I really like the Cypher System and the Magnus Archives podcast, so I backed the kickstarter. Turns out that it's the "group" that designs the scenario by consensus (https://www.montecookgames.com/the-statement/). In addition to my general thought that this kind of thing kills immersion, it's one of these crazy unfunded mandate things that magically demand that the GM has a special ability to improv quality content based on anything, regardless of whether or not the idea is inspiring to them.

https://www.montecookgames.com/the-statement/

It's not as bad as I was expecting it to be.  Basically the group puts together the rumor they are are going to investigate and then the GM has their way with it.  Seeing as how, based on the source material, these things can vary widely from that original statement, the GM still has a lot of leeway. 

It's like if the players got to make up a rumor their PCs heard at an inn.  They may say "Hey, we heard there was an old underground mansion over in those foot hills and people claim to hear weird noises coming from it during a full moon."  Then the GM can make it werewolves, a cult that does rituals, a portal to hell that opens up, whatever.

I can see how some groups would really like that.  My group would hate it and demand the more traditional set up.  At least MCG puts it forth as an alternative method and acknowledges that the usual way works just fine too.

"A roleplaying game is, after all, an exercise in group storytelling." 

Another idiot asking for money to push shit out through the game channel.

It's like if the players got to make up a rumor their PCs heard at an inn.  They may say "Hey, we heard there was an old underground mansion over in those foot hills and people claim to hear weird noises coming from it during a full moon."  Then the GM can make it werewolves, a cult that does rituals, a portal to hell that opens up, whatever.

Kind of

1. what if the idea just isn't working for me? During prep downtime, I generate lots of ideas, only some of which end up working. Instead of being able to do that I'm stuck with whatever the table came up with, form a group of people that aren't really responsible for implementing the idea. When you're responsible for implementing an idea the incentives are different.

2. I guess you could just ask the players if you don't know what to do with the idea, but at that point why are you even there?

Quote from: PencilBoy99 on September 21, 2023, 12:31:28 PM
Kind of

1. what if the idea just isn't working for me? During prep downtime, I generate lots of ideas, only some of which end up working. Instead of being able to do that I'm stuck with whatever the table came up with, form a group of people that aren't really responsible for implementing the idea. When you're responsible for implementing an idea the incentives are different.

2. I guess you could just ask the players if you don't know what to do with the idea, but at that point why are you even there?

Some of this may depend on the group you play with.  Both my groups are long standing, 10+ year at the least.  We're all friends in and out of the game and we trust/enable each other when it comes to GMing and playing. If your game is more random people you just game with I can see it being a little more contentious.

A small twist you could do, if you wanted to use this method and you are worried about not being able to improv it well on such short notice, run it as a "trailer" at the end of a session.  This way you get to foreshadow what's coming next, giving the players something to look forward to.  You get however much time until the next session to mull the idea over and work it out/prep ahead of time.

Now sure, that won't help if you just don't like the idea, but at that point it's a choice you need to make.  Run it anyway because the players like it or talk to them and say you just aren't into it and don't think you could do it justice. I've run with ideas I really didn't care for because the players really thought it was interesting. I sucked it up for a session or two and was fine with it because I knew that they were enjoying it.

I have limited free time. I'm not sure how much time I want to spend running things I i'm not interested in.

But it's less whether or not I'm having fun. It's more that I, and I would say many non-online people, don't have infinite improvisational skill, despite having run games for decades. For whatever reason, for some ideas I can generate great stuff, and others not.

Harlan Ellison, the famous sci fi writer, used to do charity things where contributors could submit one sentence ideas, and he would turn them into award winning short stories. This was amazing at the time because this was abnormal, not every writer can turn every idea into gold.

I'm glad you and everyone else online has this kind of skill.

This is retarded.  This is the shitty improv game they play in "acting workshops" that are run by third rate celebs.  It never really works out there and it damn sure isn't going to work at the table.

Good advice about doing it at the end of the session. Who knows how long it would take me to prep.

Yeah, what an obnoxious way to pile even more work on the referee's head.

QuoteUnlike the other players, the GM can make minor changes to what's come before. This is because the GM has to turn this statement into something the PCs can actually investigate, and might need some different details to work with. This should never change the essence of the statement, or erase something that one of the players really likes.

Geez, so some random player gets to dictate to the referee what the whole adventure is going to be about. Then the referee has to twist that premise into something useable on the spot by slipping in some additional details, but don't you dare step on any of the players' toes! Then the referee has to actually design and run the damn thing.

Sounds like an interesting experiment to run one time, maybe, as a challenge to help grow your improvisation skills. Not a chance in hell I'd put up with this shit every week.

And like BadApple said, the stories resulting from these dumb improv games and group storytelling gimmicks are nearly always garbage. And mystery stories especially need to be carefully planned to avoid seeming arbitrary and incoherent!

Quote from: Plotinus on September 21, 2023, 09:02:04 PM
Yeah, what an obnoxious way to pile even more work on the referee's head.

How is it more work? The players are explicitly telling you what hook they are interested in exploring. It's less work than having to plan 3, 4, 5 or more hooks and hope the players bite on one of those. It sounds like some people have never taken player interest into consideration when prepping. This seems like a more formal way to do that. Some groups will like it, some probably not.

QuoteGeez, so some random player gets to dictate to the referee what the whole adventure is going to be about. Then the referee has to twist that premise into something useable on the spot by slipping in some additional details, but don't you dare step on any of the players' toes! Then the referee has to actually design and run the damn thing.

Sounds like an interesting experiment to run one time, maybe, as a challenge to help grow your improvisation skills. Not a chance in hell I'd put up with this shit every week.

It's not some random player, it's the players, with the GM getting to give input.  The GM doesn't have to add a twist, but inevitably the GM has more inside info into the campaign details. The method outlined lets them go ahead and drop in things they find appropriate.

It also, again, probably depends on your group dynamic. If you are using this and the players expect you to start running 10 seconds after you finish, well, that's a thing. It would seem more reasonable to finish and then the players give the GM a bit of time before starting.  How much time would depend on how long your session is and how comfortable you are with the material. That's why I suggested doing it at the end of a session. Some could probably run it with maybe 10-15min of time to mull it over.  Others may need the week between sessions.

QuoteAnd like BadApple said, the stories resulting from these dumb improv games and group storytelling gimmicks are nearly always garbage. And mystery stories especially need to be carefully planned to avoid seeming arbitrary and incoherent!

So a mystery has to be an on-rails scenario? I'm pretty sure even a novice GM could take something like this, listen to the players make some suggestions and then work that into an entertaining and coherent session.

Quote from: rgalex on September 21, 2023, 10:38:42 PM

QuoteAnd like BadApple said, the stories resulting from these dumb improv games and group storytelling gimmicks are nearly always garbage. And mystery stories especially need to be carefully planned to avoid seeming arbitrary and incoherent!

So a mystery has to be an on-rails scenario? I'm pretty sure even a novice GM could take something like this, listen to the players make some suggestions and then work that into an entertaining and coherent session.

That is a shitty false binary.

When I prep a campaign,  I know where the towns are, I know who the major actors are, what their relationships are, how all the treasures work, etc.  Once the campaign gets started, the players are free to roam around the sandbox and live as they intend. 

A mystery requires three things; a victim, a perpetrator, and clues.  I'm not good enough to wing it on the fly and still have the whole crime work as a comprehensible narrative.  I agonize carefully about the crime, the motivation, the red herrings, the witnesses, etc. for weeks to make a mystery actually work.  I also workout at least three different ways the players can conclusively prove their case so that things are as flexible as I can make them.  How the players unravel that mystery is completely up to them.

If I'm doing that on the fly at the table, I'm a lot less likely to be able to string together a solid chain of events and provide clues that make sense.  I'm more likely to railroad players in that regard.  Either that, or the players are GMing and no one is having fun.

I can improv when I set up the NPCs already and I know the set.  World building on the fly is just going to make a mess of everything; just like the shitty improv games in acting class.  It's going to devolve into silly drivel or it's going to cause a massive clash of egos.  I hate this idea to the core.

However, if a player come to me and gives me an idea at the end of a session or asks for a certain kind of campaign, then I can work with prompts.  I created and ran a pirate campaign because a player said he'd really like to play as a pirate.  It worked but it took time for me to do research, populate the NPC roster, and set up some possible objectives.