I would say prep what you think is needed to play. When I am running counter terrorism games, I do more prep, because they are usually investigation based, and that requires a lot of consistency and internal logic (you need to know things like what happened, what is going to happen, who saw what, who knows what, etc). I find it very hard to do that on the fly, so I plant as much stuff in advance as possible. I guess that is more of a sandbox structure, is we are sticking with the terms established in the threads. When I run my mafia game, the players are basically ruthless bad guys, so the free form, situational approach with very little prep works nice (I find it also works well for political intrigue).

Quote from: Soylent Green;379806Thanks, that makes sense. I can see how it works. I imagine a minority of players might find the rolling of dice to determine the state of reality a bit anti-imersive, but I'd be fine with it.

They roll dice to see if they hit, and how well they hit. This is really no different. Establish a probablity and roll.

QuoteBut just to expand on the general principle of Situational GMing, not because it needs to be, but just so I understand what fits with within and what doesn't, where are couple more follow up questions if you don't mind.

1) Would you consider letting the players make these rolls if it made them feel more involved in the outcome?

Personally, I do it all the time, if it's something whose effects are immediate. If it's something whose effects won't be known for a while, that would ruin it for them.

Quote2) In Robin's Law of Good Game Mastering (and I don't quote this book as though it were some sort of authority) has a section on improvising. It suggests that the GM when responding to a player has the GM should consider broad options:

What is the most obvious outcome?
What is the most challenging outcome?
What is the most surprising outcome?
What is the most pleasing outcome?

The idea being that alternating between these criteria makes for the most entertaining and unpredictable game experience.

The book even includes a little table so you can roll randomly between these options. How does switching criteria based on a random roll fit with your idea about Situational GMing?

I'm all for tools that break you out of patterns, so if that works for you, cool.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;379832They roll dice to see if they hit, and how well they hit. This is really no different. Establish a probablity and roll.

Ack, no. This is a subtle philosophical point that drives some people up the wall. Personally, it doesn't bother me, but I can understand why it might bother others.

In one case (roll to hit) you're modeling outcomes based on decisions, using a stochastic model. ("I try to hit him!" "Okay, roll to hit.") In the other case, you're modeling something like a Bayesian inference regarding pre-existing reality, based on current knowledge.

Quote from: Benoist;379822It could. I don't think that's an either/or choice, here. You can do both.

Also, as a GM, you can take into account that in reality the most likely thing does not occur all the time.

So in the end it comes down to instinct and gut feeling?

Quote from: flyingmice;379773.... It's an old game style, but not the most popular. A lot of people know nothing about it. Others have been running this way for years and never known there was a name for it.

-clash

I never knew this was a specific style or even had a name.  This is basically the only style I've ever used over all the years.

Quote from: Soylent Green;379765....

Is the roll  and probabilities open/hidden? Is there negotiation with the players? Is it based on the the character's skills or background in anyway or is it just  a flat roll?

In the situation you describe, are there any witnesses, I usea a hidden roll. Or since I use a 2D10 added together the player rolls one and I roll another.  This is to capture the feel of the situation.  I may say there appear to be no clear witnesses at the hospital based on the situation if the roll succeeds.  The thing is the players don't know if there are no witnesses because they isn't any or because no one steps forward, etc.  

The player getting to roll the dice gives is a metagame like way to capture the characters gut feeling that yeah there is no witnesses (they roll bad) or there must be just need to ferret them out (they roll good).  If the PCs have no skill in investigation I may roll both dice secretly.

I'm pretty open about what the chance of success is, often being specific but not always.  If a PCs life is on the line I'm always very clear about it.
Regarding negotiation, I very much like to get player feed back on what they think the odds are and why.  We make use of all our backgrounds in the real world to build a game that makes sense to us.  In the end as GM I decide especially since I have info the players do not.  

In my games a real disconnect between what we think is reasonable and what I ask you to roll is a sign you don't have all the info, not that we are just going along with what the rules say.

That all being said, if at all possible I roll in the open.  That way the palyers know that any success is not from me coddling the dice rolls.

QuoteAre you influenced by other considerations beyond "how likely", as in for instance "the players look bored, maybe we should have some combat"?

Not really, as this doesn't happen much, the boredom thing.  Its more likely we have to force ourselves to stop and get home to bed.

QuoteSorry to be a pest, this isn't a trap it's just something I'm really interested in but I don;t have a firm position or method myself.

I think these are great questions.  It's a style that may not be for everyone and can only speak to how I do it.

Quote from: Xanther;379939I never knew this was a specific style or even had a name.  This is basically the only style I've ever used over all the years.

(This is a copy of a post I made in the other thread last night)

It isn't well defined in anyone's mind. It all came about because of a discussion I had with Marco Chacon almost a decade ago, where he and I realized we  were using the same style of GMing, or at least moderately congruent, and realized there were probably more of us out there. One or the other of us came up with the situational moniker - I think it was me, but it equally could have been Marco - and anything that's been written on the subject is probably by one or the other of us.

It's not a movement, or a defined technique. There is no manifesto, and I doubt there ever will be. It's just a hodgepodge collection of techniques and an underlying philosophy. When I refer to anything resembling a 'standard' process, it's just something I know both of us do. I know a lot of people use these techniques - some have developed them on their own, and some have had them handed down from others, but when I talk about it, a lot of people say "Hey! I do that!" and more and more people call themselves Situational GMs on first meeting, so they heard the name someplace.

So yeah, there's a lot of confusion about it, and no central source to consult. It surely isn't me - I don't do that crap. I answer questions, but I'm not the bible. Eventually someone is bound to do it.

-clash

Quote from: Soylent Green;379806Thanks, that makes sense. I can see how it works. I imagine a minority of players might find the rolling of dice to determine the state of reality a bit anti-imersive, but I'd be fine with it.

I use it judicioously, and it adds surprise for me as well.

QuoteBut just to expand on the general principle of Situational GMing, not because it needs to be, but just so I understand what fits with within and what doesn't, where are couple more follow up questions if you don't mind.

1) Would you consider letting the players make these rolls if it made them feel more involved in the outcome?

Sure why not if they don't gain some clear metagame knowledge advantage.  Even then I'm not too concerned about that, I figure it makes up some for not having all the setting knowledge their characters would have.  It also gets them in tha game and gives me time to eat chips (or crisps).

Quote2) In Robin's Law of Good Game Mastering (and I don't quote this book as though it were some sort of authority) has a section on improvising. It suggests that the GM when responding to a player has the GM should consider broad options:

What is the most obvious outcome?
What is the most challenging outcome?
What is the most surprising outcome?
What is the most pleasing outcome?

The idea being that alternating between these criteria makes for the most entertaining and unpredictable game experience.

The book even includes a little table so you can roll randomly between these options. How does switching criteria based on a random roll fit with your idea about Situational GMing?

Blah I say.  I'd never use or think this at the table.  The obvious outcomes are thought of for me to make a "table" to roll against.  If I really wanted the spectrum I'd have one end where the result is one of the best for the PCs under the circumstances, more likely stuff in the middle, then at the other end situations that are the mosted F'ed up for the PCs.

This is how I make my random encounter charts for example.

No all that being said, I may use that in adventure design goals then work backword to justify it in setting terms.  I always want my adventures to be
challenging, surprising and with the chance of a most pleasing outcome.

Quote from: Benoist;379815Nor should you try, but that's not what I just wrote. I didn't write that the way you prepped the setting ought to answer all your questions for you, but that, at its best, it INFORMS your ADJUDICATION in the game by providing a frame so that you don't make judgment calls in a vacuum. That's the overarching coherence, logic of the thing that matters, not whether your notes spell out the answers for you or not (which I actually would not advocate).

Hope it's clearer.

Exactly.  In a way you have an outline, a reasoning, behind the setting, NPCs, that you can use to fairly and consistently adjudicate how they might respond to the outlandish crap your players pull.

It's actually very fun prepr for me. It's at a high level.

The other prep that I've seen is pre-prepped stat blocks and such for off the cuff encounters.  I use a pretty low load game so I can wing the stat block thing.

Quote from: Soylent Green;379909So in the end it comes down to instinct and gut feeling?

Well for us intitive types it always does in every walk of life.

I'd say it comes down to experience and reasoning.  Based on this you have a good feel for the probabilities.  For example I have a pretty good feel how easy it is to climb a rock wall with little training and experience because I've done it, then went on to get more serious about rock climbing.  

On many things the GM and players can draw on real life experience to inform instinct.

Now on totally made up shit like magic.  It's more art, the picture you want to paint, and expereince and instinct about what rulings can really muck up a game.

Quote from: flyingmice;379941...

It's not a movement, or a defined technique. There is no manifesto, and I doubt there ever will be. It's just a hodgepodge collection of techniques and an underlying philosophy. ...
-clash

Man, I really wanted a movement, an anacronym.  It would just provide much more validation for my thoughts and life.

Quote from: Soylent Green;379909So in the end it comes down to instinct and gut feeling?

And knowledge of your subject matter, and knowledge of your setting, and common sense... OMG! You have to trust your GM knows what he's doing! Scary! :eek:

Quote from: Xanther;379945Exactly.  In a way you have an outline, a reasoning, behind the setting, NPCs, that you can use to fairly and consistently adjudicate how they might respond to the outlandish crap your players pull.

It's actually very fun prepr for me. It's at a high level.

The other prep that I've seen is pre-prepped stat blocks and such for off the cuff encounters.  I use a pretty low load game so I can wing the stat block thing.

Yup me too, depending on the complexity of the game. For In Nomine Satanis/Magna Veritas, for instance, I had stats of Templates I had created for myself for quick reference in game. What the stats of a uniform cop, or firefighter, or annoying secretary, or street doomsayer are, for instance. Or an average Baal Grade 1 Demon. Or an Angel Messenger from Notre Dame fan of Soccer. Whatever. A bunch of characters I could just pick during the game, probably changing one stat here and there on the spot, to vary characters, and so on.

Also, about the logic underlying the setting, it's also very fun to find out for the PCs. It's akin to the challenge of wits during the game between players and PCs EGG is referring to in his method of GMing. The players will have fun finding out how the universe around them works, and you, as a GM, will then have opportunities to surprise the players based on these assumptions. It's part of the game, too.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;379842Ack, no. This is a subtle philosophical point that drives some people up the wall. Personally, it doesn't bother me, but I can understand why it might bother others.

In one case (roll to hit) you're modeling outcomes based on decisions, using a stochastic model. ("I try to hit him!" "Okay, roll to hit.") In the other case, you're modeling something like a Bayesian inference regarding pre-existing reality, based on current knowledge.

I don't even think it is that subtle.  
Nor is this style anything but that, a GM style, something we probably all use to some degree.  We all have to wing it a lot or a little every session.  

But there is a difference in rolling to see the outcome on what the PCs affect on the game world is based on a probability,
versus
rolling to see what exists in the game world for the PC's to affect based on a probability.

The PCs, however, do not know what you are winging or not.  They don't have the script.  Its like they teach acting, if someone fumbles, go with it, the audience does not know the script.
My PC's count on the abilty to come up with the perfect plan, to have their playing affect the outcome as honestly and authentically as possible.  I would guess, in situational gaming (and all gaming, to some degree), this means they are affecting the probabitites with their actions.  In the earlier hospital scenario, this would mean if they came in at night, they would find less onlookers, thus reducing the probability.

Quote from: LordVreeg;379959I don't even think it is that subtle.  
Nor is this style anything but that, a GM style, something we probably all use to some degree.  We all have to wing it a lot or a little every session.  

But there is a difference in rolling to see the outcome on what the PCs affect on the game world is based on a probability,
versus
rolling to see what exists in the game world for the PC's to affect based on a probability.

Right. It was a bad analogy. It's more like the player rolling to see if his PC brought along some esoteric bit of gear or remembered to perform some non-routine action that hadn't been explicitly stated before.

QuoteThe PCs, however, do not know what you are winging or not.  They don't have the script.  Its like they teach acting, if someone fumbles, go with it, the audience does not know the script.
My PC's count on the abilty to come up with the perfect plan, to have their playing affect the outcome as honestly and authentically as possible.  I would guess, in situational gaming (and all gaming, to some degree), this means they are affecting the probabitites with their actions.  In the earlier hospital scenario, this would mean if they came in at night, they would find less onlookers, thus reducing the probability.

Yes, exactly! The player's actions definitely can affect the probabilities.

-clash