From: inb@creare.creare.com (Ian Brown)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Improvisation!
Date: 25 Aug 92 14:29:21 GMT
Reply-To: inb@creare.UUCP (Ian Brown)
Organization: Creare Inc., Hanover, NH

In article <1992Aug24.133937.58351@cc.usu.edu> sl9b4@cc.usu.edu (Deep Six) writes:
>In article <g3jpb20c@cck.coventry.ac.uk>, 
>  gdg019@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Ridley McIntyre) writes:
>
>> First of all, I'd like to say that this thread has been most interesting 
>> to read because of the sheer single-mindedness of the two sides of the 
>> argument.
>
>I'd like to point out that one of the characteristics of this whole thread
>has been that those on the improv side of the discussion have been on the
>defense nearly the whole time. Noticed that? It started when one GM said he
>improvises 99% of the time. A large part of the thread from that time on 
>has been improv GMs coming to the defense of that style. Almost no on has
>argued the weaknesses of prep GMing. Some have mentioned the difficulties
>of too much prep (players will never use it all, too much time, you can't
>prepare EVERYthing, etc), but no one has said that prep GMing is undo-able.

Let me present a case where it pretty much is.  I haven't played in a regular
group (outside of several eMail games that I am running and another I am playng
in) in several years.  A friend of mine, whom I haven't seen much in the last
year or two, may drop by Thursday (I saw him last night for the first time in
months).  I am going to a concert tonight (a 2.5 hour drive each way) and play
in a Go group on Wednesday nights.  Since I work during the day, I haven't got
any real time to do any preparation.  If he does show up and we do decide to
play, one of us will have to come up with an idea and run it using improv.

>On the other side, prep GMs have insisted that a GM who uses improv only
>cannot run a satisfactory game. Improv GMs don't really have a defense for
>that, and have been forced, time and again, to fall back on the ``well, it
>works for me,'' line.

The 'well, it works for me,' line, as you put it, is a perfectly good defense.
The fact that people *have* run satisfactory games (and many people have done
so) *proves* that the original statement is false.  Saying that improv can fail
and fail miserably is a more reasonable, and true, statement.  However, by the
same token, prep can fail and fail miserably.

>> What you guys fail to see is that you both enjoy to GM differently and yet 
>> still your players have fun. To me THAT'S what roleplaying is all about.
>
>Not everyone failed to see that. You must have missed the first few posts 
>in the thread. Some of the earlier participants agreed that even though 
>there is no one answer and no one right way, the discussion could proceed
>as an exchange of opinions. They agreed to just point out the pros and cons
>or each other's style and not try to convert anyone. Some of the people who
>joined the thread later either didn't know about that agreement or ignored
>it. But back to your comment, sure it's all about fun, and sure it's about
>personal preference, but we've got to have SOMEthing to discuss here, don't
>we? As long as you can keep it relatively flame-free, I think disagreeing
>can be a positive, meaningful thing.

Discussion is fine, but the flat-out statement that improv GM's 'cannot run a
satisfactory game' is a statement that, it seems to me, and probably quite a
few other improv GM's, is intended to provoke people into a flame war.  If I
said that prep GM'ing 'is a waste of time and effort, because it doesn't
provide people with enough freedom to role-play their characters,' your first
reaction would probably along the lines of 'who is this idiot?' and you might
say as much, in similar terms (you, in particular, may not, you might step back
and present a clear argument for why it does work, but someone on the net
*will*.)

Ridley's point is correct and worth bringing back into the discussion.
Whatever was originally agreed upon at the beginning of this, it has clearly
been lost somewhere along the way.  That being the case, bringing it back is
worth the effort and I applaud Ridley for stating it.

I think that trying to point out the cons, especially, of the 'other' side,
whichever that might be, is bound to cause friction.  Both sides have a lot to
offer, both have weaknesses.  I'd like to see stuff from prep GMs about ways
that make the preparation easier; shortcuts or whatever.  In return, the improv
GMs can suggest methods for making improvisation work.

Being good at either prep or improv is a skill; some people come by it
naturally, others will have to learn it.  I find that, for myself,
improvisation comes easily, preparing things, although attractive to think
about, tends to be tedious and, eventually, boring.  If someone can suggest
ideas on how to make the preparation time fun, I'd certainly appreciate it.  In
return, I'll be happy to offer ideas on how to improvise.


-- 
Ian Brown
inb@creare.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc