Quote from: jibbajibba;479980You got to read the post mate. I said it doesn't work for dungeons.

And you're assuming too much, my friend. I've seen this happen with all sorts of games and settings, most of them not featuring dungeons. The dear friends I was talking about who thought they were Oh-so-smart doing this? That was going on with Vampire the Masquerade.

I notice Schrödinger GMing. And I don't like it.

Quote from: jibbajibba;479980All that Plot or "long-dragging stroytelling" shit that you refer to is in the background.

Not really, no. You seem to be presenting an artificial choice between "storytelling" or "no background at all" which just isn't the case. I have literally hundreds of pages of notes and diagrams and maps from my 20-year-old Paris by Night campaign. I don't run "stories". I have a damn lot of background and the setting very much exists outside the boundaries of the pages and game table, however.

Quote from: Benoist;479981And you're assuming too much, my friend. I've seen this happen with all sorts of games and settings, most of them not featuring dungeons. The dear friends I was talking about who thought they were Oh-so-smart doing this? That was going on with Vampire the Masquerade.

I notice Schrödinger GMing. And I don't like it.

whatever

Is it strange that I've a map in my head of where things occur, and if PC's avoid certain areas they miss it?

  I do have some events that "float" simply due to their nature. A pack of trolls hunting the characters, a bandit camp along the road which has a reasonable chance of striking anywhere along the track between two towns. Those can be anywhere along the paths PC's may take. If they decide to say take the river, it might be missed of course but traveling along certain paths do have things which are likely to happen.

Quote from: Benoist;479743Schrödinger GMing, you mean, where whether you turn left or right you get the encounter with the brigands the GM prepared? I notice.

I think y'all are talking about two slightly different things: Benoist is talking about illusionism (where no matter which box you choose, it has the same shit in it). Jibbajabba is talking about improv design (where the GM doesn't know what's in a box until you choose it because he hasn't made it up yet).

The latter may still tweak Benoist's buttons, but it's a distinct technique and I think the distinction is important. The illusionist is presenting a false choice; the improviser is offering a real choice without fully knowing the outcome themselves.

The place where I, personally, rebel against the improv technique is when it either crosses over into either (a) the world being rewritten or (b) my exploration of that would being functionally meaningless.

A key example is the technique I see bandied around every so often where the GM running a mystery scenario is supposed to listen to the table chatter until the players come up with something "nifty" or "interesting" as a potential solution and then make that the solution.

Speaking as a player: No. Fuck you. I want to actually solve the mystery, not jack off for a few hours.

But it doesn't sound like that's what jibbajabba is doing. It sounds like he's rapidly improvising a bunch of material with a rough understanding of what that material is like (good brother vs. bad brother, good wizarding guilds vs. bad wizarding guild, etc.) and then letting the players making meaningful choices between those options while filling in more details as they go.

Or, to put it a different way: I have no problem the GM improvising details of the game world if that improv work could have just as easily been down as actual prep work.

To put it a third way: I want the game world to be a place I'm actually exploring; not a piece of Play-Doh that rearranges itself to dramatic convenience.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;480056I think y'all are talking about two slightly different things: Benoist is talking about illusionism (where no matter which box you choose, it has the same shit in it). Jibbajabba is talking about improv design (where the GM doesn't know what's in a box until you choose it because he hasn't made it up yet).

The latter may still tweak Benoist's buttons, but it's a distinct technique and I think the distinction is important. The illusionist is presenting a false choice; the improviser is offering a real choice without fully knowing the outcome themselves.

The place where I, personally, rebel against the improv technique is when it either crosses over into either (a) the world being rewritten or (b) my exploration of that would being functionally meaningless.

A key example is the technique I see bandied around every so often where the GM running a mystery scenario is supposed to listen to the table chatter until the players come up with something "nifty" or "interesting" as a potential solution and then make that the solution.

Speaking as a player: No. Fuck you. I want to actually solve the mystery, not jack off for a few hours.

But it doesn't sound like that's what jibbajabba is doing. It sounds like he's rapidly improvising a bunch of material with a rough understanding of what that material is like (good brother vs. bad brother, good wizarding guilds vs. bad wizarding guild, etc.) and then letting the players making meaningful choices between those options while filling in more details as they go.

Or, to put it a different way: I have no problem the GM improvising details of the game world if that improv work could have just as easily been down as actual prep work.

To put it a third way: I want the game world to be a place I'm actually exploring; not a piece of Play-Doh that rearranges itself to dramatic convenience.

Aye, but he won't listen
Unless your game world fills 3 exercise books 200 index cards and 4GB of maps on your PC Ben will notice and be pissed by it

Now one caveat, if the PCs throw up an idea I might use it to foreshadow a greater event. By which I mean I would never let let throw up an idea that solves their current scenario but I might use an idea they throw up to solve an underlying plot thread they won't uncover for 3 or 4 scenarios.
I'll give you an example. I ran a game called Mud. It was improved because the guys wanted to play some D&D after a long WoD game. I had just seen some historical film where it was always raining it might heva been the begining of Kingdom of Heaven or it might have been Name of the Rose, It might even have been a Japanese movie, doesn't matter. I wanted a world where it rained and the PCs arrive in a small town that is under the yoke of oppression. They can join in they can do a Few Dollars More or they can free the locals I was easy about it.  They had some adventures they lost a few PCs and eventually hit a groove. Early on I had thrown in some Herne the Hunter celtic religious stuff. One of the PCs had mentioned something about The Wild Hunt. 3 months later as they were being chased across the world of faerie by The Wild Hunt with the ground itself growing arms and grasping after them (they were rescuing an elven PC that had died ...) the player who had raised them 3 months and a dozen sessions earlier was cursing his foresight.
We ran that Improved game for a year  by the way as the PCs rose to 6th level and became champions of Herne travelling the multiverse.

I'll go with a firm "it depends!". I went through a "player choice is everything" GM phase, the approach has it's merits but as with all things you can take it too far.

Take this example. The GM expects the party will going from town A to town B. He places a bandit encounter on the road. Maybe it serves to foreshadow future events, maybe it's there to remind the players how lawless the realm is, maybe it's there just to allow the players to kick a bit of ass.

The players decide to go by river. One school of GMing will say "Awesome, the clever players avoided a danger!", Another school of GMing will say "What's the fun in avoiding danger. People round the table didn't drive an hour just avoid stuff." then promptly rename the bandits to river pirates and move the encounter to the river.

I think the crucial question is "why did the characters choose to go by boat in the first place?". If it was indeed a tactical choice, the player character's information or intuition made him think going by boat would be safer then moving the encounter from the road to the river would be a crime against roleplaying.  I would however try and ensure that once the player characters got to town B, they would somehow learn that there were bandits on the road, perhaps from other travellers, so they can bask in the glory of knowing they made the smart choice otherwise what's the point?  

If the players chose to go by boat because one of the players wanted to show off his boating skills, moving the encounter to the river might be a really good idea. A fight scene on the river is a perfect chance for that player to really show off his seldom used boating skills and no one should have to miss out on fun game content just because a few hours ago the GM wrote "bandits on road" rather than "pirates on river" in his notebook.

My point being good GMing relies on understanding what your players what and what matters to them and then adapting your style of GMing accordingly.

Quote from: Soylent Green;480090I'll go with a firm "it depends!". I went through a "player choice is everything" GM phase, the approach has it's merits but as with all things you can take it too far.

Take this example. The GM expects the party will going from town A to town B. He places a bandit encounter on the road. Maybe it serves to foreshadow future events, maybe it's there to remind the players how lawless the realm is, maybe it's there just to allow the players to kick a bit of ass.

The players decide to go by river. One school of GMing will say "Awesome, the clever players avoided a danger!", Another school of GMing will say "What's the fun in avoiding danger. People round the table didn't drive an hour just avoid stuff." then promptly rename the bandits to river pirates and move the encounter to the river.

I think the crucial question is "why did the characters choose to go by boat in the first place?". If it was indeed a tactical choice, the player character's information or intuition made him think going by boat would be safer then moving the encounter from the road to the river would be a crime against roleplaying.  I would however try and ensure that once the player characters got to town B, they would somehow learn that there were bandits on the road, perhaps from other travellers, so they can bask in the glory of knowing they made the smart choice otherwise what's the point?  

If the players chose to go by boat because one of the players wanted to show off his boating skills, moving the encounter to the river might be a really good idea. A fight scene on the river is a perfect chance for that player to really show off his seldom used boating skills and no one should have to miss out on fun game content just because a few hours ago the GM wrote "bandits on road" rather than "pirates on river" in his notebook.

My point being good GMing relies on understanding what your players what and what matters to them and then adapting your style of GMing accordingly.

For me the bandits don't move the fact that I just made up the Maudlin Brotherhood and decided their leader, Spence, was once a courtier of the king with a perchant for playing the lute whist listenign to the screams of his victims on the Rack is irrelevant. Not he River has other threats as the Nymph Adume lives in the reeds of the Great Meander. I might bring Spence and the brotherhood back sometime.

Quote from: Soylent Green;480090I think the crucial question is "why did the characters choose to go by boat in the first place?". If it was indeed a tactical choice, the player character's information or intuition made him think going by boat would be safer then moving the encounter from the road to the river would be a crime against roleplaying.  I would however try and ensure that once the player characters got to town B, they would somehow learn that there were bandits on the road, perhaps from other travellers, so they can bask in the glory of knowing they made the smart choice otherwise what's the point?  

That's good GMing, yup. There's nothing wrong per se with a floating encounter that is not location-specific, but it has to 'fit' - if you force it on the players then it is railroading, and bad.

Quote

Quote from: Soylent Green;480090I'll go with a firm "it depends!". I went through a "player choice is everything" GM phase, the approach has it's merits but as with all things you can take it too far.
*snip*
My point being good GMing relies on understanding what your players what and what matters to them and then adapting your style of GMing accordingly.

Nicely put here.

I would add that this should go both ways...the players should strive to understand the DM's goals/wants and facilitate as well.
This is best hashed out when the group is formed to avoid frustration later on.
RPG 101 as we all know here...

I'm into Situational GMing. Clash, talks about it here.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: jibbajibba;480082Aye, but he won't listen

Actually, maybe it's you who have piss poor way of explaining what you do. When I asked you whether you were talking about Schrödinger GMing you could have told me "No Ben, that is not what I'm talking about. I am not doing the 'false choice' thing at my table." Instead you seemed to imply you did, but that I wouldn't notice.

I actually agree with Justin's distinctions.

Quote from: David R;480114I'm into Situational GMing. Clash, talks about it here.

Regards,
David R

This is pretty much how I run most games ( at least modern and urban games------oldschool fantasy I run a bit differently). I've usually called this Character/Event Driven adventures, but it seems to be what Clash describes.

Quote from: Benoist;480153Actually, maybe it's you who have piss poor way of explaining what you do. When I asked you whether you were talking about Schrödinger GMing you could have told me "No Ben, that is not what I'm talking about. I am not doing the 'false choice' thing at my table." Instead you seemed to imply you did, but that I wouldn't notice.

I actually agree with Justin's distinctions.

Sorry mate I sometimes forget English isn't your first language (kidding, kidding)

I almost wrote an entre essay giving clear and precise details of what I did maybe I need to use more annotated diagrams going forward.

Also I got the slightest hint in your scathing critique that you were accusing me of Storygaming .........

Quote from: Soylent Green;480090I'll go with a firm "it depends!". I went through a "player choice is everything" GM phase, the approach has it's merits but as with all things you can take it too far.

(...)

My point being good GMing relies on understanding what your players want and what matters to them and then adapting your style of GMing accordingly.

I actually completely agree with this.