TheRPGSite

Given the recent disagreements I thought I'd try to collect my own personal gaming theories and talk about what it is I do.  It'll save time, and I've been meaning to do this for awhile now, just to analyze my own thoughts.

First, what I mean by a gaming theory.  I mean a model by which I prepare and run roleplaying games.  This isn't a game design theory so much as a game playing theory, though it will help inform what mechanics would be useful.  I don't paticularly care about gaming trends or the industry or any of that.  Means nothing to me.  All I want is to create 100% awesome games, and I've developed a system that lets me do this.  Nor am I creating some universal field theory of gaming.  I don't intend to describe all gaming everywhere.  

Now let's start with stories.  Stories are nothing but a series of imaginary events.  All RPGs are thus stories, though some might not care about how good of a story that play creates.  Therefore, the structures and techniques that make for a good story can make for a good roleplaying game session.

The first and primary is the structure.  This means that the RPG session will have an introduction, exposition, climax, and coda.  Now every RPG session ever played has those features, as they're really just fancy words for start, beginning, middle, and end.  You don't have to pay any paticular attention to these parts or run them in any paticular way.  In a Story Creating game, though, attention is paid to each of these four parts.

The Introduction is very important, it's what gets the game started.  Games are social events, and a thrilling exciting intro really grabs everyone's attention.  This doesn't have to be a combat, but that's a fine way to go.  Just some kind of conflict, or revelation.  Or even a cut scene or joke.  The idea is to get everyone in character and get their minds on the game world and off cheetos and beer.

Exposition is when the game proper starts rolling.  This is where the conflict is introduced, or scenes are set to let the players deal with the conflict or subplots.  I make it a point to include at least one such scene for each player.  If they aren't involved in the introduction of the main plot, then they can explore one of their subplots.

After that, the characters start to explore the main conflict, whatever that may be for the session.  This could be some combat, investigation, research, or whatever is appropriate.  Then the conflict *must* be addressed to bring the game to a climax.  Once the bad guy's plan is averted, or the foe defeated, or the secret uncovered, whatever - everyone can breathe a sigh of relief.

The Coda of a game is the characters setting up the next game.  They'll describe what their characters are doing next, maybe do a scene or two or some further investigation.  The coda can be quite long, I've had it go over an hour before.  This is the time to wrap things up and set things up for next time.

Now keep in mind, this all has to happen within a single game session.  The start and end are not in the game world, they are in the real world.  It starts when everyone opens their books and ends when everyone picks up their dice.  That is the constraints you have to work in.

There are variations of course.  If a game isn't brought to a climax in one session, then you can turn it into a 'to be continued' episode.  (I think I've dipped from that well a couple too many times of late though :p)  And sometimes you don't always hit this structure - it's a goal, not a script.  And it's one that I've found to make for some great, memorable games.

That's interesting, mate. My approach is a little bit different. I present a dilemma, and a reason to care.

Things are happening in the game world. The PCs have some reason to care about the things happening. The things happening involve choices; the players get to make or influence the choices, and have a reason to care about the consequences.

It just sort of sprials from there.

In the best campaign I ever ran (going by best player feedback), I also structured it so that each player would have for their character a "season" of four sessions in which events turned on that character's decisions. Doesn't mean they had all the spotlight at that time, just that their decisions were the most important for influencing long-term events - think Londo Mollari in the second season of Babylon 5. His decisions to call in the Shadows to help him, and not to tell anyone about his conversations with Mr Morden, the consequences of those decisions went right through to the end. Doesn't mean he had all the action, just that his decisions were most important at that time.

Unfortunately this meant that the player who had the first season was a bit bored by the last season, but that was just the player. If you use seasons like this, then whichever player's the biggest attention junkie, put them in the middle, not at the beginning or end ;)

Quote from: Nor am I creating some universal field theory of gaming. I don't intend to describe all gaming everywhere.

Good! Cause I wouldn't want to think you would make universal blanket statements when you're describing how you do things..like...uh...wait...what's this?

Quote from: The first and primary is the structure. This means that the RPG session will have an introduction, exposition, climax, and coda. Now every RPG session ever played has those features, as they're really just fancy words for start, beginning, middle, and end.

Really? I mean, really?

I played in plenty of very fun sessions that had no such thing. They didn't even have it across two or three sessions. Was there a "plot?" There was only in the sense that the GM had set up a world and we wondered around in it doing stuff we felt like doing (based loosely on what drove our characters). Unless you count showing up, playing, and leaving as the beginning, middle, and end, they were not present in these sessions.

So I think it's a bit ambitious to say "every RPG session ever played has those features."

Well, Maddman sure is a story-whore who can`t think outside of "Buffy" serials...;)

QuoteOnce the bad guy's plan is averted, or the foe defeated, or the secret uncovered, whatever - everyone can breathe a sigh of relief.

Failure not an option, I presume?

I'm no story fan, but the sigh-of-relief moment is nothing to discount as automatic success.

"Well, we finally stopped the woodchipper..."
"OH GOD WHERE ARE MY LEGS!?!?!"

They failed, yes. But they're probably glad that's over with.

Quote from: FeanorGood! Cause I wouldn't want to think you would make universal blanket statements when you're describing how you do things..like...uh...wait...what's this?


Really? I mean, really?

I played in plenty of very fun sessions that had no such thing. They didn't even have it across two or three sessions. Was there a "plot?" There was only in the sense that the GM had set up a world and we wondered around in it doing stuff we felt like doing (based loosely on what drove our characters). Unless you count showing up, playing, and leaving as the beginning, middle, and end, they were not present in these sessions.

So I think it's a bit ambitious to say "every RPG session ever played has those features."

I count showing up, playing, and leaving as beginning, middle, and end.  Part of my theory is to make those parts dramatically interesting.  You can certainly (and many do) game without paying them any paticular attention.  I did this myself for many years, starting where we left off last time, continuing the game for however long we had to play, and stopping when we ran out of time, to pick up there next time.  By putting forth an effort to make these parts more dramatically engaging my games have gotten a lot more fun.

QuoteWell, Maddman sure is a story-whore who can`t think outside of "Buffy" serials...

Guilty as charged.  Buffy was one of the biggest influences on how I look at gaming.  It literally took me from thinking about encounters and statblocks to scenes and characters.

QuoteFailure not an option, I presume?

Failure is always an option.  After all, that could make for some great story, couldn't it :p.  There's been some huge reprecussions of failed die rolls over the last season.

Quote from: MaddmanI count showing up, playing, and leaving as beginning, middle, and end.  Part of my theory is to make those parts dramatically interesting.

How, by offering door prizes for the player who shows up with the best Character Kicker?

This is a bit broad of a definition of story if you count showing up as the beginning of the story of the game. That must mean the ordering of pizza is the building tension towards...what...pepperoni climax?

I'll turn the snark off....there...that's better.

I understand what you're saying, I think (and please correct me if I'm wrong).  That by paying attention to what are traditionally considered literary techniques, such as framing and pacing and so forth, you can make the story created by the play more interesting for your group. Huzzah!

I have no doubt that many, if not most, sessions have a story with a beginning, middle, and end.  But it's not required. It's not necessary for these things to be considered beforehand. Will they make it better? In most cases the answer is yes.  I say "most," because I've actually played in games where it made it worse.

I like your approach, it has some good bits of advice.  I'm sure your players greatly appreciate your hard work and thoughtful effort.  All I'm saying is, you can't get away with saying you're not making a universal gaming thesis, and then make statements that include/cover the whole universe of gaming.

Particularly by broadening your definition of "story" to include "showing up" as "beginning."  IMHO, you're going to define it so broadly as to make it meaningless.  Be brave.  Make a stand.  You're right to say that a story has beginning, middle, and end (I wish my sisters-in-law would learn that!). But realize the next step is where you leap over the edge. Not every session has these things.  So be proud of your work, and realize it applies in specific cases.

I'll climb down off my soap box now...

Quote from: SettembriniFailure not an option, I presume?

It is for me. We've had TPKs doing stuff that sounds similar.

-Marco

Quote from: FeanorI understand what you're saying, I think (and please correct me if I'm wrong).  That by paying attention to what are traditionally considered literary techniques, such as framing and pacing and so forth, you can make the story created by the play more interesting for your group. Huzzah!

Yes, that's pretty accurate

QuoteI have no doubt that many, if not most, sessions have a story with a beginning, middle, and end.  But it's not required. It's not necessary for these things to be considered beforehand. Will they make it better? In most cases the answer is yes.  I say "most," because I've actually played in games where it made it worse.

Really - I'd like to hear about them.  It could give me insight into weaknesses of the technique or warn me of problem areas.  I'm aware that string scene framing can lead to unintentional railroading, and it's something I watch out for.

QuoteI like your approach, it has some good bits of advice.  I'm sure your players greatly appreciate your hard work and thoughtful effort.  All I'm saying is, you can't get away with saying you're not making a universal gaming thesis, and then make statements that include/cover the whole universe of gaming.

Particularly by broadening your definition of "story" to include "showing up" as "beginning."  IMHO, you're going to define it so broadly as to make it meaningless.  Be brave.  Make a stand.  You're right to say that a story has beginning, middle, and end (I wish my sisters-in-law would learn that!). But realize the next step is where you leap over the edge. Not every session has these things.  So be proud of your work, and realize it applies in specific cases.

The broad definitions are needed.  They point out that the games don't exist in some fictional game space, they exist in the real world played out by real people.  The perception of the game relies heavily on the real world constraints placed upon it.  Too many game theories focus on games as a thing in themselves, as if these imaginary events are totally unrelated to the players playing them out.  The way the players see events at the beginning of the game are different than that at the end.

That's why I say they are always there - I do take this to be self evident.  The theory comes in with how you deal with that, how you take those real life constrictions and make them work for you, rather than against you.  Let me describe how I got here.

When I was a teenage lad, I spend lots of time gaming.  Entire summers sweating in a friend's garage, or cramped in a bedroom, playing out imaginary adventures.  It was a grand time, and we didn't pay much attention to dramatic structure.  After all we were gaming almost every day, so if things came to a head tomorrow or a few days away that was fine.

As I grew older, my free time grows shorter.  But I was trying to game the same way, with no attention to dramatic structure.  It was not successful at all.  The games got further and further apart, and when we'd get together no one could really remember where we were or who the villians were or any of that - it had likely been a month or more between sessions.  Just continuing on was no longer working.

So I started experimenting with more dramatic structure.  It works on a couple of levels.  First of all the games are more self contained, like an episode from a TV show.  Sure, there might be a recurring villian or subplot, but the majority of the action is introduced, explored, and resolved all in a single sessions.  There's no 'what were we doing', more like an excitable 'hey, I remember that guy, he was the one that XXXX'.  The other factor was that the games were so much more fun that we ended up gaming more often.  People were willing to make sacrifices to get together and game, it was important to them.  Heck, two of my players were considering moving but insisted they'd rather drive 3 hours than give up the game!

Buffy was a big influence, and what largely gave me the idea, but I'd ran many games like this - D&D was the first actually, then Star Wars, Exalted, and then finally got a group willing to give Buffy a try.  It tends to work better for cinematic, action-filled games.  I've not had as much luck with darker stuff to be honest - both World of Darkness and several All Flesh attempts have fizzled on me.

There's really more to it that what I've written, this is really just the core.  I'll expand on conflicts and social aspects to the game when I get a chance to really collect my thoughts on the subject.

QuoteSo I started experimenting with more dramatic structure. It works on a couple of levels. First of all the games are more self contained, like an episode from a TV show. Sure, there might be a recurring villian or subplot, but the majority of the action is introduced, explored, and resolved all in a single sessions.

Just to show again: This is a huge move away from freedom on the Axis. It works for you, great. But sacrifices were made, big ones even.

I just want to say I'm really enjoying how this thread is working out. Maddman is talking about how his game works, his techniques as a GM, what works for him. That's infinitely more useful than the common "theory" attempts to fit how other people play into various boxes.

Boxes are over-simplistic. People always settle for parameters on many a different scale and axis. Freedom vs Structure is only one tiny one, albeit discussed right now.

Quote from: SettembriniJust to show again: This is a huge move away from freedom on the Axis. It works for you, great. But sacrifices were made, big ones even.

The structure is on the GM's side.  The players are perfectly free to do whatever they like.  I'm not limiting player freedom at all, and honestly I'm not sure why you think I am.

I agree that there are many different components of a game, but if there are axis (implying that emphasizing one thing will always lessen another) I disagree that dramatic structure and player freedom are such an axis.  I would rate my game pretty high on the player freedom scale.

Quote from: MaddmanI agree that there are many different components of a game, but if there are axis (implying that emphasizing one thing will always lessen another) I disagree that dramatic structure and player freedom are such an axis.  I would rate my game pretty high on the player freedom scale.

Very true. Up thread, you commented that you learnt a lot from Buffy (rpg). Could you explain what exactly it is you learnt, and have you applied them to other games/systems.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RVery true. Up thread, you commented that you learnt a lot from Buffy (rpg). Could you explain what exactly it is you learnt, and have you applied them to other games/systems.

Well, first the ideas of dramatic structure are mostly spelled out there.  Not just in the introduction and plot arcs, but in the sense that Buffy does not pretend to be realistic.  The concern 'would this happen in the real world?' never seemed to cross the author's mind.  The concern is 'would this happen on the Buffy TV show?'  

It also brought the relevence of scenes to me.  Previously, with my D&D heavy background I would set up encounters.  Here's a monster, what's around, and its abilities.  Buffy sets up scenes, both in the advice chapter and the sample adventure.  The difference is that the scene is there for the PCs to play out an interesting conflict, rather than an obstacle to overcome.  This distinction led me to focus more on conflict, and the more I did the better the games got.

When I first applied this was during a D&D game, with some new players.  I was still driving plot pretty heavily at that point, but was setting up the games with the start of the structure.  I made an effort to bring each game to a climax, and it went well.  (Until we had a TPK.  Oops)

The next game was a Star Wars game.  I kept the episodic structure, and being Star Wars I decided to start off each session with a quick fight.  This really got everyone into the game and such.  After that I did Exalted with a group, and kept the structure but added scene setting, focusing on the characters doing cool stuff in cool places.  That ended when two of the players moved.

Then we started Buffy, the game that got me on all this stuff in the first place.  I did the same as before, but this time gave a focus on pushing conflict at the characters.  Figuring out what would push their buttons by their character sheets, how the acted in play, and talking to them out of game and putting that in front of them.  I take show, don't tell to heart.  If a player makes a claim about their character I'll make them prove it.  "My guy is honest"?  Okay, here's a situation where you can greatly benefit by lying, what do you do?  Putting these moral dilemmas in is in-genre for Buffy and makes for some good stories.  It's working out well.

Very interesting Maddman. I think I'm going to take a closer look at Buffy, maybe not run it, but just to get some more ideas or refine some of my own.

I really like the whole story arc kind of campaign. What I do is, run a game once a week for about three months, each session an episode then the final session a season finale so to speak. I then run another game (preferably a different genre) for three months alternating between the two (or three) and picking up where the season finales left of.

Regards,
David R

Here's a radical idea. Run the adventure, and if anything happens during it you think is worth telling a story about, tell a story about it.

Quote from: mythusmageHere's a radical idea. Run the adventure, and if anything happens during it you think is worth telling a story about, tell a story about it.

Or, you know, interpret the action within the framework of a story, like you're witnessing a story unfold while you're playing the game.  It won't break your brain.  Honest.

!i!

Maddman, do you see the difference between Keep on the Borderlands or Arrival Vengeance and a tv-structure?
You talk like you don`t.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaOr, you know, interpret the action within the framework of a story, like you're witnessing a story unfold while you're playing the game.  It won't break your brain.  Honest.

!i!

What if it has all the structure of a t-ball game?

Quote from: SettembriniMaddman, do you see the difference between Keep on the Borderlands or Arrival Vengeance and a tv-structure?
You talk like you don`t.

Given the proper framing and emphasis, I could run Keep on the Borderlands with this style.  This isn't about content so much as it is about presentation.

QuoteHere's a radical idea. Run the adventure, and if anything happens during it you think is worth telling a story about, tell a story about it.

I did that, for many years.  The games weren't fun, or at least not fun enough to keep everyone engaged.  I'm not fifteen and I don't have all summer to let something awesome happen every now and again by sheer chance.  I need something awesome to happen tonight.

QuoteI don't have all summer to let something awesome happen every now and again by sheer chance. I need something awesome to happen tonight.

That only explains your own preference for structure over freedom. Don`t mix "feels very good to me" with "I don`t curtail freedom of actions and developments".

Quote from: mythusmageWhat if it has all the structure of a t-ball game?

WTF? That's a response?

Part of the problem this topic is that we just can't agree on what "story" means. It means something to people. Few can actually describe it. Hell, professional writers cannot describe it, and they work with it to earn a living. It means something to the audience watching the latest Bruce Willis flick or those reading the New York Times Bestselling page-turner. It means something to the college co-ed talking to her mom on the phone and hearing what's been happening at home. It means something to the kid starving to death in Africa while his mother tells him a folk tale to help him sleep. It means something to the human condition. And it means something to us and why we play RPGs and no card games or board games or miniatures war games.

But then, many do play RPGs as if they are just miniatures war games, so that may be part of the problem.

QuoteJack Spencer

Part of the problem this topic is that we just can't agree on what "story" means. It means something to people. Few can actually describe it. Hell, professional writers cannot describe it, and they work with it to earn a living. It means something to the audience watching the latest Bruce Willis flick or those reading the New York Times Bestselling page-turner. It means something to the college co-ed talking to her mom on the phone and hearing what's been happening at home. It means something to the kid starving to death in Africa while his mother tells him a folk tale to help him sleep. It means something to the human condition. And it means something to us and why we play RPGs and no card games or board games or miniatures war games.

Nicely put. So does this mean, Jack is going to be a regular around here?

QuoteBut then, many do play RPGs as if they are just miniatures war games, so that may be part of the problem.

Them fighting words, esp around these parts :D

Regards,
David R

QuoteBut then, many do play RPGs as if they are just miniatures war games, so that may be part of the problem.

Reconsider your statement, or flamewar will ensue.:mad:

Quote from: SettembriniReconsider your statement, or flamewar will ensue.:mad:

Don't worry too much about what Jack says, mate. A while ago he publicly abandoned his pretence of having gamed at all recently. He deleted his own blog entries about it, but others referred (http://zigguratbuilder.livejournal.com/28061.html) to them.

Quote from: zigguratbuilderOn the other hand, I've been seeing this guy for years. Always seeming to argue loudly for one thing or another, and more recently with more and more cantankerous vigor (which even led me to suspend him temporarily-cum-permanently from Story-Games.com, a First!). Turns out that he hasn't actually played in years. Go figure? It may have just been that gaming died years ago for him, but he didn't notice it until recently.

Which is kinda weird when you think about it. I was IMing Keith, and we put our heads together to come up with hobby-stuff that we could do for years without realizing we hated it. In both of our cases, we couldn't think of anything that we could do for more than 10 minutes if we hated it.

He was heading for a blow-up of Gleichman proportions (and if you don't know Gleichman, then that's totally fine), but it's good to see that he came to that realization himself and ducked out gracefully. From his history (especially piledriving The Forge, having been an ex-member, and again not having gamed forever yet arguing about it with the viritol of an Armchair Hockey Fanatic), I'm half-ambivalent, half-"HA HA!" and a cock-punch. But after seeing Clinton's caring comments on his LJ, I'm in total agreement there, too:

No need to get on his case for "being a dilweed all this time" or anything, but rather to encourage him to find something new to pull him out of his funk (his funk reminds me of a bad breakup in a very real way, "What have I been doing? What do I do now? What fills this hole?". Something fun, cool and active. Then we'll wish him well as he heads off on his new path.

Quote from: zigguaratbuilderBah, he took down his LJ again. Oh well, nevermind.

Jack Spencer Jr burned out and is leaving RPGs forever, selling all his stuff, etc. Even though he's been very active and agressive for years on the Forge, RPGnet, etc it's come out that he hasn't really played in a long time, and has never really enjoyed the activity.

It's sad, cause Clinton said some really cool things to him in the comments. Oh well.

I've no idea what Jack's been doing since he came back, for all we know he's gamed eight hours a day since, trying fifty different games.

But the pattern has been lots of talk about gaming, and not much gaming. So I wouldn't worry about his negative opinions of our gaming too much. Imagine you have a friend who's had a nasty break-up with his girlfriend - five years ago - who says that most women are bitches, that relationships are just inherently wrong in the way they work, and he hasn't had a woman in those five years. Would you worry about what he thought of your marriage?

None of this is to say anything negative about Jack as a person. Some people choose the wrong spouse or job, and stick with them for years on end, because they just don't know what else to do. That doesn't make them bad people, just... a bit lost.

Unless he's turned around and found he loves some rpg or other. I wouldn't know, I'm just going on what we've seen so far.

Quote from: Jack Spencer JrWTF? That's a response?

Part of the problem this topic is that we just can't agree on what "story" means. It means something to people. Few can actually describe it. Hell, professional writers cannot describe it, and they work with it to earn a living. It means something to the audience watching the latest Bruce Willis flick or those reading the New York Times Bestselling page-turner. It means something to the college co-ed talking to her mom on the phone and hearing what's been happening at home. It means something to the kid starving to death in Africa while his mother tells him a folk tale to help him sleep. It means something to the human condition. And it means something to us and why we play RPGs and no card games or board games or miniatures war games.

But then, many do play RPGs as if they are just miniatures war games, so that may be part of the problem.

I play rpgs, board games and wargames.  I don't play card games currently, but I have in the past.

Personally my main objection to people playing rpgs as miniatures war games is that rpgs make lousy miniatures war games, I'd far rather crack out a good miniatures war game ruleset for that particular fun.

Other than that, I don't see what the problem is you allude to.  If someone runs a good minis wargame using an rpg ruleset I'm cool to play that.

Quote from: BalbinusOther than that, I don't see what the problem is you allude to.  If someone runs a good minis wargame using an rpg ruleset I'm cool to play that.

Well, of course if they have fun playing it, that's groovy and all that happy horseshit. The problem comes in trying to discuss this story shit and the guy who basically is just using an RPG like a wargame chimes in. It muddies the waters and starts flame wars and is just generally useless. Why the fuck they feel the need to come into a story thread and let us know that they really aren't interested in the story thing baffles me, really. It's like going into a thread on parenting and declaring how you don't have kids and don't want any. Smashing! Good for you, sport.

Sort of like a story-gamer coming in and talking shit about traditional games in a normal forum, or trying to talk about "story" in a thread that has nothing to do with story?

Or even more, like a guy who doesn't actually play RPGs coming into a forum about RPGs and talking about them like he was a player?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditSort of like a story-gamer coming in and talking shit about traditional games in a normal forum, or trying to talk about "story" in a thread that has nothing to do with story?

So you know how annoying it is.

Quote from: David RNicely put. So does this mean, Jack is going to be a regular around here?

I wouldn't bet money on it.

Siblings, maybe, but not money.

Quote from: Jack Spencer JrSo you know how annoying it is.

Hey, as the story-whore who started this thread I don't mind different attitudes.  If I wasn't open to ways other people run games I wouldn't have started to experiment.  The only thing that gets annoying is repeated unsubstantiated statements, like Settembrini's insistence that story structure limits player freedom.

So how about it, Settembrini?  Would you like to present an argument that using story structure as I've outlined in this thread necessarily limits player freedom?  If this is a potential pitfall I'd like to keep a watch out for it.

QuoteIf this is a potential pitfall I'd like to keep a watch out for it.

Mmm. That`s really hard, because you don`t seem to view the limitations you are imposing as limitations. I do.
How can I convince you?
You are sacrificing things you don`t care for, so to you it`s not a real sacrifice. For me it is.
Easy as that.

The fact that you are GMing to emulate a TV structure alone is a very harsh restriction on the development of the fictual situation. The fact that you are not extrapolating the actions of fictious parties on their own merit, but only as the interact with the players.

You are not creating a world of conflict, you are creating conflictous situations for your players characters, and orchestrate them into a certain time-slot.

This is very much freedom lost. Freedom you don`t want. Everyone has different preferences, but to make your set of preferences the "zero" mark, like 0 K is, well, not helping.

Your felt-freedom is only 0°C, not 0 K.

QuoteYou are not creating a world of conflict, you are creating conflictous situations for your players characters, and orchestrate them into a certain time-slot.

I just don't see orchestrating them into a time slot (love that analogy btw) as restraining their freedom if I'm not doing it against their will.  If I go to cut and a player says "Wait, I wanted to go check out XXX" I'd change gears and set a new scene with the player checking out whatever he needed to check out.  In fact, if the player wants to check it out, then that is important, not whatever I might have had in mind.  It can still be a red herring, but if it's getting screen time then it's an important red herring.  I control the pace by adjusting the time needed to do stuff and the level of detail given, not constraining actions.

Maybe the problem is that when you say they are losing freedom that makes me think that you mean I'm not letting them do what they like.  Are you meaning something different?

QuoteMaybe the problem is that when you say they are losing freedom that makes me think that you mean I'm not letting them do what they like. Are you meaning something different?

I see. Yes I mean something different. You are restraining the fantastiverse, thereby restraining the possible outcomes of the game. And in a certain indirect way, you are restraining player freedom also. In that they don`t have all possibilities they would have in a more open, wide and unstructured fantastiverse.
I`m sure, they can do a lot of stuff. But by chosing your style of play as I understand it, some stuff will just not crop up on the radar screens of the characters. And conflicts will not develop according to plausability, but to dramatic purpose, which is the heaviest of all your transgressions against freedom. (I´m sure you try to get them together, but ultimately you opt for drama, I´d say)

Let it be said though, that I`m not saying you curtail freedom in a harmful way. I`m saying you curtail freedom at all, which you deny.

Quote from: SettembriniI see. Yes I mean something different. You are restraining the fantastiverse, thereby restraining the possible outcomes of the game. And in a certain indirect way, you are restraining player freedom also. In that they don`t have all possibilities they would have in a more open, wide and unstructured fantastiverse.
I`m sure, they can do a lot of stuff. But by chosing your style of play as I understand it, some stuff will just not crop up on the radar screens of the characters. And conflicts will not develop according to plausability, but to dramatic purpose, which is the heaviest of all your transgressions against freedom. (I´m sure you try to get them together, but ultimately you opt for drama, I´d say)

Let it be said though, that I`m not saying you curtail freedom in a harmful way. I`m saying you curtail freedom at all, which you deny.

*light goes on*

Gotcha.  I think the freedom you're talking about, to explore a fictional fuly formed world, is illusionary anyway.  I make it all up anyhow.  I don't use maps at all.  

I recently did a game in a mental hospital full of ghosts.  Didn't map anything, just a general description of the areas.  As far as the details - the position of the beds, the location of restrooms, and other such details are made up on the spot as needed.  To be honest, I realized that there's not really a difference between making it up beforehand and doing it on the fly, except if it's on the fly I'm a lot more flexible and and less likely to railroad.  See if I've done the work to really detail the musty basement but just did some basic sketches of the creepy empty patient rooms then consciously or not I'm going to guide them to the basement.  By doing it dynamically I can explore wherever the PCs naturally go.

I get what you're saying now, it's not about freedom per se, but exploring of a world in real time with all the details of how what and when.  I have no idea how far it is from the graveyard to the high school, apart from 'not very far'.  Yes, that is something I give up, because I'm not really looking for it in an RPG.

I don't think that's what he's saying. It looks to me like he's saying that your having decided that the evening will be an "episode" about a haunted hospital curtails the party's ability to decide to go to the high school.

You are both right. :)
I mean both instances.

Quote from: James McMurrayI don't think that's what he's saying. It looks to me like he's saying that your having decided that the evening will be an "episode" about a haunted hospital curtails the party's ability to decide to go to the high school.

I don't decide that it's going to be a haunted hospital episode.  That what I prepare for, but if they want to go to the high school all night instead then we'll have a 'the gang explores the high school' episode.  I'm not deciding anything in advance other than presenting it as an episode.  If they'd declined to go to the hospital, well the Big Bad would have converted a whole wing of patients into his undead demon army.  :)

How often does it happen that the group doesn't head towards where you've prepared for? I do something similar when I'm running, but without an episodic layout, and it seems like my group almost always heads where they're pointed. Not always, but usually.

Quote from: Maddman*light goes on*

Gotcha.  I think the freedom you're talking about, to explore a fictional fuly formed world, is illusionary anyway.  I make it all up anyhow.  I don't use maps at all.

It is and it isn't. Obviously we can't make up fully formed worlds beforehand. But the approach to GMing can be more or less simulative of the experience of exploring a world, as opposed to emulating a fictional structure. E.g., by not making a map of the hospital, you fill in the blanks as necessary. What criteria do you use when asked to fill them in? Let's say that in the first half hour of play the PCs have explored the north wing of the hospital. Did they run into a ghost? No? Was it because the ghost encounter was "being saved" for the second half hour? In that case, what if they'd begun by exploring the south wing of the hospital--would they have run into the ghost then?

From a player perspective, do the answers to those questions really matter?

Edit: if you don't know what's happening I mean.

QuoteFrom a player perspective, do the answers to those questions really matter?

Edit: if you don't know what's happening I mean.

They matter most. They make the difference between all that is important to me.

Quote from: Elliot WilenE.g.,... Let's say that in the first half hour of play the PCs have explored the north wing of the hospital. Did they run into a ghost? No? Was it because the ghost encounter was "being saved" for the second half hour? In that case, what if they'd begun by exploring the south wing of the hospital--would they have run into the ghost then?

So, if, following this, the ghost was in the south wing, then what happened while exploring the north wing for the last half hour?

How can they be important to you if you don't know they're happening? you've got no way of knowing that the ghost isn't marked on the map in room three. All you know is that about 30 minutes into the game Scooby started shaking and you heard rattling coming from out in the hall.

If it is noticable, and feels like taking a ride on the Story train then by all means let me off, but if I can't tell and the game is fun then strap me down for the ride.

Quote from: Jack Spencer JrSo, if, following this, the ghost was in the south wing, then what happened while exploring the north wing for the last half hour?

I would assume things to heighten the suspence: noises from afar, glimpses of something out of the corner of your eye, etc. Otherwise it's just boring "nope, nothing there" which can easily occur when everything is mapped out in advance.

For the record, I tend to use a combination of the two techniques. I map most stuff out ahead of time if possible, but sometimes things are going slow or the group headed off on a tangent. In those cases I'm not above adding something in to pick up the pace, whether it was planned, theorized, or swiped from something the players said that I thought sounded cool.

James, it might be "nope, nothing there", or it could be clues or frightened patients, whatever would be there.

QuoteI tend to use a combination of the two techniques. I map most stuff out ahead of time if possible, but sometimes things are going slow or the group headed off on a tangent. In those cases I'm not above adding something in to pick up the pace, whether it was planned, theorized, or swiped from something the players said that I thought sounded cool.

Great, that works for you and your players. (It might work for me, too.) But you do see them as separate techniques, which is a prerequisite to a conversation about differing tastes and approaches.

Quote from: James McMurrayHow often does it happen that the group doesn't head towards where you've prepared for? I do something similar when I'm running, but without an episodic layout, and it seems like my group almost always heads where they're pointed. Not always, but usually.

Ha, every game man.

Though perhaps I need to go more into how I lay things out.  The hospital episode was something of an anomoly.  We don't normally do a lot in the way of exploring.  The action takes place on familiar sets - the english class, the football field, the graveyard, the local all ages club full of indie bands and vampires, and so on.  It's not a *place* that's paticularly important, it's events.

So let's say I plan on having a scene with the Slayer and pals encountering a new gang of vampires.  No, I don't plot out where they are in town and ask the PCs where they go and what they do.  I ask who's on patrol and set the scene.  

So where they head doesn't tend to be in a literal sense - they go north or south isn't incredibly relevent.  Hell, in my fictional town I don't know if you go north or south to get to the high school from the graveyard, or east or west, or whatever.  It's considered an unimportant detail.  I set the scene, if someone wants to go from point A to point B we cut from A to B, unless something happens along the way.

The metagame mechanics tend to keep this from being a problem.  By spending a point they can easily say that someone just happens to show up, or a cop drives by, or what have you.  I'm not controlling them because they are setting the scenes as well.

And headed where I prepare?  I don't think they've done that yet.  :)

QuoteIt is and it isn't. Obviously we can't make up fully formed worlds beforehand. But the approach to GMing can be more or less simulative of the experience of exploring a world, as opposed to emulating a fictional structure. E.g., by not making a map of the hospital, you fill in the blanks as necessary. What criteria do you use when asked to fill them in? Let's say that in the first half hour of play the PCs have explored the north wing of the hospital. Did they run into a ghost? No? Was it because the ghost encounter was "being saved" for the second half hour? In that case, what if they'd begun by exploring the south wing of the hospital--would they have run into the ghost then?

I don't write encounters, I set scenes.  They aren't reliant on location but on events.  The ghost made herself known when they entered.  I had it set up so that there was something going on with these ghosts.  Wherever the PCs wanted to explore there was something interesting for them to do or discover.  Once they had gotten enough of the pieces they figured out a way to stop the ghost, yay scoobies.

So overall, do I use changing landscapes?  Sometimes, but those landscapes aren't relevent.  No one really cares if the slayer's ex boyfriend reveals himself as a vampire outside the school or in the park.  What I don't use is changing events - I run the game dynamically as I can, using the antagonists to set off the players' conflicts, and deal with the themes the characters are exploring.

Someone wanting to micromanage all their plans, equipment, movement, and choices of daily minutae likely aren't going to enjoy my game much.  That's okay though, there's other games.  :)

Ah, cool. Given that setup I'd like to propose a variation of my question: how often do the events you've prepared not happen? How often is that becuase the players avoid it vs. how often is it because events just unfold that way?

I guess the overall question is: you've got some stuff prepared and through gameplay it becomes apparent what the general gist of that stuff is. How often do your players just refuse to do it? It seems to me that you've got a general idea of what will happen in the game. "The group meets vampires and come into conflict" or "they stumble across some ghosts and fix things" ro even "Joanie dumps Chachi and Chachi whines about it to the group, begging them to help him get her back." Having at times done something similar, I know how helkpful it is to have accomodating players. How accomodating are yours?

Quote from: MaddmanSo overall, do I use changing landscapes?  Sometimes, but those landscapes aren't relevent.  No one really cares if the slayer's ex boyfriend reveals himself as a vampire outside the school or in the park.  What I don't use is changing events - I run the game dynamically as I can, using the antagonists to set off the players' conflicts, and deal with the themes the characters are exploring.

Someone wanting to micromanage all their plans, equipment, movement, and choices of daily minutae likely aren't going to enjoy my game much.  That's okay though, there's other games.  :)

Yes, I respect that. I also want to quote something you wrote earlier,

QuoteIf they'd declined to go to the hospital, well the Big Bad would have converted a whole wing of patients into his undead demon army.

Within a game we can have all sorts of abstraction, particularly of location and detail, maybe time, too. I can't speak for Sett, but those aren't what I'd consider distinguishing points between some notional "story-creating" game and one where you "explore a fully-formed world". If the players have freedom to ignore the hospital with real consequences for doing so, well, that's the same thing I'd expect in an "explorative" game.

I think a real difference in style, if there is one, would have to be at the level of "framing" vs. "intervention". By "framing", I mean that in any RPG, there is some point, at least at the beginning of the campaign if not at the beginning of an episode or scenario, where somebody should ask what it is of interest that they hope to get out of the game. And then they should ensure either that it's already there (e.g. if picking an established setting) or they should put it in there. You want to hack & slay? Then there need to be monsters and enemies. Want to encounter ghosts and vampires? Then there need to be ghosts and vampires. Maybe the players trust the GM to just make an awesome setting. Even so, the GM will make it so: it doesn't just happen.

But what I mean by "intervention" is where the GM, or possibly someone else, takes action during the course of playing out whatever's been framed, to make it follow a certain course. For example if some evil plot is being formed, and the PCs are trying to stop it, I believe there are groups where the GM will delay or speed up the hatching of the plot for the sake of a dramatic arc, as opposed to the natural evolution of cause & effect. Or in the hospital example, some event could have been triggered only once the PCs had gathered all the clues.

I'm not sure I can tell whether you do that or not, and at what points. It's also possible that some of the differences in perspective could be ones of scale. "Framing" a scenario, for one group, maybe feel like "intervention in the middle of the campaign" to another.

Quote from: Jack Spencer JrSo, if, following this, the ghost was in the south wing, then what happened while exploring the north wing for the last half hour?

Hearing all the noise and commotion, the ghost went to check it out. After observing the group for awhile, he decided to cause a bit of merriment to amuse himself.

Quote from: James McMurrayAh, cool. Given that setup I'd like to propose a variation of my question: how often do the events you've prepared not happen? How often is that becuase the players avoid it vs. how often is it because events just unfold that way?

I guess the overall question is: you've got some stuff prepared and through gameplay it becomes apparent what the general gist of that stuff is. How often do your players just refuse to do it? It seems to me that you've got a general idea of what will happen in the game. "The group meets vampires and come into conflict" or "they stumble across some ghosts and fix things" ro even "Joanie dumps Chachi and Chachi whines about it to the group, begging them to help him get her back." Having at times done something similar, I know how helkpful it is to have accomodating players. How accomodating are yours?

They're pretty accomidating really.  And the initial setup only happens at the beginning of the session where the conflict is introduced - someone turned up dead, new gang of vamps in town, whatever.  After that I'll usually describe a couple of likely scenes for them exploring - I have a Watcher PC now for instance, and it's nice to have a couple articles already written up for when they do research.  But they don't always go those routes, and I'm more than willing to drop them.  And most times I have no resolution in mind at all - I don't design a climax and lead them to it, I present them with a problem and see how they solve it.

QuoteI think a real difference in style, if there is one, would have to be at the level of "framing" vs. "intervention". By "framing", I mean that in any RPG, there is some point, at least at the beginning of the campaign if not at the beginning of an episode or scenario, where somebody should ask what it is of interest that they hope to get out of the game. And then they should ensure either that it's already there (e.g. if picking an established setting) or they should put it in there. You want to hack & slay? Then there need to be monsters and enemies. Want to encounter ghosts and vampires? Then there need to be ghosts and vampires. Maybe the players trust the GM to just make an awesome setting. Even so, the GM will make it so: it doesn't just happen.

I would agree with that - you have to have buy-in from the players.  They have to be interested in playing the kinds of characters the game will feature.  In Buffy, that means the PCs are teenagers or people with a (non-creepy) reason to hang around them all day.  They will want to fight against monsters once they discover they exist, and they will wrestle with moral and personal issues at the same time.  If you aren't interested in that I don't see how the game would be fun.   It would be like a Rebellion-era Star Wars game where you didn't want to fight stormtroopers, or Exalted where you just wanted to be a regular guy.

QuoteBut what I mean by "intervention" is where the GM, or possibly someone else, takes action during the course of playing out whatever's been framed, to make it follow a certain course. For example if some evil plot is being formed, and the PCs are trying to stop it, I believe there are groups where the GM will delay or speed up the hatching of the plot for the sake of a dramatic arc, as opposed to the natural evolution of cause & effect. Or in the hospital example, some event could have been triggered only once the PCs had gathered all the clues.

I regularly speed up or slow down events for the sake of the dramatic arc, and yeah some may find that heavy handed.  The effect though is that the games are exciting and remembered fondly, so no one seems to mind.

Quote from: James McMurrayI would assume things to heighten the suspence: noises from afar, glimpses of something out of the corner of your eye, etc. Otherwise it's just boring "nope, nothing there" which can easily occur when everything is mapped out in advance.

So I guess what's important is that something does happen there that heightens suspense or builds mood, at least, so that the time spent searching the north wing is not  a wild goose chase and time wasted because that would have the opposite effect.

That's definitely important. If "pacing" means "saying 'thatere's nothing there' for two hours" the GM needs to be usurped. :)

Quote from: James McMurrayThat's definitely important. If "pacing" means "saying 'there's nothing there' for two hours" the GM needs to be usurped. :)

Or to be forced to play in his own game and see how long it takes before he starts wondering how many nails he could drive into his dick before passing out.