This week I DM'd 3.5 for a group on Wednesday and another group on Friday. The two games were pretty different, and I suspect I know why. I'm wondering how many others have the experience described below.
The two games:
Wednesday
---------
14th-level group
4 players, plus a co-DM to run the monsters
mix of role-play, travel/traps, and combat
preplanned encounters
spent many hours preparing
mediocre result
Friday
------
8th-level group
4 players
mix of role-play, travel/traps, and combat
improvised encounters
spent little time preparing
awesome result
I've had awesome experiences with the Wednesday group, so I know it wasn't just that group.
Looking back on games I've run, the ones with better results have used "improvised encounters" and the one's with worse results have used "preplanned encounters." Besides me being a boob at running modules, what's going on?
Well, I noticed something:
The Friday group approached a bartender as an early encounter in a tavern. I presented his personality clearly, but that MIGHT only be one side of him.
--I kept a mental list in reserve of additional, POTENTIAL sides. If the party were to need help, he might be a source of information or sell them a special item.
--If the players were getting bored or needed a fun role-play diversion, he was there for humor and/or romance.
--As it turned out, the party was heading too quickly into the final encounter and would likely get killed. So I turned the bartender into a low-level henchman of the BBEG. I hadn't planned this. I just slapped some hit points on him and gave him a 3rd-level vestige (which easily provided him with a thematic set of level-appropriate powers). The ensuing combat made for dramatic foreshadowing and knocked some caution into the PCs.
I improvised several times during the Friday game, offering the PCs information, red-herrings, diversions, obstacles, etc. as the need arose.
In contrast, during Wednesday's game, I did none of this. I executed encounters as preplanned. And when something didn't fit perfectly, I and the co-DM just modulated it tactically.
From now on, I'm thinking of separating NPCs from the roles they play. For example:
NPC Roster
------------------
tavern owner
bartender
tavern dancing girl
bounty hunter
dwarf miners
wilderness guide
treant
Role Options
------------------
wealthy patron
information source
secret henchman of BBEG
obvious mook
role-play diversion
the BBEG
rescuer if needed
So the dwarf miners might be there to rescue the PCs if needed, or they might be there as the BBEG's mooks. The PCs likely meet and/or hear about the dwarf miners early on, but the miners' "true" nature would not be revealed until later.
Of course not everything is improvised -- in Friday's group I DID have a basic set up (and desired outcome) for the players.
Anyway, three question for you:
1) Do you find you ever improvise this way?
2) Would you ever want modules to be published with this DMing technique in mind?
3) Might players meta-game differently if they think the DM is using a specific system to improvise?
THANK YOU!
1. Constantly. (In fact, I almost never run modules.)
2. They can't be. They would grow impossibly thick, or not mesh with the style of the DM. Many good DMs can't improvise easily or well either. Oh wait. You mean the NPCs separated from their role. Hmmm. Maybe. It depends on whether the adventure is plot-driven (as you're talking about) or site-based. I think it's a good idea for the right adventure.
3. Yes, but not as much and it isn't bad at all. There's techniques to deal with this too.
Looking back on games I've run, the ones with better results have used "improvised encounters" and the one's with worse results have used "preplanned encounters." Besides me being a boob at running modules, what's going on?
You're getting better at DMing. When you can improvise along with the preplanned encounters, you respond better and crisper to the players ideas. The game flows a great deal more organically because everyone doesn't sit around wondering what to do next when an idea doesn't pan out. (Or doesn't get frustrated when they try to do something and the DM stonewalls because that's not the way the adventure is supposed to go.) It becomes more interactive, increasing the fun. Congrats! You've got the spark of greatness there. Go fan it.
|
One thing that might make it easier for you with your list of NPC Roster and Role Options is to write them both down on an index card. And assign a number to the Role set, from one to whatever your top end is(in your case, both end in 7). Then, roll them randomly on an appropriate die, so if your group knows your system, they still won't know if that dancing girl is an informant, henchman, or rescuer.
My technique is to use graph-paper to keep track of where everyone is. Best trick I ever used, probably.
1) no
2) no
3) yes
I try for players to totally immerse themselves in the game; so my npc's are as real as anything else and have their own lives; agendas, motives, ect.
More often than not, I improvise about 75% of a game session. The people I game with have a long standing tradition of doing a plot turn left on me. As a result, I often outline what I want to accomplish in a game session, have the stats for the creatures I plan to use, and wing the rest.
Even when I used published adventures, I have to be prepared for the unexpected.
I'm a trained improviser and actor, and I think all GMing requires a certain degree of improvisation, but I hate improvising encounters on the spot. Whether running some module, or making up my own stuff, I find I need to think out all the important encounters beforehand, otherwise the players find themselves getting into encounter in open field (or plain, unadorned rectangular rooms) with bad guys that present no tactics other than ATTACK!
Even when making up my own stuff, I need to be able to construct an idea of encounter before the session in order to make it at all interesting, or to remember what things I want to do with the players.
It's just something I don't do well. I accept it and move on. I tried standup comedy a few times. The first time, I tried to be Robin Williams or something and just go out and improvise. I forgot everything I wanted to do when I got in front of the mic, and bombed. Hard. Later on, I came up with jokes beforehand and wrote them on 3x5 cards. I probably wasn't the funniest guy on stage those nights, but I didn't forget my jokes, and I didn't suck.
So, my GMing is similar. When I prepare, I do much better. When I don't, I suck.
Which is also to say that in my opinion, almost everything we do as GMs is improvised, unless you're literally just reading boxed text aloud. But there are degrees of improvisation, I guess.
Thanks all, this has been interesting.
I've been DMing happily since 1982, but I've kept far away from modules / pre-planned stuff because of bad experiences (the modules were decent, but as for me....) So I've stuck really closely to having about half of my adventures moderately planned and half improvised, which has worked well.
Now, I love the RofRL material and I'm wondering how to successfully run it by-the-book. Or maybe I should just draw elements from it? Do you all play closely to the modules? And if not, do you still find the PCs stay on the adventure path?
Oh, and thank you for the suggestion about random dice rolling to keep players on their toes!
|
Thanks all, this has been interesting.I've been DMing happily since 1982, but I've kept far away from modules / pre-planned stuff because of bad experiences (the modules were decent, but as for me....) So I've stuck really closely to having about half of my adventures moderately planned and half improvised, which has worked well.
Now, I love the RofRL material and I'm wondering how to successfully run it by-the-book. Or maybe I should just draw elements from it? Do you all play closely to the modules? And if not, do you still find the PCs stay on the adventure path?
Oh, and thank you for the suggestion about random dice rolling to keep players on their toes!
I've been running RotRL and i've improvised some scenes, changed others completely, thrown in my own inventions and generally been able to adapt to my players' actions. I personally find it easier to be an adaptive, improvising DM if I have a framework to build upon.
RotRL
No module survives contact with the PCs.
Improvise or die!