From: sl9b4@cc.usu.edu (Deep Six)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Improvisation!
Date: 21 Aug 92 13:44:53 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <4798@balrog.ctron.com>, smith@ctron.com (Larry Smith) writes:
> In article <1992Aug19.234210.58279@cc.usu.edu>, 
 sl9b4@cc.usu.edu (Deep Six) writes:
 
>>there is a difference between these two situations:
> 
>>``Shouldn't there be some petty cash in this desk?''
>>-- And --
>>``We think the merchant may have hired a hit man to kill the Duke, 
>>shouldn't we be able to find a record of that in this desk?''
> 
> In either case, you are assuming a retroactive changing of what was found.
> Good improv GM'ong does not do this. 

Well, first of all, the point I was trying to make is that I can improv
insignificant details (like petty cash might be) because no amount of 
preparation will ever cover all the possible things that the players 
will do. However, I will not improv major details (like the evidence) 
because those ARE pre-placed for the players to find. 

> I may improv what is in the desk when
> they search it, but if they ask me "Shouldn't there be some petty cash in
> this desk?" the answer will be "I guess not".  Maybe there will be if they
> then search for secret compartments, but if not, or if they already did that,
> kismet.  There wasn't any cash.  Maybe that means something in itself.  Maybe
> he bought something.  Maybe he saved the hitman's receipt under the bed.  Go
> look.

Now as for retroactive creation, you say you are not doing it, but it 
sounds like you are. The difference is you are not overturning your decision,
you are just giving the players a different way to get what they suggest.
So, if they say, ``there ought to be petty cash here,'' when you have 
already said there is none in the desk, you simply overturn the ``no petty
cash'' decision by moving the petty cash to another place. ``Try under the
bed,'' you say. You have changed your mind about the existance of the 
petty cash based on what the players suggested. But instead of telling 
them you overturned your decision, you mask the change by just giving them
what they want from a different place. See what I mean? They ``create'' the
idea of petty cash (or incriminating evidence, or whatever), and you comply
by putting it somewhere. 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.

>>But the players are helping the GM decide. They're saying, ``What!? A 
>>merchants desk and there's no money in it!?'' Whereas in the prep game,
> 
> Not correct.  Not for my style, anyway.  If they discuss this amongst them-
> selves, "Let's search the desk!"  "What for?"  "Maybe it's got petty cash
> in it!" then that might influence me.  Or it might not.

You're upholding my argument. You're saying the players sometimes impact
your decisions. Is that their role? If the GM is ``in charge'' of the 
players reality, should the players have a role in determining what
reality is? If the players were their characters, would they be able to
influence reality by suggesting that some object might be hidden somewhere?
No. The object is or isn't there regardless of their suggestion.



> As I said earlier in the thread, the actuality of an items presence is 
> up to the dice.  I merely decide how likely it is.  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. If the players in your
game can influence you to assign a chance of something being so, then
they can also influence you to assign a high or low probability to it.

``Oh, there's always the off chance there's some petty cash there..''
``There's almost certainly petty cash in there..''            
>>Let's say you (YOU in real life) are looking under your couch coushins 
>>for loose change. After an exhaustive search, you find none. You say, 
>>``What!? A hundred people must have sat on this couch in the last month, 
>>and there is NO change!?'' Now, when you say that, does change suddenly 
>>appear?
> 
> Maybe it occurs to you the change slipped down the sides, or fell out the
> back.  Maybe it's someplace you haven't looked.  Maybe there will be change
> _there_ if you look.  Maybe not.  

No, it won't be there IF you look. That is what I am saying. There's not 
going to be any change anywhere just BECAUSE it occurs to me to look 
somewhere else. The change will or won't be there regardless of what I
do. That premise of reality is reflected in prep GMing. Now in your style
of improv GMing, here is what can happen:

Players: There might be some loose change in this couch.
GM: (rolls dice) Well, apparently there isn't.
Players: Huh!? Hundreds of people have sat on this couch, NO change!?
GM: (reverses his decision) Well, maybe it's slipped down the side.
Players: That's more like it.

How is that different than a GM who blatantly reverses his/her decision
by coming right out and saying, ``Okay, you're right, there should be 
some loose change there, and HEY! What do you know! You find some.''

>>                Practically all your decisions about the outcome of the
>>scenarios are made in the players' presense.
> 
> Irrelevant.  Have you never worked on a dungeon while a player was just
> visiting?  What difference does it make?

Yes I have prepared things while characters were visiting (or even before
games started), but the difference is, I am not saying, ``Hey Matt, take a
look at this. Here I have a desk in a merchant's house. What do you reckon
the chances are of your finding petty cash in it?'' 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.
 
> I flatter myself that I can spot any attempt to manipulate the scenario, and
> good players will not step outside the bounds of their characters to do so
> anyway.

Well, they may not be trying to influence or manipulate the scenario, but
you just said sometimes they do. That's not the players' job.

> I _never_ reverse a decision.  For better or worse, that's what happened.
> I'll backtrack only if a rule was violated that lead to death.  Anything
> else is just fate.

No, you don't reverse the decision, you just change it. The petty cash is
absolutely NOT in the desk. But since the players made such a fuss about it,
there might be some in the underwear drawer. See, you had said NO to petty
cash, but the players still got it because now it's somewhere else. You 
save face, but they still wrote that portion of the scenario. Yes they do.

 
>>but in the improv game, almost all the decisions are going to be made 
>>with some level of player input.
> 
> No.

No what? This isn't what you said before. 
 
>>No, it's not the same. If it was decided in advance, the decision would
>>have been made with time to reflect, examine and act out the situation
>>with no players present. You could run a couple or three simulations or
>>mental play tests in your mind before the players are there. You could 
>>even ask someone (like fellow GMs) about the situation. If you detect an
>>inconsistancy or unreality, you can fix it -- all without the players to
>>influence you to decide in their favor.
> 
> Or you can just wing it and live with the consequences.  I've found I need
> to keep good notes, and I have a good memory for game details, and I really
> don't need more than that.  GM's seldom do any of the above anyway, even the
> prepmeisters.

Huh? What, have you taken a poll of GMs? How do you know GMs seldom do the 
above? I learned to GM from my brother, and he did exactly what I just
described. He learned from a school mate, who did the same thing. I've 
influenced several of my players to do the same in their GMing, so there's
at least a half dozen that I know of. What is so hard about prepping? I play
about 3 times a month, and I prepare about 3-6 hours per game. I have a 
chance to think about a lot of things in advance, when I am sitting down to
do so, or while at work, driving, walking to class (or IN class, heh heh).
Generally speaking, you don't have to worry about providing all the elements
the players will need to be successful in the scenario. And when it comes
to a detail that will affect the outcome of the game, I don't wing it. On
the little things, I wing it.

> A good GM merely decides what the probability is they are correct
> and implements the outcome according to the dice.

But the players determine what you are deciding. Can't you see that?
If they ask about the ``hit man receipt,'' you decide the probability of
that receipt being in the desk. Let's say you decide to make the probability
is 1 in 10. Remarkably, you roll a 1. Now they find the receipt, nail the 
merchant, solve the scenario, and it's all on something that they (the 
players) were completely responsible for creating. They convinced the you
the receipt might exist, you rolled it up, and there it is. They just 
wrote the scenario.

> Bear in mind they don't alway get what they expect.  If they pull up a floor-
> board, maybe the floor caves in.  Maybe they find a mouse nest.  Maybe some-
> one cuts themselves on a rusty nail.  How good is your imagination?

Not a question of imagination. Both methods require imagination, but
prep GMing requires organized imagination.

>>> I recognise the importance of maps, the shortage of them is the one
>>> thing that I think of as a weakness in my campaign.
> 
>>Then for that reason alone, I'd argue in favor of prep. The more the
>>better.
> 
> That is for style.  My group seldom used any props, and what props we did use
> were limited to very high-level maps.

Were these high-level maps prepared before the game or prepared? I rest my
case. Steve made the above comment because he said nearly all his maps were
rough sketches whipped spur-of-the-moment on a peice of scratch paper. I
don't think you have a leg to stand on if you want to argue that improvised
maps are as strong as prepared maps.
 
>>> 20?  So, that takes about what, a minute to write down?
> 
>>One more minute than required by the prep GM. 
> 
> Nonsense.  Unless you're going to write the round-by-round results right on
> your scenario you still have to copy the values to a worksheet.

What? The orcs, VC, bandits are already on a worksheet when you prep them.
You write them down before. It only takes a minute, but I spend a minute of
my time (instead of the players' time) to write it down.
 
>>but it could mess up the pace. The one minute it takes you
>>to write up 20 orcs could ruin the tension you just built by saying,
>>``20 orcs suddenly appear from the darkness.''
> 
> More style.  In my game, when those orcs charge _none_ have them have hit
> points.  Why bother? 

Why not? The improvsters have already argued that it only takes a minute.
I'm arguing that you can easily do it before the game starts.

> The characters may not ever hit them!

Well, if you have the encounter written up and the characters never hit them,
you've got an extra encounter ready to go in another situation, right? 

> Why else were the hit points specified as die rolls than for speed?

My rule books don't say, ``these hit points are die rolls so you can
roll up a 20 orc encounter on the spur of the moment.'' Do yours? The HP
are die rolls so that not every creature is the same. Randomness and 
variety.   

>>But the difference is still there -- the rewards should be
>>placed in advance, not placed there by the GM on the spot under the 
>>influence of self-interested players.
> 
> They _are_ placed there in advance in my game.  Perhaps only seconds in
> advance, but in advance, beyond any shadow of a doubt.

And the decisions are made with player input beyond any shadow of a doubt.

Okay,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Chadd 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