From: lib1p@rosie.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Improvisation!
Date: 27 Aug 92 23:08:00 GMT
Organization: University of Houston
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

> 
>Not so fast. The player influence argument is only the most recent one. I 
>have watched several good argument go unanswered by improv GMs. Among them:
> 
>1. Improv GMs cannot create detailed maps, written portions and physical
>props.

As an improv GM I create a framework.  On this framework a lay
the improvisation.  I can create this framework as detailed or
as little as I want.  Walter, my husband, has been using his
world for about 15 years now.  He is very familar with it.  Our
friend Bryan is very detailed about his world also.

Now if we have a specific event that is going to happen we can
create maps, props, etc. if we so desire.  Maps often can be
drawn out, sometimes even having the GM play an NPC sage or
mapmaker or whatever actually drawing as he/she is roleplaying
adds to the game.

It is much like the town you live in.  The town is set, what 
isn't are the events that happen within that town.


>2. Players dislike the feeling that the GM is altering the scenario to 
>make the party successful. The ``spoon feeding'' argument (players have
>posted about this).

Spoon feed? Never!  The party succeeds or it fails, but it does it
because it is the party's doing, not the GM.  While I don't go out
of my way to kill off player characters, if they do something
stupid...well...we have more dice, more paper, and pencils; get to
rolling.  If they don't take the bait then the event happens, 
whether they are there or not.  Not being there can have it's own
repercussions.  IMHO a GM should never spoon feed a party, ever.
Feeding them tidbits to help them along, maybe, but they have to
work for it.

Often I find that when a character works to find tidbits, I can
create them as they are asked for.  If I have a question in my
mind as to whether they would have been able to get that 
particular tidbit, then I roll the dice and let fate decide.

I could continue talking about this aspect, but I think my point
is sufficiently stated.  If anyone wishes more discussion on this
point I would be happy to discuss it (please no flaming).

>3. Players dislike the feeling that they are bouncing around in a world
>which is unplanned by the GM -- if the GM doesn't know what is going on, 
>who does?

The improv GM which creates a feeling of "bouncing around in a
world which is unplanned" should not be improvising to that 
extent.  He/She should flesh out his/her framework more.  If that
feeling is being generate he/she obviously needs it.  Many GM's
can improv even without a framework (or the barest of one) and
not produce this feeling.

One of the best games I have *EVER* been in was one with hardly
any framework.  (I found this out about half way through the
campaign.  Could have fooled all of us.)

>4. Improv GMing is vulnerable to the capriciousness of the GM -- GM has a
>bad day, players have a bad day. With prep, the sceanrio is planned over 
>time, which has a leveling effect on the GM.

If the GM has a bad day then someone else should GM, whether it is
improv or prep.  GM's and/or players moods have significant effects
on the quality of game play.  As far a capriciousness, that occurs
in both improv and prep.  In fact, since we are only human, our
personalities have an effect on our games.  As GM's we need to put
ourselves in our players shoes and say "If I were them would I be
having fun in my game.  If not, why, and what would make it fun
for me?"

>5. Improv GMs are more likely to throw in an insignificant detail on the 
>fly with could come back to haunt them as a logical hole in the game world.

True.  However, I don't find pre-planned games that much fun.  Not
even in computer games (like SSI stuff).  I set up a situation in
the world, it is up to my players to make their way to it or miss
it as the case may be.  Insignificant details can be dealt with,
the idea is to not get hanged up on them or get flusterd by them.

When a game is good, insignificant details are just that....
insignificant.  When a game is bad, insignificant details get 
blown out of proportion.  Often these "logical hole"s as you call
them can be dealt with by a good improv GM.  Only when a player
gets all bent out of shape about it does it become difficult
to solve.

It's sort of like people in the SCA who complain that a setting
for an event is "destroyed" (usually along with their fun or so
they say) if you don't have "a pavillion tent which you hav
they say) if you don't have "a pavillion tent which you hand made
yourself, and everything in 'period'" The idea is to have fun, not
get pedantic about everything.

>   
>Understand me here. I am STILL not saying my way is better or whatever. And
>maybe you (whoever you are) think you HAVE asnwered the above. I may not
>agree, but that's okay. Just pointing out some things I've noticed, that's
>all. This has been one cool thread, and I am not going to ruin with any 
>flames if I can help it.

If I come across as flaming in any statement I have said above
I am truly sorry.  It is not intended that way.  I have 
attempted to answer the question asked to improvs on the net.

I am not pro or con on either improv or prep.  I feel that there
are "different strokes for different folks".  If, as a player you
prefer prep then by all means enjoy it.  That is what we are here
for.  A game is meant to be fun.  Not analyzed, Not a flame-fest,
Not an attempt to f*ck someone over, Not a Power trip, and most
definately not an (permanent) escape.  

However there are those who like or even prefer improv. (or 
partial improv)  

I feel that this post that I am answering to was a good one.
It gives all the improvs a chance to air there answers to some
very valid questions.  Kudos.

==>Tammy<==

Yes, I know you are the one flaming with me right now.

> 
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc