote from: Kaldric;501283To boil it down to absolute simplicity:
If I go left, you make sure something exciting's going on. It's just as likely something exciting's going on if I go right.
But there's reasons you go left or right.
Left? Vast plains, littered with the remnants of a war fought entirely with golems. In fact, it is said that some golems wander the plains, still fighting an ancient war after all the living participants are dead.
Right? The vast ocean, which no one has successfully crossed. Though, an expedition left recently. Rumor has it that a sailor from that expedition has returned to port.
Why is this a good thing? Because the player's choice tells me which one they find more interesting: sailing the seas after a possibly lost expedition, or traversing the ruins of two long-dead civilizations whose magical creations still make war centuries after they all died out.
Left or right is a big friggin' deal: it determines which you personally want to pursue. You have preferences, tastes, things you find interesting. I can't read minds, but I can offer choices. And your choices tell me which option you would rather investigate.
So, if the accusation is: "You try and make sure something novel and exciting happens in every game session."
Okay, guilty. I try to make sure something novel and exciting happens in my game sessions. Honestly, sometimes I screw it up. But I do try.
And I try on the fly, rather than relying on pre-keyed events in every hex on the board.
And how is that worse, anyway? In
Wilderlands, from what I understand (never having read it) they packed each hex full with novel and interesting things to do.
They did it before hand. I do it on the fly. Either way, your choice is equally "meaningless": adventure and excitement abound nearly anywhere you go.
Is that seriously the standard for adventures nowadays? Unless boredom is prekeyed and guaranteed, our choices are meaningless?
I really feel I'm missing something about your fundamental point, because it makes no sense. That's not an accusation, I just think we're crossing wires here.
EDIT: You've been an eminently reasonable and fair participant, I'm just missing your point.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;501267Players can choose to go in a hundred different directions. I can either plan a different scenario in each direction, wasting 99% of my time, or see where they go, and put something interesting there.
Games are (in part) about challenges, and this enables me to create challenges in places they wanted to explore anyway.
I GM this way as well a lot. It works for me and Daddy Warpig is giving some great examples of when it does work for him. I especially recommend it because the GM must be paying attention to the Players at his table to do this, then their actions will give you clues as to what they want in the adventure and you can tailor it to them.
DW: I'm not saying your way is 'bad'. As I've mentioned, I think you don't just invent things on the fly,
after the players decide what to do. Sounds a lot like you create content
in potentia before the players decide anything - which is pretty much what I do.
I just use procedurally generated content, rather than 'what I think is coolest'. Generally because 'what I think is coolest' gets old and predictable after a while.
QuoteLeft? Vast plains, littered with the remnants of a war fought entirely with golems. In fact, it is said that some golems wander the plains, still fighting an ancient war after all the living participants are dead.
Right? The vast ocean, which no one has successfully crossed. Though, an expedition left recently. Rumor has it that a sailor from that expedition has returned to port.
If you decide, BEFORE the player decides, that left is plains and golem-fighting, and right is ocean and lost-ship investigating, then the player's decision has meaning. If you decide AFTER the player says left, or right, then player's decision
doesn't have meaning.
Quote from: Kaldric;501304If you decide, BEFORE the player decides, that left is plains and golem-fighting, and right is ocean and lost-ship investigating, then the player's decision has meaning. If you decide AFTER the player says left, or right, then player's decision doesn't have meaning.
Why does a Player's decision have to have meaning in tis context? If the goal is to enjoy yourself and have fun, and the DM is able to facilitate this while doing the setting trickery seamlessly enough that the Players do not notice, then what does it matter?
Not saying that Daddy Warpig does this, I am just curious.
Quote from: jeff37923;501305Why does a Player's decision have to have meaning in tis context? If the goal is to enjoy yourself and have fun, and the DM is able to facilitate this while doing the setting trickery seamlessly enough that the Players do not notice, then what does it matter?
Not saying that Daddy Warpig does this, I am just curious.
It doesn't 'have' to. I just prefer it to. It's more to my taste. If you'd like an explanation of why I
think I prefer it, I could trot that out for you. It wouldn't necessarily be a reason why it's 'better'. Just why I think I like it.
Quote from: Kaldric;501308It doesn't 'have' to. I just prefer it to. It's more to my taste. If you'd like an explanation of why I think I prefer it, I could trot that out for you. It wouldn't necessarily be a reason why it's 'better'. Just why I think I like it.
OK, like I said, I'm curious and am interested in the thought process behind it.
Sure, no prob.
My personal definition of role-play, as it relates to these games, is this:
Making improvised decisions from the point of view of an imagined character in response to an imagined scenario.
The only action that we take in these games that's of significant import to me, is the decision-making. To make a decision that's meaningful, you need information that is meaningful.
If I'm playing a game, and I come to believe, for whatever reason, that my decisions aren't the primary factor in determining my success, I stop caring about the decisions. When I play a roleplaying game, the decisions are of prime importance to me. If I stop caring about those, I stop caring about the game.
If I want amateur theatrics, I'll audition at a repertory theater. If I want improvisational theater, there are troupes in my city. If I want an awesome story, I'll read a book, watch TV or a movie.
I play roleplaying games because my decisions matter. If I suspect that they don't matter (and, given the predilections of many GMs of the mid 80's to late 90's, they often didn't, IME), I'll start checking, and testing, to see if my suspicions are correct. If you're trying to trick me, I'll find out. I'll do something that would, in any reasonable universe, have a particular outcome. When it doesn't, and it's obviously because the GM has an outcome in mind and is manipulating things to come out the way he wants, rather than as our decisions dictate? I stop caring about the game.
Quote from: Kaldric;501326Sure, no prob.
My personal definition of role-play, as it relates to these games, is this:
Making improvised decisions from the point of view of an imagined character in response to an imagined scenario.
The only action that we take in these games that's of significant import to me, is the decision-making. To make a decision that's meaningful, you need information that is meaningful.
If I'm playing a game, and I come to believe, for whatever reason, that my decisions aren't the primary factor in determining my success, I stop caring about the decisions. When I play a roleplaying game, the decisions are of prime importance to me. If I stop caring about those, I stop caring about the game.
If I want amateur theatrics, I'll audition at a repertory theater. If I want improvisational theater, there are troupes in my city. If I want an awesome story, I'll read a book, watch TV or a movie.
I play roleplaying games because my decisions matter. If I suspect that they don't matter (and, given the predilections of many GMs of the mid 80's to late 90's, they often didn't, IME), I'll start checking, and testing, to see if my suspicions are correct. If you're trying to trick me, I'll find out. I'll do something that would, in any reasonable universe, have a particular outcome. When it doesn't, and it's obviously because the GM has an outcome in mind and is manipulating things to come out the way he wants, rather than as our decisions dictate? I stop caring about the game.
OK, this makes sense. Thanks.
Clearly we have a mismatch, because what you describe hating doesn't (to me) bear any relationship to how I run my games.
Quote from: Kaldric;501326The only action that we take in these games that's of significant import to me, is the decision-making.
That's fine. There are many reasons to play RPG's, and I wouldn't say that was wrong.
• Overcoming challenges.
• Exploring an imaginary world.
• Mastering the rules.
• Advancing your character.
• Solving puzzles.
• Winning in combat.
I'm sure there are plenty more that could be identified. It's odd (to me) that you only enjoy one single aspect of the hobby, but that's your bag.
Quote from: Kaldric;501326To make a decision that's meaningful, you need information that is meaningful.
In my style, it is.
Quote from: Kaldric;501326my decisions aren't the primary factor in determining my success,
So, Amber? Because otherwise, dice have a say.
And I gave clear indications that my players decisions were the determining factor. I did not expect them to sell the magical knowledge to a guild of merchants, and use that money to import food. Their decisions shaped the campaign world.
Not just "I attack the guy with the goatee", but "I used critical resources at a key time, to change the world."
They told a truth that told a lie and convinced an empire to go to war against an epic-level mage, who was actually that empire's ally. Blew my mind.
But I rolled with it, and described the battle, and when they fought him, he was critically weakened because of their choices.
Quote from: Kaldric;501326If you're trying to trick me, I'll find out.
Improvisational GM'ing is the opposite of railroading. The exact opposite. And in my style, players' decisions matter.
I understand this is... very, very, very important to you, but other than *not* being guaranteed to find boredom somewhere, you've never explained how any of my examples indicate player choice doesn't matter in my games.
It's not that I dislike your style, or think you're wrong. Your reasoning is opaque to me. The claim "improvisational GM'ing means decisions are meaningless" just doesn't register. It's as comprehensible as "Drinking water means pigeons are purple." Does not compute.
Quote from: Kaldric;501326When it doesn't, and it's obviously because the GM has an outcome in mind and is manipulating things to come out the way he wants,
This is railroading. It's the exact opposite of my play style. Diametrically opposed to it.
Improvisational DM'ing (not improv theatre, not "Acting!", but making the module up as you go along, in response to player's actions) is the cure for railroading and One True Plot.
If I knew what I wanted to happen, it would be impossible for me to improvise. Right?
DW: And this is what I get for posting while drinking.
My first response wasn't really to you. It was to the OP. I've been pretty much mistaking you for the OP, and mixing your posts up in a mishmash, since we began.
Quote from: Kaldric;501366My first response wasn't really to you. It was to the OP. I've been pretty much mistaking you for the OP, and mixing your posts up in a mishmash, since we began.
Well, then I'll shut up then. :)
Except to say this:
You've been an eminently reasonable and fair participant, and I look forward to disagreeing with you in the future. Or maybe even agreeing, who knows.
Sorry for the confusion, I try not to post when I've been drinking. Alas, my self-control is the first thing to go.
Quote from: Kaldric;501392Sorry for the confusion, I try not to post when I've been drinking. Alas, my self-control is the first thing to go.
Meh, its been an interesting conversation. Besides, you haven't been an asshole, so it's cool by me.
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;501363QuoteThe only action that we take in these games that's of significant import to me, is the decision-making.
That's fine. There are many reasons to play RPG's, and I wouldn't say that was wrong.
• Overcoming challenges.
• Exploring an imaginary world.
• Mastering the rules.
• Advancing your character.
• Solving puzzles.
• Winning in combat.
I'm sure there are plenty more that could be identified. It's odd (to me) that you only enjoy one single aspect of the hobby, but that's your bag.
Notably, however, the majority of your list is either completely or mostly dependent on the decision-making.
I was typing a post that mentioned that, Justin, when I realized I was actually disagreeing with the wrong person. DW's views pretty much* align with what I consider my style of gaming, so it's not surprising the goals align as well.
'Rules mastery' was the only one I was going to leave out as not being primarily based on decision-making in response to a scenario. And even that...
I think those things DW mentioned are often rewards that come from making good decisions - if you get them whether you make good decisions or not, it feels like using a cheat code on a video-game. Very little sense of accomplishment, very little satisfaction. To me, anyway. YMMV.
From going over what he's posted, I doubt DW plays in such a way that that would be a problem.
---
*Not perfectly - I think I like a little more 'hands off' GMing, but not significantly so.
In my experience, when you sit down with five people to game, there will at least be 3 different reasons for why they actually game. One has to take those into account, because it means, what works with one group, will fail with another.
I think the gaming style in which the GM simply simulates the world and just responds logically and impartially to player actions without taking on any editorial or dramatic responsibilities has it's charm. As mentioned above it does privilege player choice.
However I suspect it works best in more leisurely, long-term campaigns. If you are playing the same campaign week in week out you can afford to have session that occasionally don't really seem to go anywhere or just aren't very interesting.
If you only get to play infrequently or tend to favour shorter campaigns or even one-shots like conventions play it makes sense to forgo some measure of player agency to ensure you get to the good stuff quickly without wasting precious gaming time on padding or in aimless wandering. The key is understanding that not all choices players make in the course of a game are of equal importance. Some choices matter desperately, some are fairly arbitrary.
If you allow the GM more editorial power he can ensure that something interesting happens for everyone around the table, he can adjust the tone of the game to match the mood of the players, vary the pace of the game or even inject a dramatic irony or careful foreshadowing if that's what you fancy.
But it's a trade off and it's a dangerous territory. Meaningful player choices remains a vital ingredient of the roleplaying experience and a GM who abuse their editorial can kill a game quicker than pretty much anything else.
So as always my answer is "it depends".
There's another thing, you have to take lots of notes. Whatever you generate on the fly for that one Player decision, now is the landscape. You cannot change that part of the setting from session to session without there being some good reason or else you lose immersion and get the situation that Kaldric mentioned earlier where the Players feel that their decisions are meaningless.
So improvising like that is a valuable tool, but one that can only be used once per instance in campaign play.
Quote from: Walking Paradox;501065What I am wondering is if it is ethical at all to listen in to the players' plans to tackle a situation, and then deliberately change the situation so as to ruin their plans. Is this railroading? Is this ever justified, or is it just plain dick-ish?
Yeah, it's a dick move. IMO, it's the dice that should ruin their plans not the GM.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: Soylent Green;501488However I suspect it works best in more leisurely, long-term campaigns. If you are playing the same campaign week in week out you can afford to have session that occasionally don't really seem to go anywhere or just aren't very interesting.
My current 3.5 campaign just passed session 70, but there's nothing leisurely about it and we haven't had a single session which "didn't really seem to go anywhere or just wasn't very interesting".
And I adhere pretty strictly to the "game world reacts logically and impartially" school of GMing.
How do I pull that off? Basic pacing. Sometimes the players do stuff that's boring. We quickly resolve that stuff or skip over it entirely. This is not a difficult skill, IMO and IME.
So, I reject your hypothesis on the basis of actual experience.
Quote from: Walking Paradox;501065I read this (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UnspokenPlanGuarantee), which basically says that the goal of good writing in fiction and for film/television is to make sure that the plans are never revealed. The likelihood that a plan will succeed is inversely proportional to the knowledge that the readers/audience have of it beforehand. If all of the plan is revealed from the outset, then it will fail. If the plan succeeds, then it is because certain aspects of it were surprises to the reader/audience once they are revealed.
Role-playing games are not fiction, film, or television and it has been my experience (both as player and GM) that the players have a tremendous amount of fun when they pull a good plan off, even if the combat that results has all the uncertaintly of shooting fish in a barrel. Further, I've both seen and read about cases where the GM constantly making sure that no plan ever goes off smoothly encouraging the players to (A) stop planning, (B) not tell the GM their plans, or (C) lie about their plans to manipulate the GM. It's not difficult for players to test each other and the GM to figure out if they are using metagame tricks or not and to start playing their own games in return. I've seen players do it and I've even done it myself and it's not good for the game.
I recommend watching the movie The Truman Show. It does a very good job of capturing what it feels like to realize that the world is responding to you specifically and it deliberately trying to thwart you. For many players, particularly those who play from the perspective of their characters, it's not a pleasant experience to realize they are being jerked around.
Quote from: Walking Paradox;501065This makes sense, because surprises make for good reading/viewing. I think a good GM should surprise his players with unexpected twists. I've had a ball springing monsters onto my players, monsters way more powerful than they were bargaining for. Another trick I used once (and you can only use this once, trust me) was the one where the PCs spoke in a language that they thought the NPCs did not understand, only to hear one of them say at a critical juncture "just how many languages do you think I can speak, you idiot!?" On the other hand, I have presented them with interesting tactical situations too, let them spend most of the time planning their ways through it like it was a puzzle, and then letting them actually play it through without any surprises; in effect rewarding them for good planning and good tactical thinking by allowing their plans to succeed.
I think that a good GM will mix it up rather than rely on a particular pattern of play over and over again. Even surprises get old, which is why there is no shortage of parodies of horror and mystery movies that make fun of common twists. To your point about using a trick once, the first time you encounter a movie that builds suspense with a ticking time bomb that must be stopped and the heroes succeed with seconds to spare, it's pretty suspenseful and cool. After the hundredth time, it causes rolling eyes and laughs or parodies like this one (starting at 3:33) from Galaxy Quest (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drGlg0fWunQ). Sometimes plans work and sometimes they don't, and that sounds like what you do as a GM, which I think is great. Almost any technique, used once or infrequently, can work fine but can become a problem if used routinely or always.
Quote from: Walking Paradox;501065What I am wondering is if it is ethical at all to listen in to the players' plans to tackle a situation, and then deliberately change the situation so as to ruin their plans. Is this railroading? Is this ever justified, or is it just plain dick-ish?
For the most part, I think GMs should let things play out the way they would play out where the setting, situation, and characters involved real. As such, one circumstance under which I think this is reasonable to change the situation is when the players discuss doing something as part of their plan that the villain would logically have considered and planned for but the GM simply forgot. Yes, sometimes villains should make mistakes, too, so sometimes things should be left as is, but I do think it's OK for the GM to make some adjustments for verisimilitude reasons, particularly where the problem is a glaring oversight on the part of the GM that doesn't make much sense in the setting.
Quote from: David R;501586Yeah, it's a dick move. IMO, it's the dice that should ruin their plans not the GM.
Regards,
David R
ha ha, i like this response a lot... I agree with it as well...
Quote from: jeff37923;501583There's another thing, you have to take lots of notes. Whatever you generate on the fly for that one Player decision, now is the landscape. You cannot change that part of the setting from session to session without there being some good reason or else you lose immersion and get the situation that Kaldric mentioned earlier where the Players feel that their decisions are meaningless.
Hmm, my feeling is that if the GM immerses effectively in the characters he's portraying, you don't really have to take that many notes. You have to be able to get into the heads of the NPCs and the setting, but after that its easy to remember what's what.
Now, I often have trouble of keeping track of more mundane mechanical details, and those I definitely have to keep tabs on, but that's another story.
RPGPundit
My dungeon notes are currently 6 pages. My campaign's plot is 1 page, and the NPCs pages are about 5 - 6 as well - mostly names, position and stats.
I keep notes because I'm not a super genius who has nothing but time to game. I have other commitments, so notes let me come back to where I left off-just like a book mark.