From: swann@acsu.buffalo.edu (Stephen Swann)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Improvisation!
Date: 19 Aug 92 18:13:47 GMT
Organization: UB

In article <1992Aug17.144247.58212@cc.usu.edu> sl9b4@cc.usu.edu (Deep Six) writes:
>> either putting in my effort "during gaming" (time already allocated),
>> or spending extra time outside the gaming session
>
>I can certainly understand this, I can usually only game in the summer
>due to school. If that is your primary reason for not using prepared 
>material

Well, the "lack of time" is partly because I choose not to allocate
the necessary time - I simply have too many other things that I would 
rather spend time on, especially when I don't have to.

>moot. I was under the impression that you ``wing it'' because: 1). You 
>know your system well enough to wing it. 2). Your players changed tack
>every session. 3). You are better at winging it. And 3). You didn't want
>to prepare material that you would never use.

This is still true.  If I had immeasurable time at my disposal, I
would undoubtedly do some prep.  But I don't, so the point is 
moot.  I have too many other things to do without spending time on
something that has proved unnecessary.  :-)

>now. So let me ask you, as one of the strongest proponents of improv
>GMing (so far), if you did have time and artistic ability, would you 
>prepare more (like maybe 2% of the time instead of 1%)? That seems to be 
>implicit in your last post, but I don't want to assume anything.

No, I doubt that I would create many props.  I still feel that they're
not an intrinsic part of the game, and in some sense distract from it.
I would like to make such props as nice maps (I make crude ones), or
writeups of the exact content of scrolls, if I had the time.

>> As near as I can tell, the difference is entirely temporal.  This is
>
>No, it's more than just time, it's the impact the players are having on
>the game. Let's use another example -- the characters are searching 
>another room. There is nothing in the room, but the characters search it
>anyway. In the prep game, there is not going to be anything there no 
>matter what (cuz the room was created before the game was played). In
>a improv game, the characters might find something in the room just 
>because they search (not because it was hidden). In that way, the players
>are making up the game to an extent.

Ok, suppose you overlooked something obvious in your preparations -
like, that there should be probably be a money ("petty cash") box in
the locked desk of a rich merchant.  Your players search the desk
and find nothing, because in your preparations you didn't write up
the contents of the desk in detail (not expecting them to search it).
Your writeup just specifies "pen, ink, and parchment", whereas on
further reflection, it occurs to you that there should be the money
box as well, and most likely a book of "sales records".  Will you 
modify this, or "let it ride" the way you wrote it up?

>There is also a difference in the level of capriciousness or prejudice
>the GM can inflict on the scenario. In a prep game, the scenario almost
>has a life of its own because it was set up before the players got there.

My campaign has a acquired a certain momentumn by now, because after
12 years, there are so many NPC's (most of whom were originally
conceived extemporaneously) "going about their own business" all
the time, that the campaign would click along like clockwork without
the players doing -anything- except sitting and watching it all
happen around them.

>If he gets a little pissed because a player argues with him on a rule or
>something, he can't (or he's less likely to) change the scenario to ``get
>back'' at the player. This is more likely to happen in the improv game,
>because everything is being generated then and there. 

That's just shitty DMing, and I've walked out on campaigns before,
because I've seen that happening.  As for my own campaign, my players
have gotten me to reverse rulings that I've made, by showing me either
something that I'd overlooked, or a logical error that I'd made in
casting my decision.

>In an improv game, a subtle and flattering player can go a long way to 
>better his character. I am not saying you may have a problem with that,
>Steve. This argument is in reference to the subject in general. In other
>words, prepared scenarios can have a leveling effect on the GM's ambient
>emotions -- ``keep him honest'' if you will.

But -really- all you're saying is that improvisational GMing is more
"dangerous" and prone to abuse.  This is true.  Like most powerful
tools, it can be abused pretty easily by people who want to do that.
That's why I'm so picky about who I have for players in -my- campaign,
and which GM's I'll play for.  

[almost unrelated remark: Oddly, one of the finest GM's I know is also
the worst player.  As a GM, he is a model of impartial decision making
and inspired creativity.  As a player, he's a jackass and a flagrant
cheater.  You figure it out, I can't.  :-) ]

>The difference is that in the improv game, the characters are impacting the 
>game. If the improv GM likes the systematic, clever way in which the players 
>search a room, they may get a reward. In a prepared scenario, a systematic 
>and clever search will be a waste of time unless there is something in the 
>room. 

Well, you're assuming that the improv GM is going to reward
meritorious (or "clever") behavior, whereas in fact the objective is
to decide what makes the most -sense-, from the "GM's eye view", and
have that happen.  If the GM has created a selfish, conniving and
distrustful merchant as an NPC, and the PC's tear up the floorboards
in this guy's bedroom or study, you have to decide "is it logical that
he would have cached money/personal papers etc in there?".  As a GM,
it's up to you do say "Yes" or "No, he buried all that stuff in a
wooden trunk, under a pile of straw out in the stables."  The decision
you make should be independant of whether what the players are doing
is "clever" or not.  Think like that merchant, and decide based on
what you think -he- would do.

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

No they aren't.  That is just flatly wrong.  Maybe a GM who doesn't
yet have a strong sense of what a GM's task is, might fall prey to
"letting his players dictate the scenario", but that's partly why I
said that improv is only for people with a lot of experience.

>In the improv game, the GM is doing the rewarding. In the prep game,
>the scenario is doing the rewarding. 

Again, you're talking about improvisational GMing which is being
performed incorrectly.  The decision (to return to the previous
example) about whether there's anything under the floorboards
should be made as impartially (strictly according to the scenario,
and what is known of the habits of the person who may/may not have
put something under there).  Just as if you had decided it weeks ago.

>Of course none of this applies if the players don't know if you are winging 
>it. 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.

>player's perspective, both methods are the same. But again, I didn't know
>that your players were unaware of your improvisation. I thought they had to
>know you winged it, how else could you have material for them to play if 
>they don't tell you what they are doing until the day of the game? ESP?

When I "drop" information that they can use to pursue an adventure,
they assume that is my way of telling them "there's a possible
adventure there".  And of course if they pursue it, there always
-is- an adventure, so you could say that they've received a lot of
positive reinforcement to believe that.  :-)

>> At any rate, regardless of which method he's using, you should probably 
>> check those floorboards.  :-)
>  
>Not necassarily. What if owner of the floorboards is coming back soon and
>the party only has 5 minutes to search the room? 

Then they are between a rock and a hard place.  :-)  Either way, the 
decision as to whether there's anything there should be made on the
same grounds, whether it's made 27 hours beforehand, or "on the spot".

>> Mainly a matter of personal pride, I would suspect.  :-)  I'd be lying
>> if I said that I never know what they're going to do.
>
>So maybe your prep time already IS up to 2%. Heh heh.

Oh, if you count the time I occasionally spend tinkering with abstract
scenarios in my head, you might even be able to crank that up to a
whopping 4 or 5%. :-)

>Well, I like to think I've presented a reasonable case for building things
>into a scenario, rather than having the players determine what happens.

My players only determine what their characters do.  In that this
-affects- what happens, they are therefore to some extent "determining"
what happens.  But in no way are they writing the scenario by their
actions.  -I- make the scenario, that's the whole point of what I
do as a DM - to create an internally consistent scenario with NPC's
that act properly (i.e. according to their nature) within the scenario.

>You also mentioned that maps are necessary, but if you improv, where do 
>you get your maps? I make maps all the time, so often in fact that last 
>month I slipped them a map they had already used and they didn't even know
>it. I think you downplay the importance of maps and props -- LOTS of them.

I recognise the importance of maps, the shortage of them is the one
thing that I think of as a weakness in my campaign.  I make occasional
fast-sketch maps of a hallway with rooms/doors leading off from it, a
city block, with streets and buildings marked, a single room with
furniture, windows, etc marked...  I can't imagine drawing in advance
all the city blocks and all the buildings and all the hallways and all
the rooms that the characters might enter and possibly get into a
fight in.  :-)

>> I told you, that's why when I was a beginning GM, I used to prepare.
>> I've been playing AD&D (or rather, my heavily modified version) for
>> so long now that I can make up a character of X level, of any of the
>> primary character classes, in a flash.
>
>But what about monsters? At the very least you have to write a few 
>cursory stats down, and that takes time.

It usually takes me about 5 to 10 minutes of prep to get ready for a
big battle.  (big being more than 4 or 5 antagonists).  I admit that
causes a break in the play, but so what - the players use the
opportunity to order a pizza or put on some new records while I do
that.  :-)

>> Most of the personalities in such a thing won't be exceptional.  You 
>> don't need individual ability scores on 0 level soldiers or orcs,
>> you just need to know their general characteristics.
>
>Which you still have to write it down -- say the party is facing 20 orcs.
>You have to write down their hit points and ACs at the least, right? 

20?  So, that takes about what, a minute to write down?

>Then if they have any special weapons or items, you'd have to right 
>down those, too, right? 

If there's too many to remember.

>What about spell casting monsters? Do you just
>dream up their spell book? Don't you have to at least consult the books
>and jot down a cursory spell book? 

I can guesstimate them with a cursory glance at the spell lists that I
have taped to the inside of my GM's screen.  It takes me about 15
seconds to figure out what I need to know (I already know most of
the spells off the top of my head, I've been playing for 13 years :-)

>Okay, I confess. But the reward system is ad hoc. If you think the
>players are playing intelligently (like the floorboards thing), YOU
>reward them. In a prep game, if the players do the right thing, the
>SCENARIO rewards them -- they can't impact the game just by being 
>smart or charismatic, they have to do the right things at the right
>time.

This is a repeat of the discussion above, about how a GM should decide
on things within the scenario.  Things should happen a certain way
because scenario internally consistent, not because the players have
been good boys and deserve a reward.

>> GM:  There's some bandages, a set of surgical implements, some bottles -
>>   probably for injection, they've got holes through the stoppers - a
>>   stethescope, a black case about 8" by 2" by 4", a necklace with
>>   some beads [and a little cross], a couple of rolls of surgical tape.
>
>See, there -- you just slip that in and hope that the characters don't
>detect a difference in the pitch of your voice, 

They never have, I don't see why they should start now.  :-)

>or hope they don't 
>realize how incongruous it to have a beaded necklace in a medic bag. 

True, but as I already said, giving you a bunch of props TELLS you that
the clues are within these props.  Unless my characters take note of
the medical bag, they might never even bother to open it, in which
case I would never have described the contents and they would never
have known about the rosary.  I think that in general the game is just
fine without props (other than maps and maybe written materials).

>props) the players have to split their attention all over the place -- 
>there's other props to look at and the GM to listen to (plus the 
>possiblity of noisy players, pizza man coming, etc). That's how it would 
>be if the players were their characters. 

They'd be distracted in the jungles of 'Nam by the *pizza man*? :-)  Sorry,
I just had to say that.

>who can't verbally bury clues in their discriptions (like you say you 
>can). And even if the GM is good, some players are still bound to figure
>out certain cues (remember this thread from a while back?) like facial
>expression, rise in voice intonation, fiddling with dice, etc. 

Well, that's a problem, alright.  And not having had it, I don't know
what to tell people as to how to solve it.  I can do the poker face
thing really well

>With the prop, that's determined in real life, in real time. For reality
>freaks like me and my players, that's cool. Note the difference:
>
>``Whew! If I hadn't look on the last page of this book, I would have
>never seen that phone number scribbled there!''
>
>``Whew! I made my vision roll by one! That means I saw the last page
>and get the phone number!''

What I see is that props may also require players to be good at things
that supposedly their characters are good at, and which the players
themselves may or may not be.  Like suppose your character is an
expert in world religions, and the DM hands you a prop "bag of items"
that contains, among other things, a Hindu religious symbol that you
(the player) don't recognise.  Now what?  Does the DM come straight out
and tell you what you overlooked?  I think you're running a severe risk
of making player knowledge = character knowledge, which in my opinion
is contrary to the spirit of the game.

>I guess what I mean is that it is easier to fool the players with a visual
>red herring than with a verbal one. 

[back to your "Recon" scenario here: ]

But I only tell them things that they ask about.  And then I tell them
all the obvious details, useful or not.  If they don't search the
bodies, I don't tell them that one guy has a big "survival" knife with
a knurled steel grip.  If they don't "play with the knife" a little
bit, I won't tell them that the balance seems strange.  If they don't
ask for clarification of that (like if they "assume" that means it's
balanced for throwing or something, and the knife isn't being handled
by someone who would know better), then I won't mention that in fact
it's NOT balanced for throwing, and in fact the pommel seems unusually
light for being made of metal.  If they get this far, they'll probably
figure out that the pommel is hollow, and they'll undoubtedly poke,
pry, and twist, until they get the butt of it off, and see what's
inside.  And then they'll find the map and orders belonging to the spy
who was carrying the knife.

>And it is a good case. But there are ways around those problems, making
>the case for use of props a wee tad stronger, IMO.     

Well, as you can see from the case I made above, I generally disagree.
Maybe we should have different words for "map/written props" and
"other props", because I do consider the former to be important.

>> Ok, I agree.  I'm actually starting to get this urge to do some 
>> preparation for some adventures, even though I know I could wing
>> them if I wanted.  ;-)
>
>And I'm getting the urge to keep some prep time for myself and wing it
>more. I doubt that I'll ever be ambitious enough to really wing a whole
>game tho, I have a really crappy poker face. Heh heh.

A journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step.  
                                              - Chinese(?) proverb
:-)
-- 
Steve Swann                 |    Speak to me in many voices; make
swann@acsu.buffalo.edu      |      them all sound like one...  -BOC
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc