From: smith@ctron.com (Larry Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Improvisation!
Date: 21 Aug 92 18:31:41 GMT
Reply-To: smith@ctron.com
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Aug20.162129.14994@samba.oit.unc.edu>, Elizabeth.Mccoy@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Elizabeth Mccoy) writes:

>In article <1992Aug19.030145.18318@tronsbox.xei.com> dfrancis@tronsbox.xei.com (Dennis Heffernan) writes:

>>In article <4773@balrog.ctron.com> smith@ctron.com writes:

>>If I'm wrong it's even more entertaining - for me, as well as everyone else.
>>I remember one game vividly where my players carefully analyzed the situation
>>and, with unerring and flawless logic, thoroughly nailed a character I had
>>thought was completely blameless.  I reviewed the facts, thinking maybe he'd
>>been framed, but it turned out the NPC I thought was responsible for the mess
>>was, in fact, a front for the real culprit.  Sometimes your players really are
>>smarter than you, and they deserve recogition of that fact.  If I'd simply
>>invented the scenario beforehand, and stuck to the NPC "culprit" the game
>>would not have been as much fun or as successful.

>>	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.

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

A GameMaster _accepts_ the responsibility that he or she is there specifically
and for no other purpose than to _entertain_ the others.  It is the same role
a stand-up comic takes with the audience, that a host takes with houseguests,
that the maitre'd takes in a fine restaurant.

>>	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!).

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.

>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.

>(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.

>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.
Nor realize that things are bent for or against them in order to improve or
heighten the adventure.  If they realize that, you have failed, and you are
either beating them up or kowtowing to them like any Monty Haul GM.  It is
a fine line we must walk...

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com)  No, I don't speak for Cabletron.  Need you ask?
-
How about we all do something reasonable?  I bet that'll confuse 'em!
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc