From: Rannou@info.polymtl.ca (Patrick Rannou)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Improvisation!
Date: 22 Aug 92 14:37:02 GMT
	<1992Aug19.030145.18318@tronsbox.xei.com>
	<1992Aug20.162129.14994@samba.oit.unc.edu> <4801@balrog.ctron.com>
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal, Canada

In article <4801@balrog.ctron.com> smith@ctron.com (Larry Smith) writes:

...
   >>	A properly written mystery has one and only one possible solution.  It
   >>must be impossible for any other solution to be valid -- the facts of the
   >>case must be such that only the intended solution is correct.

   Excuse me, a "properly written" mystery is a novel or a screenplay, not a
   game.  What am I, Agatha Christie?  This is a hobby, not a profession.  My
   players tied up two plot holes I was saving for another game to get that
   answer, what am I supposed to tell them, "Oh, no, no connection?"  I should
   stifle _their_ creativity and input for _my_ convenience?  That's not what
   a GameMaster is for, you are there to present one hell of an adventure.  If
   that adventure is made better or more complete by acknowledging an interpreta-
   tion from one of the players, then "reality" quietly and retroactively
   changes.  That this is the case is only known to me, the GM, not to the
   players, they will never know I was saving those plot holes, and they will
   never know that game might not have been as good.

OK, so why don't you ask them? Tell them that you changed the "reality"
according to their guesses in order to make the game seem more enjoyable.
If your players finds this OK, then great. But if they balk "Whhhat? You
mean we were on a wrong track and you just made as if we were on the right
track? Then what does it matter what we do anyway? What sense of
accomplishment do we get from these modules?", THEN you *may* have a problem.


   A good GameMaster does not make the game worse just for his or her own
   convenience or ego. 


Agreed. I've used retroactive reality change myself, though I really try to
keep it to a minimum, and nevenr do it due to DIRECT player input, more
like do it according to overall events happening over more than one scenario...


    You do what is best for the game, to make it hard
   and fun and leave your players with a sense of accomplishment with pride
   in those who died well and plans for those who did not, and always, _always_
   leave them looking forward to the next game.

Yes. It's just that I find this hard to accept a game based on a lie. The
lie being: You find this all great and fun because you DON'T know that I'm
just making this all up as it goes. If you knew, you'd hate me for that...
but you'll never know! Bwahahahahah!". This I find unaceptable both as a GM
and player.


   A GameMaster _accepts_ the responsibility that he or she is there specifically
   and for no other purpose than to _entertain_ the others.

*sigh*, yes oh too much very true. How I wish for once that my players
would think like that too! Notice, I add "and himself, too, of course" in
your sentence. There really is NO point in Gming to a group of players and
being quite successful at making all the players have great fun if you
yourself DON'T have fun.


   >>	If I found out that my GM changed reality so that my "answer" was
   >>correct, I'd slit his throat and take away his dice.

   >On the other hand, if the GM has made a mistake, and the intended
   >solution is *not* the only correct one (and there's a more-correct
   >solution, and not just an equally correct one), clinging to that will
   >irritate the players too! And they'll *know* about that gaffe, while
   >they might not ever find out about the reality-changing decision.
   >Believe me, I'd rather have a sane, rational, realistic <at least for
   >genera> solution/outcome/whatever -- no matter how it was arrived at! --
   >than have a stupid, illogical, nigh-impossible
   >solution/outcome/whatever (however *that* was arrived at, too!).

Agreed. Sometimes game fun takes precendence over the game universe.

   Bravo, Elizabeth, well-spoken.  Remember that from the players point of view,
   these considerations were never present.  They worked hard to solve the
   mystery, and succeeded, and their proofs were unanswerable.  We should have
   such proof in modern courtrooms.  True, I lost some options in acknowledging
   their cleverness.  It totally blew my plans for the game after next.  What
   the heck, I don't plan these things in such detail that that cost me much,
   no more than a few pages of notes and less than an hour of time.  That is one
   of the biggest advantages of improv.

This I agree less, tough. You say they worked so hard to solve the mystery,
and 'succeeded'? Only because you decided to let them. They would have
worked just as much hard to succeed at solving the mystery YOU had put for
them. What I feel happened is "They worked so hard to solve the mystery,
and failed, but since that would have ruined the game I changed a few
thinghs to make it look like if they succeeded, and thus they did, and the
result was an incredibly fun game, far better than would have been normally
possible given the real solution to the mystery".

At least you realize the loss of options. That's what's I find important in
prepared games: they add diversity of events. Remember that if they managed
to make you change the culprit, it's only because when they were working
hard to solve the mystery, they were making wrong assumptions and instead
of proving those wrong a soon as the opportunity presented itself, thus
making them realize they had been following a wrong track, you instead
rolled with it in an "interactive" way, and went along with their ideas,
until they were so convinced that what they came up with was "THE" truth
that telling them otherwise would have ruined the game. In short, you gmed
it so that it was GOUNG to be changed anyway. You LET them make you change
it, and whatever they would have come up with, as long as it was "good",
good enough to make you "go along with it", would eventually have become
"the" truth.

I prefer to separate good roleplaying from the events in the story. If two
PCs do the same actions, one unsing good roleplaying and the other bad
roleplaying, the next set of events should, IMHO, be the same. The only
difference should be in the amount of XPs. Of course, that's impossible. A
GM always prefer good roleplayers and thus tend to favor them
instinctively. Having good preparations is no garantees against that, but
it can help a little.


   >I mean, if you've got 3-6 people in front of you, who took one little
   >slip you made and turned it into the linchpin of the whole caper, and it
   >*makes sense* more than what you thought you were doing... Well, it's
   >going to make the players do a reality-check if you don't make your
   >decision at least as sensible as theirs, and prefer'bly more-so.

   Precisely.

Why? Life is seldom sensible. I've seen a super good murder movie last
year, where the detective had found plenty of motives for the murder... and
it all turned out that the guy just killed himself having an accident when
he was gone hunting with his friend. But the friend was afraid that the
parents of the guy killed would blame him because the guy wasn't supposed
to go hunting and well he just panicked and hifd the body (and let all
those real enemies of the dead guy take the blame). In short: there was no
murdered at all, I was REAL surprised at the end of the movie, telling
myself: "WHAT? It was just that?" because I've beeen wondering for two
hours just who amongst the "real" enemies of the dead guy was the murderer
and discrovered thjat there was no murderer after all... 

anyway, you catch my drift: I feel that choosing the "solution" that's
always the most logical cuts on a lot of diversity. Choosing the solution
that's the most fun to play cuts on diversity too, and is not necesseraly
so desirable. Think about how weird the players will think they are
paranoid when they discover that their "flawless logic" about their
arch-enemy being linked to the murder were not founded at all!

"It was such a perfect plan, dammit!"

Well, nothing's perfect. Choosing "their" solution just because it seems
better always make me think about those serie-B movies were just when the
hero is going to be offed the police miraculously arrive just at the RIGHT
time to save him, ot a minute before or after ut just at the "right"
moment. Some of these rthings is needed to create suspense and tension, of
course, but too much of it (and IMHO it really doesn't take much at all)
make the whole thing appear cheesy. Of course, the players won't notice
that if you don't tell them you've changed it. But I just don't like
playing or Gming a game based on such a lie (Well, as long as they don't
KNOW about it, they'll think I did a super good gming!). It`s just not my
style. 

   >(Yes, I've played with a GM who would *not* deviate from his notion of
   >what was happening/should happen, even when it was totally bogus,
   >without violent PC balking. Most of those games are spent figuring out
   >how to overkill the "problem" and blowing through holes in the plot.)

   Were they fun?  I doubt it.  Make the players dance to your tune and they will
   find another piper.

Correct. Giving the players what they want is a key to make the games more
interesting. The problem is that players don't realize that this should go
both ways. And "giving the players what they want" can be done just as
easily in a prepared game. It's very different to gving IN to everything
the players want! (or think). Very very different.

   >Of course, either method, taken to extremes, will be annoying to the
   >PCs. Your kilometerage may differ, that sort of thing.

   The players should never get the feeling the universe revolves around
them.

Then why are you changing the universe according to their "flawless logic"
THOUGHTS?!?!? Of course, if you mean "simply don't tell them", I refer you
to my previous comments on "game based on a lie".


Pat.

--
/---------------------------\
| Patrick "Paradak" Rannou. |
| Rannou@info.polymtl.ca    |
\---------------------------/