From: smith@ctron.com (Larry Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Improvisation!
Date: 21 Aug 92 15:39:42 GMT
Reply-To: smith@ctron.com
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.

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.  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.

>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.  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.  I roll the die when it occurs to me, or if someone
mentions it and it sounds plausible.  Thereafter, the cash is there or not
there, whether they look or not.  At no point will I retroactively alter a
scenario outcome that has already happened.  When you open the box with
Schroedinger's Cat, the outcome is decided.  No amount of whining will change
it.

>those decisions are already made (like they are in reality). 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.  But there certainly won't be any magically
appearing where you already looked.  Though come to think of it, I _have_
had things like that happen to me in real life - I was _sure_ I'd already
looked there...

>>>In the improv game, the players are writing the scenario. 

>> No they aren't.  

>Yes they are.

No, they aren't.  :)

>                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?

>                                              If they can influence you
>to make a certain decision,

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.

>                            or if they can get you to reverse a decision,

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.

>but in the improv game, almost all the decisions are going to be made 
>with some level of player input.

No.

>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.

>>>They can't say to themselves -- ``If I do something intelligent, like 
>>>search the floorbards, Steve might dream up a gem for me.'' 

>> If Steve would do that, then Steve should hang up his dice, and take
>> up Monopoly.

>Okay, that was unfair. I shouldn't have inserted your name and that 
>quip is extreme. 

Not unfair, but not a realistic assessment of the situation, and therefore
failing to communicate the actual methodology.  Maybe they can say that to
themselves.  A good GM merely decides what the probability is they are correct
and implements the outcome according to the dice.  Or grabs the opportunity
to rectify a problem that cropped up earlier.  "No gems, but under a loose
board is a vial wrapped in a tattered piece of cloth."

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?

>> 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.

>> 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.

>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?  The characters may not ever hit them!  They may run
away, use magic to disperse them, teleport, whatever.  Only when someone
actually hits one do I toss the extra dice and write down the orc's actual
hit points on my worksheet.  One extra die roll at combat time.  Why else
were the hit points specified as die rolls than for speed?

>Another repeat here, but when improvising, the players are helping
>you determine what is internally consistant. And I object to the way
>that people look down on the traditional reward system. If the players
>take advantage of an internally consistant scenario by searching the
>floorboards, then they have been good boys/girls and they DO deserve
>a reward. 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.

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!