Over on the other thread, you commented:

I did indeed comment on the other side of the argument over on RPG.net. Im not so much guarding a personal preference as probing for why others hold to theirs. That may not come across at times, and perhaps in the middle of a discussion I may find myself defending a particular outlook but its not typically the purpose of such thread posed like this one.

falling in love with the miller's daughter and deciding to abandon the trip to the fortress in favor of staying with her.

I realize you were using a funny example but that in itself is one of the reasons a more scripted adventure approach is sometimes preferred. Players sometimes are distracted by unintentional details dropped by the GM and can completely run off course. Personally I would be pretty disappointed if the big cool quest to save the castle fell apart because the Cleric fell in love with the buxom miller's daughter. That was not the game we came to play. Im not saying there isn't a place for a completely sandbox, go where you want, kind of game -  only that everyone would have to be aware and approve. It would definitely be a deviation from the norm in my group.

No matter where the PCs go, that's where the ford will be

I don't particularly like this approach either, although in some situations I have used it when circumstances warranted. A critical encounter for example, like meeting an important NPC or finding a special item, and the risk of the players simply overlooking or going the wrong way compel me to make sure it occurs in any number of settings. Ive heard many GMs on RPG.net claim the same, moving a band of pirates for example to the desert as a band of nomads when the players decide not to take the boat. I don't have a problem with it actually, only that rarely is an encounter so important as to make it necessary.

I've been trying to get through to him ever since his first thread of RPGnet.

And I appreciate your input but you, and a few others, cant seem to help describing your style of GMing from a perceived superiority, which it clearly is not. Every published adventure I have read in 35 years of gaming essentially ignores many of  the arguments you list as critical to a successful game. Im not arguing that some players, perhaps most players crave that player fiat that seems so integral to some GM approaches, but some don't and place their priorities elsewhere.

People (I've seen this from both players and GMs) may feel that it makes the game world feel more "real" when new elements are added by an impartial, objective source instead of a person sitting at the table making it up based on their momentary whim.

And other people, myself included, feel it makes the game feel more "real" when new elements are placed by a dedicated and imaginative author/creator with a mind towards the entirety of the setting and an imagined, if not yet published, knowledge of what is there. I would prefer he have the time to think things through, compare notes, do a little research and create the world before I wander into it but if given the choice, personally Ill take his educated whim over a die roll that throws a village in front of me, when there could have just as easily been a ruin, a fort, a city or a cave.

Oops, double post, sorry

Quote from: rgrove0172;912688Why is it so many frown on option A when the results are identical?

I've never seen anyone frown on option A. In literally 25+ years of online and real-world discussion I have never seen that.

Quote from: Omega;912690The problem comes from when a DM rolls and then just makes something up anyhow because he never intended to use the roll.

Personally, I do draw a distinction between mechanical resolution and procedural content generators. For example, I roll on stocking tables for a hexmap to get inspiration. If I'm not inspired by the result, I don't feel bound by it. This is very different than fudging an action check in order to enforce a preconceived outcome (and thus negating the player's contribution to the session).

How did the players get to that river?  Random travel?  If you randomly come to a river walking through the wilderness, there's a pretty small chance it's fordable right there unless it's a very small river.  If they were walking along a path, then paths indicate use, and not many people are going to use a path going to an unfordable area of the river unless there was a ferry.  How you determine the fordability doesn't really matter as long as it works for the table.

However, the idea that the river doesn't matter, because the Evil Castle is the point of "this Quest" means the players are playing in your story, you've made the decision as to what's dramatically important for the players, and you're steering them towards that goal because for them to be distracted means to lose the opportunity of following along your cool story.

That's the danger of high prep.  You put so much work into determing everything that could happen, and the likelihood of what might happen, that you begin to plan what should happen.  It's going beyond worldbuilding to storytelling.

I probably do too much prep myself and have fallen into this trap.  I've come to the personal decision that it's more fun to see what path the characters take than it is to see if they succeed at finishing the path I place them on.  

When I ran The Enemy Within Campaign it got gloriously derailed in Epic fashion, and the Empire was torn apart by civil war, eventually to be saved, but nothing past Death on the Reik was even close to the storyline.  It was really my Baptism of Fire into both improvisational GMing and playing the world in reaction to the characters, not just authoring a world for the characters to react to.

At this point, my players know the future is never set.  They can fuck things up big time.  They might not be the only ones who can save the world, but they might be the right ones in the right place at the right time, and if things go south, events may take a turn for the worse.  They are people who can change things, people of consequence, but not literal literary protagonists.

Also remember if the PCs never made it to that Evil Castle, there's nothing to say that a different Evil Castle they visit two years later won't be somewhat similar.  Schrodinger's Ogre is lame, moving unused content around to save yourself preptime is just good for your sanity.  It's all about the intent.  I try to stay true to the setting and leave things where they belong to be discovered later...or not.  

Of course all this works for me and mine, YMMV.  Although I do abide by the old saying "You don't know what you don't know" and would suggest trying other methods.  Your favorite food is only your current favorite food, to be possibly replaced...unless you never try anything else.

Hey, please don't misunderstand. There is always a necessity for a little improve in even the most well laid out games. As we all know the most elegant of plans falls to pieces within 5 minutes of play. Create a cool tavern and the players will pick another to visit. Prepare an atmospheric scene at the North Gate and the will take the south etc. You have to be ready to improvise, move the details around a bit - and I totally get those of you that shy from doing so if it in some way affects the player's choice or free will. Moving the Northgate encounter is probably fine if its just a random encounter as they enter the city but if they purposely are trying to avoid something like the encounter, moving it in front of them is kind of shitty. Yep, got it.

But back to topic, I still have a hard time imagining running an entire session, including the creating of the setting, without some prep. Ive heard many GMs brag how they went to Con and ran a 4 hour D&D adventure with nothing but what they came up with in their head while in the car. This sort of claim just blows me away. Not that I cant come up with interesting and imaginative stuff on the fly, we all can, but to remain consistent in its presentation and not fall into the very trap some of you are warning about (creating detail simply to further the plot) would seem to be difficult.

In our current game a relatively short carriage trip out of New Orleans ended up in a mishap on a lonely stretch of bayou road during a storm. I had nothing but coons and gators in that area but decided on a whim to introduce a crazy old swamp hermit and his rickety old shack - a fun little encounter that really captured the atmosphere of the locale. I got to relate a spooky ghost story too which I brought back into play a couple of sessions later. This is all well and good and any GM worth his salt probably does it all the time. BUT....

If suddenly the party were to, mid session, tell me they decided to take the next ship to Charleston S.C., the session would probably be ending relatively quickly. I might generate the ship and get them started but no way Im going to improvise the trip out of the Gulf, possible landings along the way at various ports, random encounters like Federals looking for smugglers, pirates or what have you.. and much less Charleston it self, an entirely new massive setting for the game?

We are talking about a historical place here, not some fantasy locale... Some research would be necessary, maps pulled up, locations detailed, NPCs, plot hooks and so on. Probably a couple weeks or a month of work before we were able to continue. I consider that necessary, especially in a historical game.. but you may differ.

Just how would you improv Charleston S.C 1876 if you don't live there already or aren't a history major?

Quote from: Justin Alexander;912773Personally, I do draw a distinction between mechanical resolution and procedural content generators. For example, I roll on stocking tables for a hexmap to get inspiration. If I'm not inspired by the result, I don't feel bound by it. This is very different than fudging an action check in order to enforce a preconceived outcome (and thus negating the player's contribution to the session).

Exactly. I roll on the table with intent to use that roll somehow. Either to straight up get the encounter, or get an idea from something better suited near the rolls locale. As opposed to before rolling deciding orcs were going to attack the party and really just rolling to pretend it was all random.

Usually I look at the locale or whats been established before to help determine if a roll is used or not. Like its been established that this dungeon is an extensive orc lair. So for whatever reason I rolled an encounter and got... skeletons. From there I can either use the skeletons and build on that. The orcs have a witch doctor whos creating them, or the orcs opened a tomb, or maybee the skeletons are all er, dead... A mystery. Or I can glance at whats near the skeleton entry and use that if it fits better. Trogs? nah, Rats? hmm, that works, Go!

Quote from: rgrove0172;912792But back to topic, I still have a hard time imagining running an entire session, including the creating of the setting, without some prep. Ive heard many GMs brag how they went to Con and ran a 4 hour D&D adventure with nothing but what they came up with in their head while in the car. This sort of claim just blows me away. Not that I cant come up with interesting and imaginative stuff on the fly, we all can, but to remain consistent in its presentation and not fall into the very trap some of you are warning about (creating detail simply to further the plot) would seem to be difficult.

If suddenly the party were to, mid session, tell me they decided to take the next ship to Charleston S.C., the session would probably be ending relatively quickly. I might generate the ship and get them started but no way Im going to improvise the trip out of the Gulf, possible landings along the way at various ports, random encounters like Federals looking for smugglers, pirates or what have you.. and much less Charleston it self, an entirely new massive setting for the game?

We are talking about a historical place here, not some fantasy locale... Some research would be necessary, maps pulled up, locations detailed, NPCs, plot hooks and so on. Probably a couple weeks or a month of work before we were able to continue. I consider that necessary, especially in a historical game.. but you may differ.

Just how would you improve Charleston S.C 1876 if you don't live there already or aren't a history major?

1: Been there. Done that. Lots.

I wouldnt call it something to brag about though. Staying consistent is easy. Not going overboard is for some is very not easy. Again the key is to focus on whats relevant. Do you really need to be pondering if the thieves guild a city over is selling a magic +1 dagger today. If the PCs arent there now or going to be somehow made aware its there?

2: Why would you bog things down with every little port and wayside? What is the point of such minutia? Focus on A: finding a ship and acquiring a cabin on it. B: maybee a check for bad weather or a search, maybee not. C: the arrival.

quick example: In BX D&D the group travels from the 5 Shires to Wereskalot. Following the roads Im checking only once a day of travel and that is a 16% chance of something. Not necessarily hostile. In 6 days t ravel I got just one encounter. encounter roll was some Fire Salamanders. Reaction roll and... They just wave at the party and slither on their way.

3: Why would you need to research or get maps? Odds are the players know about as much about the locale as you do. Just describe it as any other town of the era instead of bogging down in the minutia. You can embellish later after some research. But in general its probably going to be lost on the party.

Quote from: rgrove0172;912688The GM creates the world after all.... It's his world isn't it?

I think that is the distinction being made. Some DMs allow the players to shape and make the world with their decisions.  Therefore, it is their world. I've done it both ways.

I have binders in my closet of game worlds I have made, of adventures written and that went undiscovered because the players just went a completely different direction, pulling at a thread I didn't even realize was loose. I've also written "adventure paths" that presented the illusion of choice, but railroaded the players into a story of my creation. Is one better than the other? I suppose it depends upon what your players are seeking. I've had some tell me flat out they just wanted to get to the next adventure. I've had some that let me know beyond a shadow of a doubt they want an open campaign world. Both versions can test your skills as a DM.

Having played in both, and having enjoyed both styles of campaign, I come down firmly in the camp of allowing the players to choose. I can honestly say the worst campaign I ever played in was one in which the characters had no affect whatsoever on the DMs pet meta-plot. That was the most hopeless, dreary, and pointless game ever. Seriously, Saturdays became a drudgery and something I no longer looked forward to. My wife and I both stopped playing for a while when that group disbanded.

As opposed to before rolling deciding orcs were going to attack the party and really just rolling to pretend it was all random.[/B]
Funny, I still detect a sneer when this tactic is used. I cannot believe Im the only GM in the world that has presented a planned plot element with the illusion of randomness.

PC is watching to see  if there is a lookout present. I know there is one but roll the dice to make it look as though there may not be. "Oops, yeah, looks like they have a guard posted." The perception of randomness adds something to the drama, like the guard's presence was a matter of bad luck than a plotting GM. That's the whole point. I mean, lets get real, the entire world is controlled by the GM, a little illusion of randomness lends in the portrayal of the place as a real functioning world. It doesn't detract from the player's enjoyment as long as it is handled right, in fact it adds to it.

Consider the PC group has just narrowly survived a major encounter and are headed for home, wounded and exhausted. The area they are in calls for a possible random encounter which results in a very nasty attack. As GM I decide to let it slide, the group was truly heroic, Im not going to let this bit of bad luck ravage them, but I like the bit of drama the threat presents. So I present the monsters but have them automatically fail to notice the hiding characters, rolling the dice for dramatic tension.  A Crime?

Why would you bog things down with every little port and wayside? What is the point of such minutia? Focus on A: finding a ship and acquiring a cabin on it. B: maybee a check for bad weather or a search, maybee not. C: the arrival.

 quick example: In BX D&D the group travels from the 5 Shires to Wereskalot. Following the roads Im checking only once a day of travel and that is a 16% chance of something. Not necessarily hostile. In 6 days t ravel I got just one encounter. encounter roll was some Fire Salamanders. Reaction roll and... They just wave at the party and slither on their way.

Hmm, perhaps we have hit on something very important here in our obvious disagreement. It appears from your statement above that we play a very different game. I get the feeling from your post that a ship passage from New Orleans to Charleston would be narrated in perhaps a sentence or two, barring any random encounters. The trip from the 5 Shires to Wereskalot, 6 days of travel, was handled in about 30 seconds even with the inclusion of a near encounter with the Salamanders.

Either of these trips would have taken our group an hour or perhaps longer to play through, and that's without any major encounters as you indicated. I state the following with no intent to criticize anyone else's style of play or shamelessly brag about my own but only to highlight a critical difference.

Whereas one GM might narrate the trip to Charleston this way...
"Your trip down river, through the Gulf and up the southeastern coast is generally uneventful. A few short stops for passengers and freight and a bit of squall running south of the Keys fail to break up the monotony of shipboard travel and you find you are thrilled to see your destination at last on the horizon."

Nothing wrong with that I suppose. In our game it would sound a bit different.

"You leave the docks at New Orleans and begin the tedious and slow winding course south towards the Gulf. The Mississippi is an unforgiving mistress and the pilot keeps the ship slow and steady, watching for warnings of sandbar shifts which rarely make even the most updated charts. You pass Woodville, St. Claire and then Bellaire but stop for a small but noisy load of pigs at Poverty Point. The trade agent assures you the stinking beasts will be off loaded to the men at Ft. Jackson, only a few hours ahead for which you and the other passengers are decidedly grateful. As morning passes to midday you come upon a elderly Frenchman, a businessman it would seem by his worn suit, sitting alone at the stern. He watches you from the corner of his eye whenever you come near but makes no gesture of greeting. Do you want to introduce yourself?"

What I am eluding to here is that we enjoy experiencing the period, the setting, the world. Rushing past the seemingly 'uninteresting' is something we may occasionally have to do but prefer not to. Even a dull trip around the Florida peninsula can be made interesting, encounters with fellow passengers, sights seen from the gunwale or short stays at any number of little ports along the way. These may have nothing to do with the main plot of the game, or perhaps they can made to link up somehow. That is up to me, the GM. I can choose to allow any number of these to provide distractions and perhaps detour the group's plan or I can maintain them as 'local color' only, serving to lend a little flare to an otherwise dull point in the game without derailing the direction the story is going. The GM has that control and a trusting player group benefits from it.

Why would you need to research or get maps? Odds are the players know about as much about the locale as you do.

I find that pretty narrow minded. Isnt it the responsibility of the GM to know his world? He knows the cultural practices of his Elves. He knows the military hierarchy of his Orcs. He knows where the border of Fermeldian intersects with the Black Valley Clans... why would he not know the actual layout and something of the nature of Charleston? Its the same thing.. a bit more difficult to come by admittedly but no less important to the integrity of the setting.

Having played in both, and having enjoyed both styles of campaign, I come down firmly in the camp of allowing the players to choose

I have played in both as well and have come to the opposite preference. In the 'Off the Cuff" games that I have participated in or generally watched (Admittedly I haven't actually played as a player in many) the freedom of choice, the sandbox approach, comes with a price. Quality of setting. NOW Your game might be different, I wouldn't know and wouldn't pretend to critique what I know nothing about but..in the games I witnessed the 'made up on the spot' worlds were somewhat vanilla, easily anticipated and bland. The elements of the setting tended towards the conventional, at times bordering on common place. Fat tavern keepers in filthy aprons drying mugs while their hot daughter watches from the kitchen door. You know what I mean? These stereotypes, and a million others like them after decades of gaming and popular related fiction, are hard to avoid.. hard even when sitting down to ponder them, more difficult when forced to pull them up in an instant.

Yes, Im sure some of you don't have the problem, that's awesome, really! I have seen many that do though and generally they are good GMs with active imaginations and a wealth of good ideas that only needed some time to put down properly. Creating original settings, interesting and individual NPCs, interwoven plot lines and the like, all at a moment's whim is a tough job. Try it in an established setting, one where you intend to uphold its integrity, and it becomes almost impossible.

How many of us could run a short 5 or 6 session campaign in the are of Bree, MiddleEarth - right now, no prep? Answer? All of us... now how many could do so and and keep a knowledgeable and passionate Tolkien fan happy? Introducing new story and setting elements in a way that don't conflict but rather blend seamlessly with the original work? Given some time and a little refresher reading and again I think we all could but right now?

I think the issue is actually in the expectation of the player rather than the approach of the GM. My players would balk if I were to blur a trip or the description of a setting. (Charleston spreads before you, another aging coastal city only now crawling its way out of the pastoral pre-Civil War years and towards the industrial revolution.) where as perhaps your group would be bored stiff by my elaborate handling of the same.

Oh, I see what I did there. I made that a rather ambiguous statement. When I said I come down firmly on the side of letting the players choose, I meant I let them decide which of the two options they want: either a DM-driven campaign, or a PC-driven campaign. Some people prefer one or the other, and I can enjoy DMing either way, so I let the players tell me what they expect as far as the campaign story. Sorry I wasn't more clear there!

Quote from: rgrove0172;912792But back to topic, I still have a hard time imagining running an entire session, including the creating of the setting, without some prep. Ive heard many GMs brag how they went to Con and ran a 4 hour D&D adventure with nothing but what they came up with in their head while in the car. This sort of claim just blows me away. Not that I cant come up with interesting and imaginative stuff on the fly, we all can, but to remain consistent in its presentation and not fall into the very trap some of you are warning about (creating detail simply to further the plot) would seem to be difficult.

Not that hard. "Prep", you have to keep in mind, does not necessarily mean "everything's written, math has been double-checked, all plot holes have been plugged, all descriptions fully realized, all details are original."

Start with a narrow example. Players say, "Let's find a tavern," and they are in an area that hasn't been detailed. No problem for most GMs, because they've probably drawn maps of taverns before (fantasy or historic setting, doesn't really matter.) Or used such maps, drawn by other people. Or have been in an actual tavern, bar, or pub and can just change the modern details to match the setting. Players say, "Let's sneak into the kitchen. What do we find?" Kitchen stuff, obviously. Even though you might not have written what's in that kitchen, because the kitchen didn't even exist until you improvised the tavern a few minutes ago, you have a good idea what would be in a kitchen, so you could just tell the players, and if they say they look for a skillet or a large pot, you would realize that's reasonable and just tell them they'd found it.

Now broaden the example to a town. You've done towns before. You've been to real towns. You can base any on-the-fly town off those, with a few tweaks to make them stand out. Even if you don't have a written example, your memory of other towns, real or imagined, is your prep.

And the same goes for a larger territory or even a world. Pretty much any GM or game designer creating a fully-detailed setting starts with examples, anyway. "This setting is a fictionalized Victorian London with Aztec architecture." Even if you've never been to London or done historical research, you've probably read Sherlock Holmes and seen a couple period movies, and you've probably seen National Geographic drawings of Aztec architecture, or seen Apocalypto. As long as none of the players are expecting extreme accuracy, you can improvise an entire setting from that, drawing social behavior and most technology from shows like Penny Dreadful, but describing buildings as pyramids intermixed with terraced brick buildings. Floor plans are adaptations of actual buildings you've been in, regardless of whether they are actually from either period.

You start with broad, sketchy ideas for your world, name your main country and a couple enemies and allies, add sketchy details for each of these, then zoom in to smaller and smaller areas, basically just adding two or three statements at each level, like "Fascist clerics run this town and have outlawed magic". You use those statements to improvise details when needed, and write them down as you play. Writing it down after you use it means you can maintain consistency.

Quote from: rgrove0172;912792Just how would you improv Charleston S.C 1876 if you don't live there already or aren't a history major?

Depends on what your group is expecting, what you'd be happy with, and how much you already know. Why did you pick the South in 1876 in the first place? Presumably, because it intrigued you. You must have seen something from the period, some typically buildings. Maybe you've only done research for New Orleans, but in a pinch, you can adapt that to other cities in the time period. As long as you don't have experts on Charleston in 1876, or as long as everyone understands you're aiming for detail but not necessarily accuracy, you can muddle through. And with a cell phone, laptop, or tablet and the internet, you could pull up a generic Gulf Coast map, pick a number out of your ass for how many stops seems reasonable, and have the ship stop in a couple ports. Look at the map to get the names, then Google each city as you reach it to get major landmarks. If the players explore, again, unless someone knows the area and is hardnosed about mistakes, just make up stuff that sounds typical of the period, based on the cities you've already detailed.

Maybe this won't fly with your group. But that's another point: you are thinking it's impossible for some guy to make up a setting in his head during a trip to a pick-up game with random people at a con because you could never do that with your own established group that expects a lot of historical accuracy. It's two different extremes.

Quote from: rgrove0172;912821As opposed to before rolling deciding orcs were going to attack the party and really just rolling to pretend it was all random.[/B]
Funny, I still detect a sneer when this tactic is used. I cannot believe Im the only GM in the world that has presented a planned plot element with the illusion of randomness.

You arent. As noted theres a whole thread on it over on BGG/RPGG.

QuoteHmm, perhaps we have hit on something very important here in our obvious disagreement. It appears from your statement above that we play a very different game. I get the feeling from your post that a ship passage from New Orleans to Charleston would be narrated in perhaps a sentence or two, barring any random encounters. The trip from the 5 Shires to Wereskalot, 6 days of travel, was handled in about 30 seconds even with the inclusion of a near encounter with the Salamanders.

Either of these trips would have taken our group an hour or perhaps longer to play through, and that's without any major encounters as you indicated. I state the following with no intent to criticize anyone else's style of play or shamelessly brag about my own but only to highlight a critical difference.

Whereas one GM might narrate the trip to Charleston this way...
"Your trip down river, through the Gulf and up the southeastern coast is generally uneventful. A few short stops for passengers and freight and a bit of squall running south of the Keys fail to break up the monotony of shipboard travel and you find you are thrilled to see your destination at last on the horizon."

Nothing wrong with that I suppose. In our game it would sound a bit different.

"You leave the docks at New Orleans and begin the tedious and slow winding course south towards the Gulf. The Mississippi is an unforgiving mistress and the pilot keeps the ship slow and steady, watching for warnings of sandbar shifts which rarely make even the most updated charts. You pass Woodville, St. Claire and then Bellaire but stop for a small but noisy load of pigs at Poverty Point. The trade agent assures you the stinking beasts will be off loaded to the men at Ft. Jackson, only a few hours ahead for which you and the other passengers are decidedly grateful. As morning passes to midday you come upon a elderly Frenchman, a businessman it would seem by his worn suit, sitting alone at the stern. He watches you from the corner of his eye whenever you come near but makes no gesture of greeting. Do you want to introduce yourself?"

What I am eluding to here is that we enjoy experiencing the period, the setting, the world.

Funny, I still detect a sneer when this tactic is used.
You guessed wrongly. I tend to describe the locales passed through if the players actually have their characters stop and look around. Or they are entering a region for the first time. Depending on how attentive or not the players are. Or how impatient they are to get from point A to point B. I dislike impatient players.

The whole trek from Five Shires to the destination took about half an hour as the players would set camp carefully each night. Whos on watch, when, etc. Once youve described one section of road and hill tends to look alot like the next section of road and hill. Till you get to the road and plains. Wheras a run by boat downriver to Specularum went along pretty quick after introductions and setting things up. It was uneventfull and not much to describe on the way. Arrival was a very different matter and it took a whole session just to get through the great city.

QuoteI find that pretty narrow minded. Isnt it the responsibility of the GM to know his world? He knows the cultural practices of his Elves. He knows the military hierarchy of his Orcs. He knows where the border of Fermeldian intersects with the Black Valley Clans... why would he not know the actual layout and something of the nature of Charleston? Its the same thing.. a bit more difficult to come by admittedly but no less important to the integrity of the setting.

And again thats bogging down in things that often arent needed of detailing untill the subject comes up. If the PCs are passing through the elven town on their way to beating up orcs elsewhere. Very little of the above might come into use. If any. More important to the moment would be the NPCs the party is interacting with. Their manner of dress, speech, and so on. If the players want to stop and delve into the local elven culture THEN worry about fleshing things out more.

Quote from: rgrove0172;912821As opposed to before rolling deciding orcs were going to attack the party and really just rolling to pretend it was all random.[/B]
Funny, I still detect a sneer when this tactic is used. I cannot believe Im the only GM in the world that has presented a planned plot element with the illusion of randomness.

PC is watching to see  if there is a lookout present. I know there is one but roll the dice to make it look as though there may not be. "Oops, yeah, looks like they have a guard posted." The perception of randomness adds something to the drama, like the guard's presence was a matter of bad luck than a plotting GM. That's the whole point. I mean, lets get real, the entire world is controlled by the GM, a little illusion of randomness lends in the portrayal of the place as a real functioning world. It doesn't detract from the player's enjoyment as long as it is handled right, in fact it adds to it.

Consider the PC group has just narrowly survived a major encounter and are headed for home, wounded and exhausted. The area they are in calls for a possible random encounter which results in a very nasty attack. As GM I decide to let it slide, the group was truly heroic, Im not going to let this bit of bad luck ravage them, but I like the bit of drama the threat presents. So I present the monsters but have them automatically fail to notice the hiding characters, rolling the dice for dramatic tension.  A Crime?

There's a difference between an Illusion of Randomness and an Illusion of Choice.  Any time the characters are making an opposed check, the capacity exists for the GM to fudge the result.  How do the players know what the NPC needed?  Most of the time they don't.  Some GMs play it straight always, some run on pure decision and the die roll is meaningless.  Everyone else is in the middle.  Illusion of Randomness (fudging) lets you ease off or drop the hammer and blame the dice.  

But, if you never intend for them to run into The Dragon of the Dales while roaming the Dales, why is it on your encounter chart?  Why is the notion of posting guards the sign of a "Cruel DM"?

Once you put yourself in the role of controlling pacing for the sake of what is dramatic, interesting, etc. to you then you're getting into the other kind of illusion - the Illusion of Choice (Schrodinger's etc).   Why did the PCs decide to head home wounded and exhausted without preparing themselves for the return journey.  Why not hole up?  Were they aware of the Big Nasty in the area?  If not, is that your fault, for not including some natural way for them to know, or their fault for not finding it out?

You removing the encounter nullified the consequences of their choice (in modern theory parlance, robbed them of their Agency).  Again, a reminder to the players ("You guys are not in too good a shape, are you sure you're in the condition to travel?) is almost always better than being the Invisible Hand fixing things for the characters. IMO, YMMV, etc.

BTW, as far as prep goes, I'm a prep whore and proud of it.  I can freestyle, but I'm much better when there's existing knowledge.  Just how my mind works.  I make a town or completely internalize one already outlined and blueprinted, like Hommlet, then I could riff new stuff for a whole weekend.  Give me a brand new town, it's much, much harder.  Not that I couldn't come up with something that would probably be sufficient if the players didn't get too crazy, but not up to the standards I set for myself as GM.

Also, my gut tells me a prepless campaign isn't going to be as good as a prepped one, but I've seen people pull some stunning sessions completely out of their colon.  Whether they can do that for 3 years of regular campaigning without the seams beginning to show is something else.  But I figure I'm kind of biased that way, so I'm willing to accept people's claims and not die on that hill.

Quote from: Harlock;912823Oh, I see what I did there. I made that a rather ambiguous statement. When I said I come down firmly on the side of letting the players choose, I meant I let them decide which of the two options they want: either a DM-driven campaign, or a PC-driven campaign. Some people prefer one or the other, and I can enjoy DMing either way, so I let the players tell me what they expect as far as the campaign story. Sorry I wasn't more clear there!

Oh, apologies, I completely misunderstood..and I applaud you on being open to both, based on the preference of your players. If I were given a firm request to alter my own approach by those I play with, I would certainly consider doing so.

Quote from: talysman;912828Not that hard. "Prep", you have to keep in mind, does not necessarily mean "everything's written, math has been double-checked, all plot holes have been plugged, all descriptions fully realized, all details are original."

Start with a narrow example. Players say, "Let's find a tavern," and they are in an area that hasn't been detailed. No problem for most GMs, because they've probably drawn maps of taverns before (fantasy or historic setting, doesn't really matter.) Or used such maps, drawn by other people. Or have been in an actual tavern, bar, or pub and can just change the modern details to match the setting. Players say, "Let's sneak into the kitchen. What do we find?" Kitchen stuff, obviously. Even though you might not have written what's in that kitchen, because the kitchen didn't even exist until you improvised the tavern a few minutes ago, you have a good idea what would be in a kitchen, so you could just tell the players, and if they say they look for a skillet or a large pot, you would realize that's reasonable and just tell them they'd found it.

Now broaden the example to a town. You've done towns before. You've been to real towns. You can base any on-the-fly town off those, with a few tweaks to make them stand out. Even if you don't have a written example, your memory of other towns, real or imagined, is your prep.

And the same goes for a larger territory or even a world. Pretty much any GM or game designer creating a fully-detailed setting starts with examples, anyway. "This setting is a fictionalized Victorian London with Aztec architecture." Even if you've never been to London or done historical research, you've probably read Sherlock Holmes and seen a couple period movies, and you've probably seen National Geographic drawings of Aztec architecture, or seen Apocalypto. As long as none of the players are expecting extreme accuracy, you can improvise an entire setting from that, drawing social behavior and most technology from shows like Penny Dreadful, but describing buildings as pyramids intermixed with terraced brick buildings. Floor plans are adaptations of actual buildings you've been in, regardless of whether they are actually from either period.

You start with broad, sketchy ideas for your world, name your main country and a couple enemies and allies, add sketchy details for each of these, then zoom in to smaller and smaller areas, basically just adding two or three statements at each level, like "Fascist clerics run this town and have outlawed magic". You use those statements to improvise details when needed, and write them down as you play. Writing it down after you use it means you can maintain consistency.



Depends on what your group is expecting, what you'd be happy with, and how much you already know. Why did you pick the South in 1876 in the first place? Presumably, because it intrigued you. You must have seen something from the period, some typically buildings. Maybe you've only done research for New Orleans, but in a pinch, you can adapt that to other cities in the time period. As long as you don't have experts on Charleston in 1876, or as long as everyone understands you're aiming for detail but not necessarily accuracy, you can muddle through. And with a cell phone, laptop, or tablet and the internet, you could pull up a generic Gulf Coast map, pick a number out of your ass for how many stops seems reasonable, and have the ship stop in a couple ports. Look at the map to get the names, then Google each city as you reach it to get major landmarks. If the players explore, again, unless someone knows the area and is hardnosed about mistakes, just make up stuff that sounds typical of the period, based on the cities you've already detailed.

Maybe this won't fly with your group. But that's another point: you are thinking it's impossible for some guy to make up a setting in his head during a trip to a pick-up game with random people at a con because you could never do that with your own established group that expects a lot of historical accuracy. It's two different extremes.

Im am sorry, I respect that you can play this way, I truly do but the very thought makes me cringe. I would be terrified to sit down at the gaming table with this as my GM plan. And your right, its because of the expectation of my players. They are not conventional roleplayers, having no experience in the hobby at all outside their relationship with me, and aren't interested in seeking any. These are avid readers and movie watchers only that carry an expectation that this odd 'game' we are playing will present something along those lines. Its a peculiar dynamic for a gaming group but its the only one I have had for some time.

I have sounded off on some of this 'gaming theory' business with a couple of them once or twice and gotten only confused and annoyed expressions in return. Laugh

Oh and as to why I chose to run a game in that era and that beginning location ... the lead player (My wife) read a few of Anne Rice's books and then accompanied me on vacation in the crescent city. Together with a years worth of related reading and TV specials on hauntings in the south she became enamored with the idea and encouraged me to run a period/gothic/horror/romance type of game. (Yeah, you should have seen my face) Ive wanted her to try a game for years and this was the first time she was interested. I had been without local players for more than a year (Group broke up after two key members passed away) and seized the chance to at least be gaming again, even if it was a little outside my GM box. We found another player in a family member and have been going strong for several months now.