From: sl9b4@cc.usu.edu (Deep Six)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Improvisation!
Date: 17 Aug 92 20:42:47 GMT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <Bt3Dt6.BEL@acsu.buffalo.edu>, 
 swann@acsu.buffalo.edu (Stephen Swann) writes:
> You're correct, but due to time limitations, I have my choice of
> either putting in my effort "during gaming" (time already allocated),
> or spending extra time outside the gaming session, which I usually
> don't have, because of numerous other interests and time commitments.
> So winging it makes it tougher to DM, but I enjoy the challenge, and
> who knows, maybe it's sharpening my wits, too.  ;-)

I can certainly understand this, I can usually only game in the summer
due to school. If that is your primary reason for not using prepared 
material, then discussing the advantages of preparing is pretty much 
moot. I was under the impression that you ``wing it'' because: 1). You 
know your system well enough to wing it. 2). Your players changed tack
every session. 3). You are better at winging it. And 3). You didn't want
to prepare material that you would never use.

So, I'll continue the discussion in the general sense..

[The advantages of using props deleted]

> You're probably right.  But I have essentially no artistic ability
> whatsoever, and yet I have a hyper-creative imagination.

Well, that's another reason you can't change no matter what, but, like
the ``don't have time'' argument, that reason didn't come up until just 
now. So let me ask you, as one of the strongest proponents of improv
GMing (so far), if you did have time and artistic ability, would you 
prepare more (like maybe 2% of the time instead of 1%)? That seems to be 
implicit in your last post, but I don't want to assume anything.

>>Yes, but the difference is that you're just making it up here and there,
>>while in a prepared scenario, the characters are discovering things set
>>there for them to discover. See the difference?
 
> As near as I can tell, the difference is entirely temporal.  This is
> almost a matter of metaphysics.  You decided 27 hours before the
> characters entered the room, that there was a key under the
> floorboards.

No, it's more than just time, it's the impact the players are having on
the game. Let's use another example -- the characters are searching 
another room. There is nothing in the room, but the characters search it
anyway. In the prep game, there is not going to be anything there no 
matter what (cuz the room was created before the game was played). In
a improv game, the characters might find something in the room just 
because they search (not because it was hidden). In that way, the players
are making up the game to an extent.

There is also a difference in the level of capriciousness or prejudice
the GM can inflict on the scenario. In a prep game, the scenario almost
has a life of its own because it was set up before the players got there.
If he gets a little pissed because a player argues with him on a rule or
something, he can't (or he's less likely to) change the scenario to ``get
back'' at the player. This is more likely to happen in the improv game,
because everything is being generated then and there. This also works in
reverse -- the players have less of a chance to ``butter up'' the GM in
a prep game because the specifics of the scenario are already written up.
In an improv game, a subtle and flattering player can go a long way to 
better his character. I am not saying you may have a problem with that,
Steve. This argument is in reference to the subject in general. In other
words, prepared scenarios can have a leveling effect on the GM's ambient
emotions -- ``keep him honest'' if you will.

> Suppose you didn't know (or better yet, didn't care) that I was making 
> this up at the moment, instead of days in advance?  Either way, it's "just 
> something that Steve made up", why is it more rewarding that I made it up 
> days ago instead of right now?  Why are you any "smarter" for looking under
> the floorboards when the room was made up "in advance"?

The difference is that in the improv game, the characters are impacting the 
game. If the improv GM likes the systematic, clever way in which the players 
search a room, they may get a reward. In a prepared scenario, a systematic 
and clever search will be a waste of time unless there is something in the 
room. In the improv game, the players are writing the scenario. In the 
improv game, the GM is doing the rewarding. In the prep game, the scenario 
is doing the rewarding. The scenario is supposed to be a representation of 
the characters reality, so one could argue that a prepared-game-reward-
system is more realistic, cuz there is no GM in reality. Rewards come from 
your environment if you act appropriately (the scenario is the characters' 
environment).

Of course none of this applies if the players don't know if you are winging 
it. They can't say to themselves -- ``If I do something intelligent, like 
search the floorbards, Steve might dream up a gem for me.'' From the 
player's perspective, both methods are the same. But again, I didn't know
that your players were unaware of your improvisation. I thought they had to
know you winged it, how else could you have material for them to play if 
they don't tell you what they are doing until the day of the game? ESP?

> At any rate, regardless of which method he's using, you should probably 
> check those floorboards.  :-)
  
Not necassarily. What if owner of the floorboards is coming back soon and
the party only has 5 minutes to search the room? In that case, a systematic
search would be a mistake. In a prep game, it might be written in that the
party only has 5 minutes, so the built-in rewards are different. In the 
improv game, the rewards will vary from minute to minute, depending on 
what the players do. 

>>And what is to keep you from asking your players what they might be 
>>doing next session?
 
> Mainly a matter of personal pride, I would suspect.  :-)  I'd be lying
> if I said that I never know what they're going to do.

So maybe your prep time already IS up to 2%. Heh heh.

>>While improving, other GMs (like me) can do everything you can. With 
>>the prep time, other GMs (like me) can do things you can't.
> 
> Like what?  If you're referring to the physical props you use, you're
> quite right.

Well, I like to think I've presented a reasonable case for building things
into a scenario, rather than having the players determine what happens.
You also mentioned that maps are necessary, but if you improv, where do 
you get your maps? I make maps all the time, so often in fact that last 
month I slipped them a map they had already used and they didn't even know
it. I think you downplay the importance of maps and props -- LOTS of them.

>>Okay, you have a point, but there's still a difference.
> 
> Which is?  I mean, from the perspective of the players, (whose view of
> this is all that really matters anyway)?

Operating on the premise that the players know which method you are using
the most (prep or improv), the difference is, again, that the players impact
the game. A player who can flatter, bullshit/fast talk, or one who just
knows the GM really well can take advantage of a improvised game, whereas
a prepared game has a course which the GM can't (or is less likely to) 
change. But again, if the players don't know I guess there is no difference.
BUT -- you better not let them find out. Heh heh.

> I told you, that's why when I was a beginning GM, I used to prepare.
> I've been playing AD&D (or rather, my heavily modified version) for
> so long now that I can make up a character of X level, of any of the
> primary character classes, in a flash.

But what about monsters? At the very least you have to write a few 
cursory stats down, and that takes time.

> Most of the personalities in such a thing won't be exceptional.  You 
> don't need individual ability scores on 0 level soldiers or orcs,
> you just need to know their general characteristics.

Which you still have to write it down -- say the party is facing 20 orcs.
You have to write down their hit points and ACs at the least, right? 
Then if they have any special weapons or items, you'd have to right 
down those, too, right? What about spell casting monsters? Do you just
dream up their spell book? Don't you have to at least consult the books
and jot down a cursory spell book? That takes time that a prep GM does on
his own time instead of the players'.

>>There's no reward system there's nothing for the players to 
>>``figure out'' [in improv games].

> You've read two of my scenarios (one in the last post, and one in this 
> one). Can you honestly tell me that there's nothing in them to figure out,
> and no reward for playing intelligently?
 
Okay, I confess. But the reward system is ad hoc. If you think the
players are playing intelligently (like the floorboards thing), YOU
reward them. In a prep game, if the players do the right thing, the
SCENARIO rewards them -- they can't impact the game just by being 
smart or charismatic, they have to do the right things at the right
time.

>>Besides not having 
>>the actual props, it's hard to plant subtle clues like the Rosary. 
> 
> No, it's exceptionally easy, and I do it all the time.  See below:
> GM:  There's a black bag there, too.  Pretty standard looking medical
>    issue type thing.
> p1:  I open it.
> GM:  There's some bandages, a set of surgical implements, some bottles -
>   probably for injection, they've got holes through the stoppers - a
>   stethescope, a black case about 8" by 2" by 4", a necklace with
>   some beads [and a little cross], a couple of rolls of surgical tape.

See, there -- you just slip that in and hope that the characters don't
detect a difference in the pitch of your voice, or hope they don't 
realize how incongruous it to have a beaded necklace in a medic bag. 
In your game, when you are telling the players that, their attention
is focused almost entirely on you (unless the players are being noisy,
which you don't usually control). And when they are focused on you, they
can pick out those little things you slip in. In the prep game (with the 
props) the players have to split their attention all over the place -- 
there's other props to look at and the GM to listen to (plus the 
possiblity of noisy players, pizza man coming, etc). That's how it would 
be if the players were their characters. They really MIGHT overlook a 
necklace (or just not see it) in the real world. You can't SAY- ``you 
don't see the necklace.'' In our game, we almost didn't see it, at first.

Now, I realize you have already said you don't have time for a lot of 
this, and you are low on artistic ability, but I hope you can see the
logic of the discussion in general. And this is to say nothing of GMs
who can't verbally bury clues in their discriptions (like you say you 
can). And even if the GM is good, some players are still bound to figure
out certain cues (remember this thread from a while back?) like facial
expression, rise in voice intonation, fiddling with dice, etc. Players
can tune into these and eventually read when you are trying to slip them
a subtle clue (maybe not, in your case, Steve, we're talking in general).

> I put the [and a little cross] in brackets, because I would roll to
> see if that was visible on glancing into the bag. 

With the prop, that's determined in real life, in real time. For reality
freaks like me and my players, that's cool. Note the difference:

``Whew! If I hadn't look on the last page of this book, I would have
never seen that phone number scribbled there!''

``Whew! I made my vision roll by one! That means I saw the last page
and get the phone number!''

> Also, with the physical props, you know that any clues that are buried
> in the game are going to be in the stuff that the GM hands you.

Okay, that can be a problem. I had a GM that would have exactly one prop 
in each game, and we knew it had to mean something. But that is easily 
cured. Give them props that don't mean anything. Example -- ``Here is the 
patch on his shoulder (a $.50 patch purchased at Army Surplus)'' -- it's 
meaningless, but they don't know it. And when they do come to know that 
you are slipping them meaningless props, they will have to be more careful. 
Notebooks or written plans used to set off bells all over the place in my 
campaign. After giving them a few meaningless ones, they have to be very 
selective of the props the focus on.

I guess what I mean is that it is easier to fool the players with a visual
red herring than with a verbal one. With the verbal herring, you just say
it, and the players balance it with the other stuff you say. With the visual
herring, the players are trapped in an endless cycle of questions -- ``why
would he prepare this prop if it doesn't mean anything?'' ``On the other 
hand, he could have prepared it just to throw us off.'' ``OTOH, that's a
lot of effort just to throw us off.'' ``OTOH, he..'' and so on.

> But I'm just trying to point out that you -can- make a case for props 
> being "limiting", just as you can make a case for them being a good 
> thing.

And it is a good case. But there are ways around those problems, making
the case for use of props a wee tad stronger, IMO.     

>>It's not really a contest to see who has better ideas or who can 
>>argue better, but it is stimulating to debate and counter-debate, 
>>even if it is just about gaming.

> Ok, I agree.  I'm actually starting to get this urge to do some 
> preparation for some adventures, even though I know I could wing
> them if I wanted.  ;-)  I doubt that I'll ever be ambitious
> enough to do any really nice props, though.  I'm a really crappy
> graphical artist.  :-)

And I'm getting the urge to keep some prep time for myself and wing it
more. I doubt that I'll ever be ambitious enough to really wing a whole
game tho, I have a really crappy poker face. Heh heh.

Okay,
+  Chadd  L.  VanZanten   SL9B4@CC.USU.EDU  +
+  ``You know,  I thought this was a good   +
+  idea but this is one weird mama-jama.''  +
+                    -- TV's Frank, MST3K   +