From: Elizabeth.Mccoy@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Elizabeth Mccoy)
Subject: Re: Improvisation!
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 21:06:20 GMT


Rannou@info.polymtl.ca (Patrick Rannou) writes:
>[me writes]

>>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!).

>Agreed. Sometimes game fun takes precendence over the game universe.

No, that's not what's happening -- it's game universe staying *sensible*
that makes for game fun.  If the stupid and illogical solution is the
one that the PCs come up with, then it *should* fail. In the game that
recently fell apart the GM was trying to do Star Wars -- the PCs were
supposed to stop this interplanetary war because both sides keept trying
to nuke us (and failing). A) C'mon, why are we so important that we
should have a bounty on our heads? B) C'mon, why are we still alive if a
millitary government wants us dead? C) Why should we try and fight them
anyway when space is deep and we've got fuel? D) Having put a bounty on
our heads, why would they ever take it off? E) Why are we still alive
*now*? 

And this was a high-prep GM! 

The point isn't bending over backwards to let the players "win," the
point is to make the universe behave consistantly. If you can show a
player a flow-chart later, and have the player go, "Oh why didn't I
*see* that, that's so obvious!" then that's good. If you can improv so
that the world works well, that's good. If you show a flow-chart, or
whatever, and the players say, "But you've totally forgotten about X and
Y, and I don't think you thought through the implications of Z," then
that's not-good.

In general, I'd rather play with a GM who at least knows how to improv
well (whether sie's doing it for that game or not), since that way, even
if the players totally thwart the "plot," and  go off and do other
things, the night doesn't get wasted with, "Well, okay, that's it,
then." or some contrivance brings the whole plot to the players.

[*sigh* My first live GMing and I had a "one-point" hinge for a good
portion of the stuff I wanted to do. And while an NPC would have had at
elast a day to think of something clever, I didn't. Oh, well. I lived,
nobody said it was awful.... I just wish I'd had more experience
improving so I could have pulled that off -- I thought of umpteen
million things that I should have done -- the next day.]
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc