From: sl9b4@cc.usu.edu (Deep Six)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Improvisation!
Date: 19 Aug 92 23:42:10 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <Bt8tAz.L8r@acsu.buffalo.edu>, 
 swann@acsu.buffalo.edu (Stephen Swann) writes:
> In article <1992Aug17.144247.58212@cc.usu.edu> 
 sl9b4@cc.usu.edu (Deep Six) writes:

>>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.

Not necessarily is it moot, since we moved this conversation to a more
general level. Correct me if I am wrong, but you are saying that GMs 
should do some prep if they have the time to do so. An important point.
>>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.  

I never said I was opposed to this type of improv, I have advocated a
mix of prep and improv. Yeah, it there is an incidental desk sitting
there and the players search it, I might improv something to be there.
But the main plot points are already mapped out. For example, if the
players are trying to solve a murder and this merchant is a suspect,
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 the improv game, the players may convince the GM that the desk
would contain that record (or some other discriminating piece of 
evidence). In the prep game, the clues are already determined, and
finding them is part of the players' task. In the prep game, the
players cannot solve the mystery (be successful) simply by convincing
the GM that ``x'' is likely to be true. 

> 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?

Depends on how important the detail is. If it's a major plot device,
and it's prepared elswhere, I let it ride the way I wrote it up. If 
it's a minor point, like finding some petty cash in a drawer, then 
I can wing that.

>>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.  

Good point. But I thought we'd established that both 100% prep and 100%
improv games can produce equally satisfactory scenarios, depending on the 
GM, so I don't think you have a case when you imply that improv GMing is 
``more powerful'' than prep GMing. What I was trying to point out is 
that prep GMing can dampen, pre-empt or block problems that would be 
present in improv GMing.

>>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. 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.

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,
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?

>>In the improv game, the players are writing the scenario. 
> 
> No they aren't.  

Yes they are. Practically all your decisions about the outcome of the
scenarios are made in the players' presense. If they can influence you
to make a certain decision, or if they can get you to reverse a decision,
then they are writing the scenario (or at least part of it). Now, I can
understand improvising small details based on input from the players, 
but in the improv game, almost all the decisions are going to be made 
with some level of player input.

>>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). 

How can you say it is impartial when you've said you accept input from
the players? You have said that you allow yourself to be influenced by
what the players might perceive as inconsistancies or misjudgments. A 
judge who decides a case is impartial. Does a judge ask the litigants 
what THEY think about the case? Does a judge accept input from the 
litigants after the case has been decided? You mentioned (in a previous
post) that you think of your role of GM as that of a judge, but clearly
you can't mean that when you allow this kind of player impact.
 
> Just as if you had decided it weeks ago.

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.

>>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. 

> 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.

> 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.  :-)

Well, the buildings, alleyways or rooms where the characters are very
likely to be in, I map. Areas that I think they might be in, I think
about and maybe put some thought about the area (this will be a hard-
ware store, this will be office space) without mapping in detail. And
of course the areas I have no idea about I can wing.

>>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.  :-)

That sounds nice, and it might even work if you could time combats 
with dinner time and record play times. I submit that there's got to
be times when writing down stats, looking up spells or whatever will
break the tempo of the game. That's not even a consideration with the
prep game. 

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

One more minute than required by the prep GM. 
 
>>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.

Another minute used somewhere else in the prepared game. Granted, your
players aren't going to have time to take a nap while you prepare 
encounters, 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.''

>>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.

> 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.

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.

>>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.

Ouch. Direct hit. Heh heh.
 
>>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

Here again, based on that general argument, preparation is necessary. 

>>``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!''
> 
> 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.

You can avoid those situations. Use props that will take advantage of
knowlege that the players and characters have in common (the players 
and characters will be equally proficient at thumbing through an 
address book). If it helps, I've never seen a prop or used a prop 
where that has been a problem. Much of the time (like the Drow scroll)
the props are just to add color to the game. Makes it a little more
vivid.
 
> Maybe we should have different words for "map/written props" and
> "other props", because I do consider the former to be important.

Maps are definitely the most important. Written props and ``other
props'' are equal in my book. Sometimes there would be no difference
between the three. Example -- a pirate's map on aging parchment 
would be cool. I'd look at some old woodprint drawings to get a 
sense of drawing ``style.'' It would have purely visual impact 
(``other prop''), but the geographical info would be useable (map).
Then there might be a riddle/clue on the back would make it a 
written prop. But that's just a side note.

Okay,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Chadd 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