From: sl9b4@cc.usu.edu (Deep Six)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Improvisation!
Date: 18 Aug 92 02:32:21 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <AeY51IG00Vox1FS1Zo@andrew.cmu.edu>, 
 William Henry Timmins <wt0b+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>>The players respond to that little slice of their environment the 
>>way they would if they really were their characters.
> 
> Well, this argument rests on the assumption that preparing ahead of
> time would be impartial, while improvisation is heavily influenced.

I think that's what I just said. Improv GMs are vulnerable to the
actions, requests and influence of the players, because the players 
are present and active while the GM is making up the scenario. The
Prep GM is less vulnerable to players' influence because he is 
making up the scenario and setting it in motion before the players
arrive. Consider this example:

The old example of the gem in the floorboards, one more time..

Player: Let's check the floorboards, there might be something hidden
 there. This guy is a merchant, he GOT to have SOMETHING.
Improv GM: (Thinks - Hmm. He's right, I did say this was a merchant's
 house, and a merchant is likely to have something). Okay, you notice
 loose board.
Prep GM: (Looks at notes) A complete search yeilds nothing (there was
 nothing there to find, the room was created last night).

See, in the improv game, the player found something BECAUSE he
searched, not because something was there. Now, if you were in a 
room and you thought of some ingenious place to search, do you think
there would be something there just because you were smart and
looked there? No. That isn't the way things work. You have to do
the right things at the right times. In the iprov game, you only
have to do the right thing, and hope it pleases the GM.

> You seem to be indicating that without preparation, the GM is easily
> influenced by the players? I don't see how preparation solves the
> problem. 

I am not saying the improv GM is EASILY influenced, and you may not 
have a problem with it at all. But in keeping this discussion on a
general level, I think player influence can become a problem in improv
games. 

Preparation solves the problem because the players' reality is already
prepared when they get there. Once it is set in motion, the GM cannot
be inlfuenced (or is less likely to be influenced) into changing it.
See the above example. It may be somewhat exaggerated, but subtle 
versions of that same exchange happen all the time.

> Who's trying to start the argument?? NWIRM! (Not While I'm Refereeing,
> Mate!) If a gem makes no sense, it's not there.

Ah ha, but what if a player can convince you that it makes sense that 
something IS there when you had decided (or were in the process of 
deciding) that there wasn't something there? Or what if the players 
together try to influence these kinds of decisions? GMs aren't immune
to peer pressure. I am not saying you have a problem with this, these 
are general arguments. 

> If you have a person influencing the game that much, preparation 
> is not going to help. IMO.

Okay, I'll concede that sometimes nothing can help a situation in 
which the players run the game. If the GM is letting a player(s) 
walk all over him/her, nothing will really help. But that's not an
argument in favor of improvisation. What I am saying is that preparing
things in advance can insulate you from subtle player influence and
from your own favoritism, prejudice, whatever.

> Actually, I am known among players at CMU as one of the top two GMs...

And?

> To be serious, preparation of materials is good for visual help, 'toys'
> for the players, etc. Preparation of the adventure, IMO, is best when it
> is broad and sweeping.

Well, I'm glad you advocate (at least implicity) a mix of improv and 
preparation. You have to remember that the things I originally said 
(some of the things you followed up) were in response to someone who 
used, by his own admission, improv 99% of the time. 

> But preparing detailed plotlines is something I cannot imagine anyone
> wasting time on.

Imagine no more, I do it all time, and I never feel my time is wasted. 
If the players depart from what I have prepared, I can wait until they
get around to it, or, if I think they won't, I'll re-tool it for use
somewhere else.
 
> .. specifics are either wrong, or you end up railroading
> your players.

I don't know what you mean by ``specifics are .. wrong.'' Do you mean 
the specifics of the preparation are not what the players do? Well, even
I don't prepare that exactly. I try to foresee every possiblity, and
when I can't I just leave that part of the scenario blank. Example --
I design an enemy basecamp. It has mines, concertina, an HQ, a schedule
of patrols, a supply conduit, a few important NPCs, a few more less 
important NPCs, and maybe cable TV. I cannot concieveably predict how
the players will try to take out the basecamp, so I don't try to. I just
wait for their approach, and hen have the NPCs react the way they woulld 
in real life (or a close approximation). The camp has some SOPs they 
follow in case of attack (written in), so if the players say, ``Oh, 
c'mon, they'd never do that!'' I just shrug -- ``That's the way it was 
written.'' Sort of the ``My hands are tied'' approach. 

> Maybe a definition split is in order- props vs preparation vs plotline?

How about a definition of ``railroading?'' I for one have never heard 
players say ``Oohh! I don't want to play in this scenario! You're rail-
roading me!'' If I am railroading the players by preparing scenarios for
them, so be it, but they don't seem to mind. My philosophy is, as long
as we're playing in a made-up world, what's the harm in playing in a part
that is prepared? Players have their own goals and aspirations, but they 
can't do everything at once, and the GM can always have time to prepare 
the things they want to do. If they feel strongly about doing something 
the GM hasn't prepared for, fine. That's what winging it is for, IMO -- 
to cover what's not prepared. But why not prepare as much as you can?

Additionally, if you are improvising a lot because the players are doing
things so fast that you can't prepare, then aren't they railroading you
into doing things their way? So what is the harm in doing things your
way? 

Try to keep in mind that this discussion has turned into one that focuses
less on personal preferences and more on general aspects. We've already 
established that everyone has ``his/her own way,'' so now we're just sort
of chewing the fat about the pro's and con's of both ways.

Okay,
+  Chadd  L.  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   +