From: harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp)
Subject: Re: Improvisation!
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 07:09:51 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

sl9b4@cc.usu.edu (Deep Six) writes:

>Well that's just the way it works out. Think about a murder. Only one 
>party could be responsible. While the characters are working out the 
>details of the case, just because they find someone else who has motive 
>and no alibi, that can't change the solution to the murder. Example --
>the GM says, ``You're wrong, the Duke's uncle did it.'' Then the players
>say, ``But the butler had motive, he has no alibi and he had access to
>the Duke's chambers, he must have done it.'' So the GM is supposed to 
>say, ``Hmm. You're right. Okay, the butler did it.''

I'm not advocating such changes.  Sorry if I sounded like I was.  I
wouldn't change the world to make the PC's solution the correct one.

However, if the PC's point something out that should have been obvious
to me, I might "change reality."  Say the murderer is just a minion of
another NPC.  I might alter my thinking on the _future_ plot to allow
the PC's to confront him/her/it.

In other words, they found the guilty party: the minion.  However,
their observations allowed me to realize that there was a deeper plot.
I then improvise the new plot.

I think we're not talking about the same level of improvisation here.

>> I mean, how can you _absolutely_ determine that the facts you give
>> your party can point to one and only one solution?  No one is
>> infallable.

>Improvising a plot isn't going to make you infallible. This isn't a 
>matter of fallibility -- you can screw up either way. Think of the guy
>(sorry I don't remember your name, but your post was good) who said
>he was winging a game once and he forgot a small, improvised detail
>about an NPC. The detail came up later (remembered by the players) and
>created a big illogical hole in his campaign.

But it's just as easy to leave a big, illogical hole in a totally
pre-planned campaign, too.  I'm sure even some published modules have
such holes.

BTW, I do some pre-planning.  I just don't plan everything down to the
tiniest detail.  For example, if I have a town I might make a rough
map and list what sort of shops are there, but nothing more in my
notes.  If a certain plot element is related to a certain person or
place, I pre-plan that.  

If something's relevant, I pre-plan it.  If not, I wing it.

With the amount of time I have, it's the only way to run a campaign
that encompasses a small country. (not that I'm running it right now
anyway ;)

>Further, most players don't insist on perfection. I have messed up 
>before, and the players are forgiving. All you can do is learn from
>your mistakes (when winging it or prepping).

I agree.

>>>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.

>I have been trying to say this for a while now, and that is the best
>way I have heard it put. When you improv a whole game (hardly any or
>no prep), you can end up changing reality to make the PCs right. I don't
>think players would find that very rewarding.

I agree here, too.  Once again, I wouldn't change reality to make my
PC's answers the correct ones, though.
-- 
-----------------Greg-Harp----------------harp@netcom.com------------------
  Love me, love my ferrets.               "Break out of the mold before
  Or at least love my ferrets. ;)          the mold sets in" -- B52's
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc