|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Kahel Stormbender wrote:
Not always an option. I had to make up a dungeon on the spot because the players got all the clues that goblins are abducting villagers and taking them overland to the west, and concluded (somehow) "there's orc slavers in the sewers". This depite the fact the hamlet had no sewer system. It barely had 20 buildings, two of which were the blacksmith's forge (he made nails and horse shoes, not weapons) and the general store for the area. So I had to on the spot create a sewer system for this small hamlet, and an orc slaver base hidden in that sewer system. Because the players were 150% convinced there MUST be an orc slaver base in the sewers (that didn't exist) and refused to accept there wasn't a sewer system despite the evidence.
Hmmm. As a player, this would bother me, when I eventually realized it was going on.
I don't mind the GM occasionally co-opting one of our more inspired/crazy theories into the actual game plot, but I want the freedom to be wrong. I want to figure out what's going on, not have the world re-shape itself to my ideas. If that means we spend the occasional session chasing our tails, so be it.
Yeah, as GM in that particular scenario 'there is no sewar, just don't eat the pork here and you'll be fine.
TriOmegaZero wrote: RDM42 wrote: Before long, after a number of sessions and notes, it's basically a prepared session. If that's so, you just claimed that you can do all your prep during the game rather than before. ITs possible - it just doesn't result in the game my players - or I - tend to like as much.
RDM42 wrote: TriOmegaZero wrote: RDM42 wrote: Before long, after a number of sessions and notes, it's basically a prepared session. If that's so, you just claimed that you can do all your prep during the game rather than before. ITs possible - it just doesn't result in the game my players - or I - tend to like as much. Could you define the game you and your players prefer?
Immersive detail. With consistent background.
Yes, I realize you are going to say that's you don't need that. If it's what we like though, it's what we like. And you aren't going to convince me that I'm being better off just totally winging it on world building detail and the like.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Kahel Stormbender wrote: What is an adventure? A series of encounters tied together by an overarching story. Take the following encounters
1. party approaches a farmhouse and hears a woman's scream. A group of armored men are attacking the farmhouse, one of them rides off with a bound woman.
Let me stop you there for a second, because that's absolutely not how I personally would have done it. I'd have a note like "Tuesday, attack on farm at dawn if still on original timetable (adjust if needed). Attack takes 10 minutes, so assume 06:10 ride off with woman."
The day before: "So, are you guys stopping for the night, or do you try and push on to the farmhouse in the dark?"
Same for all your other examples. For example, I use their actual movement speeds, rather than the Speed of Plot. That way, the ranger's ability to keep from veering off-course, and to track at full speed, has actual value instead of just being flavor text. A dwarf or halfling with no pony slows the party to 2/3 normal and might make them too late for some encounters. A night ride, and not being able to rest and re-prep spells, is a calculated risk. Etc. Yeah, you have to track time, but, hey, being an immersive DM involves some work.
@RDM: Nope, I'm going to agree with you.
I will note that my personal worlds are built on the spot with the players and develop dynamically through play.
But every GM does things their own way.
@ Kirth: why is there an intentional trip to the farmhouse?
I was under the impression that was a faux random encounter [say a bed and breakfast or something]
kyrt-ryder wrote: Nope, I'm going to agree with you.
I will note that my personal worlds are built on the spot with the players and develop dynamically through play.
But every GM does things their own way.
They like having a realized world and then imagining something that might form a unique part of it. And then, through their actions, changing it. And their changes persisting.
kyrt-ryder wrote: @ Kirth: why is there an intentional trip to the farmhouse? Knowing my players, their PCs probably want to hit on the farm lass, or get provisions, or both. Or maybe enslave the farmers, for our current evil pirate campaign. Or maybe they're randomly passing by -- but even then, they might arrive before the bandits, or during, or after, depending on their timetable vs. the bandits'.
Or maybe they decide not to even go there, and the whole abduction happens without them knowing about it.
RDM42 wrote: kyrt-ryder wrote: Nope, I'm going to agree with you.
I will note that my personal worlds are built on the spot with the players and develop dynamically through play.
But every GM does things their own way.
They like having a realized world and then imagining something that might form a unique part of it. And then, through their actions, changing it. And their changes persisting. Ah, you're saying your players prefer to hop into a pre-written setting rather than participate in its creation?
On campaign event design, however, I tend to go for 'event modules' that could have multiple potential triggers. Different events could set the module in motion. It tends to make campaigns not derail as easily when there are many different potential hooks in. It reduces campaign fragility.
Kirth Gersen wrote: kyrt-ryder wrote: @ Kirth: why is there an intentional trip to the farmhouse? Knowing my players, their PCs probably want to hit on the farm lass. Or maybe enslave the farmers, for our current evil pirate campaign. Or maybe they decide not to even go there, and the whole abduction happens without them knowing about it. I also read that as "randomly passing the farmhouse when the attack occurs".
Which in this case applying your strict time based approach. barring an actual pretty serious coincidence, means no encounter, no hook to this adventure, move on to something else.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
kyrt-ryder wrote: RDM42 wrote: kyrt-ryder wrote: Nope, I'm going to agree with you.
I will note that my personal worlds are built on the spot with the players and develop dynamically through play.
But every GM does things their own way.
They like having a realized world and then imagining something that might form a unique part of it. And then, through their actions, changing it. And their changes persisting. Ah, you're saying your players prefer to hop into a pre-written setting rather than participate in its creation? Personally? I do.
That's more like the experience of an actual person. I exist in pre-existent world. I don't get to shape it around me, other than through the effects of my own actions.
I like my characters to be the same way. I'm perfectly happy to establish some setting details for my characters origin, but I like at least the illusion that the world is already out there rather than me inventing it as we play.
I also tend to like recurring antagonists with complex motivations and plots. I like mysteries and revelations. Those tend to work better when the GM has known what's going on behind the scenes all along and been dropping hints, rather than when she links things together along with our wacky theories after the fact.
thejeff wrote: kyrt-ryder wrote: RDM42 wrote: kyrt-ryder wrote: Nope, I'm going to agree with you.
I will note that my personal worlds are built on the spot with the players and develop dynamically through play.
But every GM does things their own way.
They like having a realized world and then imagining something that might form a unique part of it. And then, through their actions, changing it. And their changes persisting. Ah, you're saying your players prefer to hop into a pre-written setting rather than participate in its creation? Personally? I do.
That's more like the experience of an actual person. I exist in pre-existent world. I don't get to shape it around me, other than through the effects of my own actions. 'Through my own actions' is the largest post-chargen contribution I'm talking about. Places the PC's don't in any way interact with get minimal development.
Quote: I like my characters to be the same way. I'm perfectly happy to establish some setting details for my characters origin, but I like at least the illusion that the world is already out there rather than me inventing it as we play. Of couse it's out there. My players are less 'inventing' it than uncovering it if that makes sense.
Quote: I also tend to like recurring antagonists with complex motivations and plots. I like mysteries and revelations. There's never been a shortage of complex recurring antqgonists or mysteries and revelations in my games.
Though in a peak behind the curtain those things all evolve spontaneously along with the flow of the story.
thejeff wrote:
I also tend to like recurring antagonists with complex motivations and plots. I like mysteries and revelations. Those tend to work better when the GM has known what's going on behind the scenes all along and been dropping hints, rather than when she links things together along with our wacky theories after the fact.
The issue I run into with this is that it's really difficult to do well. Even successful professional authors and screenwriters have a hard time doing it consistently. Either my players guess the thing I think I'm hiding right away, or they never get any of it and I have to explain all the things they weren't paying attention to.
Irontruth wrote: thejeff wrote:
I also tend to like recurring antagonists with complex motivations and plots. I like mysteries and revelations. Those tend to work better when the GM has known what's going on behind the scenes all along and been dropping hints, rather than when she links things together along with our wacky theories after the fact.
The issue I run into with this is that it's really difficult to do well. Even successful professional authors and screenwriters have a hard time doing it consistently. Either my players guess the thing I think I'm hiding right away, or they never get any of it and I have to explain all the things they weren't paying attention to. This is why I prefer to GM in the moment than try to write an interactive novel.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
One cavernous caveat regarding my preferred style: its more dependent on motivated mentally invested players that char about their character and how he is going forward.
kyrt-ryder wrote: One cavernous caveat regarding my preferred style: its more dependent on motivated mentally invested players that char about their character and how he is going forward. I have those as well.
As soon as they have there character, they have formed goals about how, over time, they want to change thing in the world. Wether it's bringing down a warlord, freeing slaves and founding a city with them - whatever.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
kyrt-ryder wrote: We may have reached the end of our conversation as I can't relate to all that much work as a GM. Typically I make things up as I go, enjoying the unfolding story alongside my players.
Unfortunately at this point in time I have four AP playtests I'm running per week with no time for additional games.
Yeah, I have to put in a lot of effort when I run.
It takes me 3-4 weeks to even prep for a new campaign and even then I may only run every other week. I need to lay out maps, and make stat blocks, and I have to modify monsters to meet the abilities of my players. I have to come up with descriptions and a host of alternate scenarios if my players don't follow the path I originally intended. I spend anywhere between 3 and 7 hours of prep time during the week to set up for one game session.
I make sure I have an outline of the whole campaign when I begin so I always have things that need to be foreshadowed properly foreshadowed.
My players are smart, and if I don't make sure all plot holes are closed, then they are likely to notice it and think that I intentionally left it open believing that it is intended as a hint for a direction they can go.
Every session is meticulously planned and almost all possible player choices are attempted to be accounted for.
The last time I ran a full campaign it even had some time travel shenanagins and I managed to predict the actions that the players would take in the second to last session before the first session so that they closed their own plot hole loop of, "One question. Back in the first session. Who took the lock off of the door so that we could get out of the barn?"
The answer?
The rogue did. In the second to last session. While he was in the past.
kyrt-ryder wrote: Irontruth wrote: thejeff wrote:
I also tend to like recurring antagonists with complex motivations and plots. I like mysteries and revelations. Those tend to work better when the GM has known what's going on behind the scenes all along and been dropping hints, rather than when she links things together along with our wacky theories after the fact.
The issue I run into with this is that it's really difficult to do well. Even successful professional authors and screenwriters have a hard time doing it consistently. Either my players guess the thing I think I'm hiding right away, or they never get any of it and I have to explain all the things they weren't paying attention to. This is why I prefer to GM in the moment than try to write an interactive novel. I guess I'm just lucky to have had some really great GMs. That thing TriOmegaZero said a bit back about novice & master?
Plus doing the prep work.
thejeff wrote: I'm sure there are people who can pull it off. I also suspect they're few and far between. At least for complex campaigns with multiple antagonists counter plotting at each other and the PCs caught in the middle. If you were starting from scratch, it might be hard. Fortunately, you don't have to: Word Mill's Mythic Roleplaying makes it easy to develop NPCs and stories on the fly. It usually comes out even richer and more detailed than any of the "manually" written campaigns I have played in.
It does not, however, help you on the crunch side. If you want to use Mythic Roleplaying with a rule system like Pathfinder, you still need someone to spend a lot of time building NPCs and balancing encounters. Word Mill provides their own rules-lite system which is simple enough that NPC crunch can be generated on the fly, so that you really can run it GM-free. If you are okay building Pathfinder NPCs, though, you can let the Mythic RPG method handle the stories for you.
One word of caution about Word Mill products, though: while the authors claim that their system can be used for a true solo experience (i.e., only one human involved), don't expect solo play to ever give the same rich dynamics of a full group. In the professional theater world, improvisation is almost never done as a one-person-show, and there is a good reason for it. You can play a full RPG experience with no GM, but you really can't do away with having a full group of humans to game with:)
[smaller]At least until the robot takeover....[/smaller
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
i feel like i want to play in the various people's campaigns more than argue with anyone that their GMing is the least efficient.
like, i feel the only way to see how it all works out is to actually play in the game. talking isn't that effective at describing hours upon hours of playtime.
kyrt-ryder wrote: Kahel Stormbender wrote: Being the Game Master is a delicate balance to maintain. You spend hours each week creating your adventure. Nope.
Quote: months or years creating the world setting if it's a custom setting. Nope.
Quote: When you show up to the session, you're prepared for the adventure you planned to run. You have the wizard's tower mapped out, wandering encounter tables, scripted encounters, traps, and all that planned out. Aaaand nope.
Quote: This is a lot of work if you're not running a published adventure.
If the party then decides to ignore the adventure you brought, now what?
This is why preparation GMing [I can't give detailed advice as I'm a zero prep GM, aside from helping the players to level up and-when using published material instead of made up stuff- pre-reading the adventures] works best if you prepare encounters rather than adventures and wing the story aspect creatively.
Quote: One session when I had to create an entire dungeon on the spot because the players added 2+2 and came up with aardvark, it ended up being a fun session. One trap I created on the spot ended up being ridiculously complex and nasty because the thief kept critically botching the disarm check. I didn't hurt anyone with the trap since the only one caught in it had made his reflex save. But it was stupidly complex and overly silly. Every botched disarm added something else to the trap. The party KNEW I was making all this stuff for the trap up on the fly. Only to cap off the dungeon I'd had to create as they explored with a room that held an illusionary beholder, and a throne which would teleport them to where the actual adventure is set. When you're making it up, I find it's infinitely easier to go with an Open World motif rather than dungeoning. But dungeoning can work out pretty well if you have an artist type in the group sketching a map as you go.
Quote: It was fun, but at the same time frustrating. I've had players completely derail a ... Now that is the way I DM but I've played in prep gm games and their fun too. I wouldn't say on style is inherently better. Now i favor the off the top of my head style but i'm not gonna tell a prep gm not to prep if it works for them.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Vidmaster7 wrote: kyrt-ryder wrote: Kahel Stormbender wrote: Being the Game Master is a delicate balance to maintain. You spend hours each week creating your adventure. Nope.
Quote: months or years creating the world setting if it's a custom setting. Nope.
Quote: When you show up to the session, you're prepared for the adventure you planned to run. You have the wizard's tower mapped out, wandering encounter tables, scripted encounters, traps, and all that planned out. Aaaand nope.
Quote: This is a lot of work if you're not running a published adventure.
If the party then decides to ignore the adventure you brought, now what?
This is why preparation GMing [I can't give detailed advice as I'm a zero prep GM, aside from helping the players to level up and-when using published material instead of made up stuff- pre-reading the adventures] works best if you prepare encounters rather than adventures and wing the story aspect creatively.
Quote: One session when I had to create an entire dungeon on the spot because the players added 2+2 and came up with aardvark, it ended up being a fun session. One trap I created on the spot ended up being ridiculously complex and nasty because the thief kept critically botching the disarm check. I didn't hurt anyone with the trap since the only one caught in it had made his reflex save. But it was stupidly complex and overly silly. Every botched disarm added something else to the trap. The party KNEW I was making all this stuff for the trap up on the fly. Only to cap off the dungeon I'd had to create as they explored with a room that held an illusionary beholder, and a throne which would teleport them to where the actual adventure is set. When you're making it up, I find it's infinitely easier to go with an Open World motif rather than dungeoning. But dungeoning can work out pretty well if you have an artist type in the group sketching a map as you go.
Quote: It was fun, but at the same time frustrating. I've had ... I prep because if I prep correctly it's much easier for me to seamlessly provide the world's reaction to the crazy stuff players are bond to do.
I don't believe it was a debate about superiority (at least not on the front-end that the players see.)
Moreso perhaps a discussion on how to GM with less work/less rails.
Yeah and i'm lazy but have a great memory so top of my head works. my S.O. does not and prefers to prep. both are viable. There is pro's and con's to both.
Vidmaster7 wrote: Yeah and i'm lazy but have a great memory so top of my head works. my S.O. does not and prefers to prep. both are viable. There is pro's and con's to both. Prep Is not necessarily something you do because you don't have a good memory. Often prep is so that you have things to remember.
Oh I was just giving her reason I know there is a lot of other reasons hence the last pro's and con's sentence.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
thejeff wrote: I also read that as "randomly passing the farmhouse when the attack occurs".
Which in this case applying your strict time based approach. barring an actual pretty serious coincidence, means no encounter, no hook to this adventure, move on to something else.
There can still be plenty of hooks.
The PCs simply don't encounter that particular one.
Which is fine.
Because the existence of a pre-planned attack on the farm implies several other hooks, that unfold naturally, dependent on the PCs' actions.
A group of early risers could walk through or past the peaceful farm, wave to the farmer, buy some milk and eggs, pass on and receive local gossip, and be out the other side before the attack happens. They then stumble across a group of armed men, either on the road toward the farm, or camped nearby, and aren't satisfied with their cover story. They give them two minutes head start, then follow them back toward the farm, in time to witness the attack, or see them setting it up.
Job done.
A party that is delayed by spell prep, or small PCs with short legs, gets to the farm after the attack is over, but is alerted that something bad took place. A dropped lantern has set the barn afire, an unmilked cow is protesting, or has escaped into the lane through a gate left unlatched.
The farmer's wife is missing, but there are tracks leading off for them to follow, and become enmeshed in the villain's plan.
Job done.
Both those alternate setups do the same job as the original, and benefit from being informed by the PCs' actions, therefore appearing more real, than if the PCs always happen to turn up in the right place, at the right time, when Important Events are about to occur.
Because the death of a sandbox setting occurs when the PCs (or players) realise that, actually, the world does revolve around them, and so will take every opportunity to toss around, investigating under every rock, stripping every lair of every last copper worth of salvage, crafting every day, safe in the knowledge that they can be at 110% for every encounter and always arrive in the nick of time, just as the Very Important Ritual begins.
Sometimes they should arrive at the Temple of Ultimate Evil, and find it deserted, except for a dead sacrifice and a half-eaten buffet.
Boy, I turn around and there are 67 posts to read.
Bandw2,
So if we call them by some other name, how long will it take until they find that offensive?
Because it is the persons play style that is often at odds with the other person and that is just related by the words used.
Unless there is some social issues occurring which I do agree happens.
I do agree the terms can be highly subjective as I have played in one game and been labeled a roll player and in another with in 6 months and been called a role player.
Often my style changes with the game I play and the group I play with. And if I am not enjoying myself after a time I leave or if I am running a game and have a problem with a player I ask them to leave.
I can see where some people find it offensive as you are telling them no I do not want you to participate in this activity. But it is the action not the word that is the problem.
MDC
Snorter wrote: thejeff wrote: I also read that as "randomly passing the farmhouse when the attack occurs".
Which in this case applying your strict time based approach. barring an actual pretty serious coincidence, means no encounter, no hook to this adventure, move on to something else.
There can still be plenty of hooks.
The PCs simply don't encounter that particular one.
Which is fine.
Because the existence of a pre-planned attack on the farm implies several other hooks, that unfold naturally, dependent on the PCs' actions.
A group of early risers could walk through or past the peaceful farm, wave to the farmer, buy some milk and eggs, pass on and receive local gossip, and be out the other side before the attack happens. They then stumble across a group of armed men, either on the road toward the farm, or camped nearby, and aren't satisfied with their cover story. They give them two minutes head start, then follow them back toward the farm, in time to witness the attack, or see them setting it up.
Job done.
A party that is delayed by spell prep, or small PCs with short legs, gets to the farm after the attack is over, but is alerted that something bad took place. A dropped lantern has set the barn afire, an unmilked cow is protesting, or has escaped into the lane through a gate left unlatched.
The farmer's wife is missing, but there are tracks leading off for them to follow, and become enmeshed in the villain's plan.
Job done.
Both those alternate setups do the same job as the original, and benefit from being informed by the PCs' actions, therefore appearing more real, than if the PCs always happen to turn up in the right place, at the right time, when Important Events are about to occur.
Because the death of a sandbox setting occurs when the PCs (or players) realise that, actually, the world does revolve around them, and so will take every opportunity to toss around, investigating under every rock, stripping every lair of every last copper worth of salvage, crafting every day, safe in the knowledge that they can be at 110% for every encounter and always arrive in the nick of time, just as the Very Important Ritual begins.
Sometimes they should arrive at the Temple of Ultimate Evil, and find it deserted, except for a dead sacrifice and a half-eaten buffet. Well sure. If you're going for a strict sandbox setting, then hell, maybe the PCs don't take the road the farmwife lived on at all and miss this plotline entirely. Oh well.
Or maybe they happen to arrive at exactly the right time and get slaughtered because they were stupid enough to try to interfere in a kidnapping without doing the research to discover the kidnappers were much tougher than they were. Again, oh well.
But since there's no indication anyone was talking about a strict sandbox game, there's no need to care. The occasional Schrodinger's plot hook is perfectly acceptable in most games and doesn't lead inevitably to PCs dicking around and still arriving in the nick of time.
I personally like the distinctions between roll player and role players made clear in game postings. This helps me know what the expectations of the game will be up front and can hopefully cut down on misunderstandings down the line.
As a side note, I would try to avoid gaming with people who took serious offense at being referred to as a "rollplayer". That level of sensitivity is probably going to lead to problems somewhere down the line regardless of these labels.
BTW, if you're looking to improve your prep (or really, any creative process), there's a good book available here on the Paizo site:
Never Unprepared
The book attempts to break down the creative process as it relates to GM prepwork and help you improve yours. I've read it. I found it well constructed and helpful.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Just like to say I loved reading the GMing tangent- off topic, but far far FAR more interesting that the original topic.
thejeff wrote: Well sure. If you're going for a strict sandbox setting, then hell, maybe the PCs don't take the road the farmwife lived on at all and miss this plotline entirely. Oh well. And why is the villain kidnapping this farmwife? Obviously it advances his plans in some way, which will have repercussions down the road. And maybe the party, right or wrong, thought that investigating some other happening was a priority, and maybe it turns out they interfere with whatever is going on over there. Events will tell if it turns out that they were right.
I might also note that slinging around terms like "strict sandbox" is veering into "rollplay vs roleplay" territory. Guess what? You can have a coherent story and STILL allow the players to make their own decisions!
thejeff wrote: Or maybe they happen to arrive at exactly the right time and get slaughtered because they were stupid enough to try to interfere in a kidnapping without doing the research to discover the kidnappers were much tougher than they were. Again, oh well. Adventuring is a dangerous business. Otherwise everyone would do it.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
thejeff wrote: I guess I'm just lucky to have had some really great GMs. That thing TriOmegaZero said a bit back about novice & master?
Plus doing the prep work.
Indeed, as I said, if you practice doing the prep, you can run a really great prepped game.
And if you practice at NOT doing the prep, you can run a really great unprepped game.
I wonder why everyone thinks you shouldn't practice one option.
TriOmegaZero wrote: thejeff wrote: I guess I'm just lucky to have had some really great GMs. That thing TriOmegaZero said a bit back about novice & master?
Plus doing the prep work.
Indeed, as I said, if you practice doing the prep, you can run a really great prepped game.
And if you practice at NOT doing the prep, you can run a really great unprepped game.
I wonder why everyone thinks you shouldn't practice one option. Because I don't think you actually can improvise the kind of campaign I prefer.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
thejeff wrote: Because I don't think you actually can improvise the kind of campaign I prefer. And yet everyone is always telling me I should try their way without any concern for my preference.
I'm finding my own games work best when I specifically prep things I'm not so great at.
I've found that NPCs need to be prepped ahead of time because I'm awful at completely improv-ing NPCs in the heat of the moment- my biggest weakness as a GM. But having NPC cheat-sheets prepared in a way that my brain can process them in the heat of the moment helps .
Having quest hooks and ideas prepared beforehand keeps me from falling into a rut because if I don't have at least a single line concept prepared, I will fall into "you get attacked by random enemies!" or "you find a random cave filled with random enemies" when I improvise.
Having maps prepared beforehand is nice because I use roll20 and making maps in roll20 spur of the moment isn't quite so easy as making them on graph paper IRL, at least for me.
On the other hand, if I have my playing pieces prepared- NPCs, Quest Hooks, Encounter Ideas, and maybe some maps, I can put them together fairly well spur of the moment, and do better with that than trying to remember the details of a script.
Of course, I prefer to go a little further than that and prep world details, but I've had great success when I do run with this limited level of prep.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The truth is the best GM is good at planning AND improv.
Planning helps cement a coherent plot behind the bad guys actions, it places all those relevant details at your finger tips, and it speeds play by removing the need to constantly look up stuff.
Improv improves the memorability of random NPCs, allows the GM to add details she didn't foresee needing, and makes it easier to recover from those wild antics the party is going to throw at you.
So what makes the two work together? NOTES. Take (or have someone else take) lots of notes about every little thing that comes up in play. That way you can move the improv bits into the planning bits. ALSO those planning notes you made while brainstorming future NPCs are a life saver when you need to improv a new character interaction.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Aranna wrote: The truth is the best GM is good at planning AND improv.
Planning helps cement a coherent plot behind the bad guys actions, it places all those relevant details at your finger tips, and it speeds play by removing the need to constantly look up stuff.
Improv improves the memorability of random NPCs, allows the GM to add details she didn't foresee needing, and makes it easier to recover from those wild antics the party is going to throw at you.
So what makes the two work together? NOTES. Take (or have someone else take) lots of notes about every little thing that comes up in play. That way you can move the improv bits into the planning bits. ALSO those planning notes you made while brainstorming future NPCs are a life saver when you need to improv a new character interaction.
Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote: In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable. Dwight D. Eisenhower I have found that players will seldom follow my plans, but in the act of making plans I am also well positioned to improvised when those plans inevitably fall apart.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Personally, I find GMing to be more art than science. There's no particular style that works for everyone, and some people are much better at one specific variety than others are.
Personally, for the most part, I'm a world-based prep-work GM, I do lots of setup on the world and how it functions, including multiple NPCs, then let the plot sorta develop from there. When I do sandbox games, I have people tell me at the end of the session what they're going to do and where, thus giving me time to prep it.
But I can freestyle it, too. And have done so successfully on several occasions.
And, far more importantly, I've played for other GMs who use other standards of prep, or avoid prep altogether, and with at least one who's lots of fun, but gets actively worse if he tries to prep too much.
So...anyone saying 'this is the right way to GM' in this area always strikes me as both arrogant (in a 'my way must be the best way' fashion), and pretty clearly factually wrong.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Mark Carlson 255 wrote: Boy, I turn around and there are 67 posts to read.
Bandw2,
So if we call them by some other name, how long will it take until they find that offensive?
somewhere between the first calling and when society starts using it.
here's the point, you're not labeling anything that actually exists, you're mislabeling a bunch of people, and that's why it's inherently offensive. using the term just means you're completely out of touch with the other side and are making no attempt to further understand how or why they play.
like i said, earlier, what you call red pine trees aren't just red pine trees, but everything to yellow to bright purple.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
TriOmegaZero wrote: thejeff wrote: Because I don't think you actually can improvise the kind of campaign I prefer. And yet everyone is always telling me I should try their way without any concern for my preference. I try to only suggest my style of GMing when people complain about problems that my style doesn't have. Like if someone complains that they can't GM anymore because they don't have time to prep now that they have a wife/kids/job/etc.
Kirth Gersen wrote: thejeff wrote: Well sure. If you're going for a strict sandbox setting, then hell, maybe the PCs don't take the road the farmwife lived on at all and miss this plotline entirely. Oh well. And why is the villain kidnapping this farmwife? Obviously it advances his plans in some way, which will have repercussions down the road. And maybe the party, right or wrong, thought that investigating some other happening was a priority, and maybe it turns out they interfere with whatever is going on over there. Events will tell if it turns out that they were right.
I might also note that slinging around terms like "strict sandbox" is veering into "rollplay vs roleplay" territory. Guess what? You can have a coherent story and STILL allow the players to make their own decisions! You might want to throw that critique at the poster I replied to, who seemed to be saying that any deviation from the sandbox (like a Schrodinger's encounter with the farmwife's kidnapping) leads inexorably to the PCs realising that "the world does revolve around them, and so will take every opportunity to toss around, investigating under every rock, stripping every lair of every last copper worth of salvage, crafting every day, safe in the knowledge that they can be at 110% for every encounter and always arrive in the nick of time, just as the Very Important Ritual begins. "
I was trying to say that it's not actually strictly one or the other. You can use some narrative techniques without completely stripping the players of free will. In fact, you can drive the campaign with more compelling and meaningful choices than "I guess we'll take the left fork here. It's a little farther, but there's a good pub in the next village." "Oh well, I guess you miss out on the farmwife plot hook."
They could decide the kidnappers look to dangerous to interfere with. They could attack them. They could try to follow them and stage a rescue when they're off guard or find out who sent them. They could ignore them completely, since no one's paying them. Any number of possible meaningful decisions that I haven't even considered. As you suggest, they could think something else was a priority and they might be right. But they don't get to do that if they never stumble on the kidnapping in the first place.
Kirth Gersen wrote: thejeff wrote: Or maybe they happen to arrive at exactly the right time and get slaughtered because they were stupid enough to try to interfere in a kidnapping without doing the research to discover the kidnappers were much tougher than they were. Again, oh well. Adventuring is a dangerous business. Otherwise everyone would do it.
And that, right there, is the bulk of my problem with the theory of sandbox gaming, though not I strongly suspect with the majority of the practice.
Sure. Don't attack the wandering giant who isn't bothering anybody. Fine. Don't explore the dragon's lair for loot, until you've done your research and know you're ready. I get it. I'm fine with that.
But the GM having a kidnapping going on right in front of me, even if it really was a coincidence I stumbled by at the right time, and slaughtering me because I tried to help? Then pawning it off with bullshit like "adventuring is dangerous". I'd walk right then and there.
Maybe, if it's something blatantly obviously too tough, like a dragon grabbing her in its claw or the like. Even then, helpless witness isn't what I'm playing the game for.
I'm here to be heroic (or dashingly evil sometimes), not cowardly. I'm certainly willing to be smartly heroic. I'm perfectly willing to research and plan, but I'm not going to just stand by because I don't know enough to be sure I'll win.
TriOmegaZero wrote: Indeed, as I said, if you practice doing the prep, you can run a really great prepped game.
And if you practice at NOT doing the prep, you can run a really great unprepped game.
I wonder why everyone thinks you shouldn't practice one option.
I'm curious, how do you run an unprepped game?
Bandw2 wrote: Mark Carlson 255 wrote: Boy, I turn around and there are 67 posts to read.
Bandw2,
So if we call them by some other name, how long will it take until they find that offensive?
somewhere between the first calling and when society starts using it.
here's the point, you're not labeling anything that actually exists, you're mislabeling a bunch of people, and that's why it's inherently offensive. using the term just means you're completely out of touch with the other side and are making no attempt to further understand how or why they play.
like i said, earlier, what you call red pine trees aren't just red pine trees, but everything to yellow to bright purple. The thing is some pine trees are red.
Also some people are what the term in all of its worst (roll player) describes and some are at the terms best (roll player) describes.
One of the biggest things I have seen is that often people are the most upset with being labeled roll player as it in some way impact there game or style. If you do not agree with the label;e then ask why they think so? And How, You can change it in the eyes of the GM or group? That is if you want to stay and if they want you to stay.
If you are unwilling or unable to change or they are unwilling or unable to change then it is best for everyone to move on. This can suck in no uncertain terms for a variety of reasons but often it makes better RP'ers and gamer's out of people.
MDC
Bandw2 wrote: Mark Carlson 255 wrote: Boy, I turn around and there are 67 posts to read.
Bandw2,
So if we call them by some other name, how long will it take until they find that offensive?
somewhere between the first calling and when society starts using it.
here's the point, you're not labeling anything that actually exists, you're mislabeling a bunch of people, and that's why it's inherently offensive. using the term just means you're completely out of touch with the other side and are making no attempt to further understand how or why they play.
like i said, earlier, what you call red pine trees aren't just red pine trees, but everything to yellow to bright purple. It is a definable term (even if there are 2-3 definitions), with most of those falling within the defined term offended that their play style has been defined.
Perhaps people should take a closer look at their choices and preferences before getting up in arms over the inevitable result of their choice.
I'm not saying roleplay is bad. I'm saying that, if you enjoy that play style, accept it and own up to it. It really is that simple.
Not all the games I play in are roleplay. Some of them are, a good portion of the time, straight up rollplay - we simply state our actions and roll. They can be just as fun as the games where I can go the entire night in full chuunibyou mode.
Rub-Eta wrote: I'm curious, how do you run an unprepped game? Jot down the high points you want to have done, make it up as you go at the table. Attend a lot of improv classes/events. Play at Nic Logue's table.
|
