Here's a point of view on the stuff that we all do.  Not a new thing to do in gaming, but maybe a new way of thinking about the old things to do.

Okay, so the GM does lots of things.  He administers the rules, and he may well maintain social order at the table, distribute spotlight time, play the NPCs, etc., etc., etc.

I'm not going to talk about all those things, because ... damn! ... that'd be a lot.  I'm going to pull out one specific thing for the thread:  Creating and applying situation and adversity.

Y'know ... like taking out your graph paper, creating a dungeon, populating it with monsters and then using those monsters and traps and all to give the PCs a hard time.  Situation and adversity.

If you look at a completed story then you can tell, with hindsight, that some elements of adversity were critical for that story to be told.  If you want to tell the story of a young man answering the call of rebellion and finding within himself the strength to strike a blow for freedom (like Star Wars) then you must have an oppressive authority (like the Empire) and its seemingly unstoppable agents (like Vader).  Those things are ingredients which allow that story to be told.  You could tell other stories with the Empire and Vader, but you could not tell this story without them.

By contrast, some things are fun but not essential to the core story.  Could you tell the same fundamental story without the Jawas?  The garbage-compacter?  Yeah, probably.  Swapping those elements for something else (or leaving them out entirely) would not stop you from telling the Strike-for-freedom story.

   Side-note:  The whole idea of a "core story" is reductive ... it is something that an observer does to a story in order to simplify it in their mind.  Other people may simplify differently ... so to some people, the core story may be one that could have been told without Vader and the Empire, but absolutely requires the Jawas ... I recognize this is true in theory, but I'm not sure how important I see it as being in practice.

The GM cannot effectively choose the story that the players will make out of the adversity he offers.  He is like a sous-chef ... he can provide freshly chopped, beautifully prepared ingredients ... but he doesn't get to tell the chef what meal to prepare with them.

Adversity as "ingredients" and the overall story that emerges as the "recipe" that is made from those ingredients.  A wonky metaphor, but what the heck.

Some GMs try to apply too much (to my mind) pressure in their selection of ingredients ... they try to apply so much constraint that they dictate the entire recipe/story.  Usually they do this by presenting adversity in small chunks, and refusing to provide anything more until the right "recipe" is followed.  Personally, I really don't like the feel that emerges from such a game ... that pre-scripted, railroaded sense that your job is to figure out the response the GM expects and to provide it.

By contrast, some GMs (and this is the problem I personally fall into most often) try to give such a selection of possible adversity that they apply no constraints ... they give their chef every ingredient under the sun, prepared every conceivable way, all at once.  In terms of being helpful (either to the chef or the players) this is worse than useless.  Who can decide what to do when befuddled with so many options?

The GMs I've seen who are really on the ball (and in whose ranks I occasionally count myself) tread the middle ground:  They deliberately provide types of adversity that make sense for many, but nowhere near all, stories.  They apply enough constraint to get players moving and inspired, but not so much constraint that it stifles their creativity.

Metaphorically:  You get a grill nice and hot, and you lay out ground beef, some marinaded chicken, buns, crisp lettuce, sliced tomatoes, some steak sauce, pickles, onions, etc., etc.

You know and whoever comes to use your grill knows that they're going to make some sort of burger-ish thing.  That's not at issue.  The question is what kind of burger, and how well will they make it?

Non-Metaphorically:  You get a world described, and you put everyone under the thumb of a crazed, oppressive militarist empire.  You add some disorganized rebels looking for leadership and inspiration, maybe an external force applying pressure so that the empire's lackeys have other things to worry about, some sinister agents, some oppressed and sympathetic victims, etc, etc.

You know and whoever comes to your game knows that they're going to make some sort of revolution/change-of-government story.  That's not an issue.  The question is what kind of revolution, how will they change this intolerable situation, what will they fight for and how much ass will they kick?


That's increasingly how I see this aspect of GMing.  Seeing it that way I am a little surprised at how little explicit advice there is about what sort of ingredients make for good sets.  What kind of different adversities go well together in order to give players a wide (but not too wide!) choice of stories to create by combining them?

   For instance:  If I have the problems up above ... what does it do to my game if I add in an NPC who is resisting romantic advances from one of the players?  Does that adversity belong?  Does it look completely out of place?  How about if the love interest is a highly ranked lackey of the military?  Does that belong?

Or, conversely ... if I see a class/genre of stories, how do I tease out of it what sets of adversities provide the best ingredients for helping players to make such stories?

   For instance:  I like sports stories ... particularly anime and manga.  I like following a team of people as they face early defeat, learn to work together, overcome their issues with themselves and each other, and (hopefully!) push forward to victory through the power of Teamwork!  What's the right menu of adversity for creating such stories?  A star athlete on the other team, and the relationships he forges with PCs, a bad reputation or other detriment to the team as a whole, internal fractiousness ... I know some of the elements, but how would I make sure I've gotten all of them?  How do I go about making an explicit list such that I could go "Check, check, check, check ... and now I have all the things I need to help my players make such stories"?  How do I make a shopping list?

I tend to do ... y'know ... okay at doing this stuff by feel and intuition.  I expect most people do.  But it's strange that it's such a dark art.  A lot of these things seem pretty formulaic, and I think it would be great if we could tease that formula out into the light, so that we could deal with it explicitly.

Wow, that's a really great summary and approach.  It really resembles what many of us use de facto, but it articulates it clearly rather than leaving it to intuition and subconscious design.  I think I'm going to have to draft a few sets of ingredients that go together.

Interestingly enough, a friend of mine who GM's from time to time is a sous chef.

What if I feel more like a gourmet cook at a mom & pop greasy spoon diner?

 Also sometimes its more like a "potluck" the way some of us game.

 The players bring some of the ingredients or even 50% of it that I have to stir ito the pot and then make it edible for a good game story.  I do prefer it to be edible  - me being an "Ed" and all that.


- Ed C.

It is a wonky metaphor.  Who's the chef, the players? Then you're liable to get five different meals from the same ingrediants. And some of them won't look anything alike...

In my limited experience, players will take that setting with the mad emperor in an oppressive empire and some rebels looking for leadership and

• kill the emperor and take his stuff
• lead the rebellion to overcome the empire
• explore the outer rim, ignoring the empire and the rebellion

So even with the situation defined as you have, I don't think you can default to the idea that you know what kind of game you'll have.  I think it assumes too much about the kinds of players you have at the table.

Now if you're asking, "How do my preparations differ given players of type 1, 2, or 3?" that could be interesting. That is, if you know you have players that will lead the rebellion, how would you prepare those ingrediants differently than if you had players who will try to kill the emperor and take his stuff.

IMHO, it's folly if you're assumption is:

Quote from: TonyLBYou know and whoever comes to your game knows that they're going to make some sort of revolution/change-of-government story. That's not an issue. The question is what kind of revolution, how will they change this intolerable situation, what will they fight for and how much ass will they kick?

Sorry for being negative - I know you prefer the positive.

Damn you, you're making me hungry.

Honestly Tony, I don't know why you're tyring to say. Don't get me wrong, I understand what you have written, I just have a hard time seeing where you're going with this. At times you seem to answer your own questions. There's a familiarity - what GMs have always grappled with - that seems pretty obvious...

GMs tend to want to make the story/game better. Improve their craft so to speak, and this is a good thing, but I do feel that sometimes it's just a matter of trusting what your players find interesting in your games and realizing that at the end of the day what your players find fun is the simple act of rolling dice (or not) and pretending to be somebody else.

Although I like reading stuff that helps me improve my craft, I've always known that GMing is more alchemy than chemistry

Regards,
David R

Quote from: KoltarAlso sometimes its more like a "potluck" the way some of us game.

 The players bring some of the ingredients or even 50% of it that I have to stir ito the pot and then make it edible for a good game story.  I do prefer it to be edible  - me being an "Ed" and all that.

That's true too.  I supply some ingredients, I have a list of additional ones I keep in reserve in case the cooks want to bake dessert, but they throw in a lot of stuff they just got at the market and I never saw coming.