From: sl9b4@cc.usu.edu (Deep Six)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Improvisation!
Date: 27 Aug 92 23:00:30 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <4840@balrog.ctron.com>, smith@ctron.com (Larry Smith) writes:
> In article <1992Aug21.134453.58310@cc.usu.edu>, 
 sl9b4@cc.usu.edu (Deep Six) writes:
> 
>>However, I will not improv major details (like the evidence) 
>>because those ARE pre-placed for the players to find. 
> 
> Bully for you.  What do you do when they don't think to look there?  Don't 
> tell me.  I can guess.  You're like dfrancis, and just let the whole thing 
> fall to wrack and ruin.

Remind me not to let you guess. Or GM one of my games.

Wrong. Although Dennis and I have agreed on a lot of points, I try earnestly 
to give players more than one opportunity to find the answer to each puzzle.
Multiple clues, multiple leaks, etc. Don't try to put words in my mouth, okay?
 
>>you are just giving the players a different way to get what they suggest.
> 
> As I've said before, the mere act of suggestion makes no guarantees!  I merely
> admit of the _possibility_.  

Well you said that already, but as I said, if the players are convinced that
a certain circumstance exists (there's GOT to be a reciept here), they could
influence the possiblity just like the influence you to admit the possibility.

> Their "want" has no bearing whatsoever in even the tiniest and most remote
> sense.

I think it could have a bearing in the tiniest and most remote sense. Go 
back a minute -- you haven't thought about petty cash at all for this desk. 
A player says ``Ahh, we've got 20 minutes to kill, maybe there's some cash
in the desk.'' You think ``Hmm. Good point, but remote. 1 in 12 chance.''
Now, rewind. Instead the player says ``This is a merchant's house, there 
MUST be some money here.'' You think, ``That's true, there's a good chance
a merchant would have money. 3 in 6 chance.'' You see? You have said a 
suggestion or comment made by the players influence you, but only to admit
the possibility and think up the odds. But the context, phrasing and timing
of the comment could ALSO influence the odds you assign.

I realize that you choose the actual specifics of whatever the ``idea'' 
is, and I realize that you will comply only if the players' comment or
suggestion is reasonable/logical/internally consistant, but are you going
to go along with every logical suggestion the players come up with? 

``Hey, he's a merchant, right? Then he's probably got some stocks and bonds
somewhere around here.''

``Yeah, and if he's a merchant, he probably also have some sort of client
list we could copy for future prospects.''

``And you know that brings up another point -- he's probably got keys to 
a lot of wharehouses. We could lift those too.''

``And say, a lot of merchants collect valuables from the lands they travel,
does this guy have any really valuable coin collections?''

And so on and so on, until the original direction of the session (if there 
was one) loses it's direction. The players just bounce suggestions off the 
GM, some logical, some not; some likely, some not. Just like I said in 
another post -- dickering and bartering over details the playes can 
``insert'' depending on how pliant the GM is.
>>If you say it isn't in the desk, but they convince you that it should 
>>exist, you just put it somewhere else. It's retroactive and it's 
>>definitely NOT the role of the players.
> 
> They don't "convince" me.  _I_ decide.

Then you admit that is not the players role, right? Good, because there
are a lot of folks running around here saying that improvisor GMs have
said they give players the green light to influence the GM's decisions.
As for you comment that the players don't convince you, well, uh, if you
decide in their favor, haven't they convinced you? They suggested some
thing, you complied, they convinced you.

>>You're upholding my argument. You're saying the players sometimes impact
>>your decisions.
> 
> Let's point out that the whole point of the GM is to run the game, and without
> players, there is no game to run.  Of course, they "impact" my decisions, as
> they do yours, or should if the game is not to bog down.

Not on major points in the plot of the scenario. Those are pre-placed for the
players to find and resolve. When it comes to minor points, or when the ``go
off the map,'' I improvise. I've said this all along. 
 
>>                Is that their role?
> 
> To "influence" me?  No, of course not.

But above you said they do impacting your decisions. What is the difference
between impacting your decisions and influencing your decisions?

>>If the GM is ``in charge'' of the players reality, should the players have 
>>a role in determining what reality is?
> 
> No more so than in acknowledging when they are right.

Then you admit that the GM is ``in charge'' of the player's game world, 
correct? Again, some on the net have said that it is not the role of the
GM to be in charge of the players' reality. On this, it appears (unless
you recant) improv GMs and prep GMs agree.

But further, I can acknowlege when the players are right about minor things,
incidental details, and unprepared areas. But I like to think that I can
prepare the major plot points in advance and give the players what is needed
(or more than what is needed) to be successful. I haven't had a problem yet.
When the players are successful, they feel accomplishment. When they are not
successful, and when the situation is explained to them after the fact, they
see their mistakes. Maybe it's a matter of confidence. I don't have to second
guess my scenarios. If I did, I might be prone to change details in order to
comply to the players' logical comments or conversation. But I have confidence
in the scenario as a logical, consistant slice of reality that the players can
approach and deal with.

> You and the others arguing your side are way, way too fixated on this player
> feedback thing.  All that feedback does is let me know of things my players
> thought of that I did not. 

This isn't meant to be arrogant, but again, I think I have enough confidence
in my scenarios to believe in them. I may not have thought of every contigency,
but I have thought of enough contigencies to make the scenario playable and 
winnable. To take into consideration every piece of feedback would mean 
following the players around, listening for what they want to find, what they
think happened and what they want reality to be.

> Do you ignore the problem or do you deal with the feedback?  If the 
> former, you are a poor game master, if the latter you are improv'ing.

First of all, I have said I can deal with improvising when needed. Second,
I've said that I can place all the needed elements in a scenario to let 
the players be successful.

>>> Perhaps there is only a one in six chance of cash in that desk.

>>Again, not reflected in reality. If you suggest there might be a one
>>hundred dollar bill in your underwear drawer, it is or isn't there 
>>regardless. There are no chances, no dice rolls.
>
> I would strongly suggest that you read almost any of Stephen Hawkins books.
> There _is_ a die roll.  It's a might small probability, but it's there.

Maybe so, but the die roll has already been made when you go through
the underware.

> But aside from questions of modern quantum physics, I am not interested
> in simulating reality, I am interested in presenting a game.

Then why the Hawkins reference? I AM interested in simulating as much 
reality as I can get away with. You suffer from the same flawed logic 
as those in the ``Genres'' thread. A realistic game is NOT the opposite
of a fun game.

>>Whereas if I make up the desk with the players there and playing, they 
>>can influence me into changing things. I don't think the players should 
>>be making decisions, or helping to make decisions.
> 
>>sigh<.  Sex to a virgin.

A clever comeback, but a copout. Besides, you just said it is not the
players' job to help you make decisions, that they shouldn't influence
the GM, etc. Now you're comparing that situation to sex. Nice argument.
 
>>about 3 times a month, and I prepare about 3-6 hours per game.
> 
> 9 to 18 hours when you could do something else.

You could say that about anything, including the time you spend playing.
Seeing as how I can usually game on a regular basis in the summer, I 
relish the chance to put in some time to prepare a good game.

> The question on the table isn't "what works for you" or we
> would have killed this thread by now.  The objective here is to try to 
> communicate different styles and see how they work, how they might meld,
> and hopefully make us all better GM's, or otherwise we are headed for a
> hopeless flamewar.  Now, what are you in it for?

Oh puleeze, could be be a little more dramatic. Everytime you run into a
good argument you dodge it like some politician. Stop trying to paint 
everyone who disagrees with you as some sinsister know-it-all with an 
agenda. What am I in it for? I am enjoying this discussion, what did you
think?

>>But the players determine what you are deciding. Can't you see that?
> 
> I can see you aren't listening.  Rest of post deleted.

Another dramatic dodge. Answer the above question -- you keep saying
stuff like ``NO. _I_ decide everything. They have nothing to do with
it.'' But they are determining WHAT IT IS you are deciding about. Can't
you see that? You certainly won't admit it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Chadd VanZanten SL9B4@CC.USU.EDU + ``Charlie don't surf!'' --Big Duke in 
Francis Coppala's Apocolypse Now