From: gt9405b@prism.gatech.EDU (Lord Goodgulf the Ma-a-a-agical Wizard)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Improvisation!
Date: 26 Aug 92 01:47:44 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <1992Aug25.011821.58379@cc.usu.edu> sl9b4@cc.usu.edu (Deep Six) writes:
>In article <66771@hydra.gatech.EDU>, gt9405b@prism.gatech.EDU 
> (Lord Goodgulf the Ma-a-a-agical Wizard) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug24.133937.58351@cc.usu.edu> 
> sl9b4@cc.usu.edu (Deep Six) writes:
>
>>       As far as I can tell, the main attack on improv is "The GM is too much
>> influenced by the players."  I have yet to see any proof of this.
>
>Not so fast. The player influence argument is only the most recent one. I 
>have watched several good argument go unanswered by improv GMs. Among them:
    I didn't say it was the only one.  I think I've seen more on it than on
any of the others, though.  It's certainly the main of the current ones.

>1. Improv GMs cannot create detailed maps, written portions and physical
>props.
    This one's been talked about already.  Not much point in going over it
again.

>2. Players dislike the feeling that the GM is altering the scenario to 
>make the party successful. The ``spoon feeding'' argument (players have
>posted about this).
     I answered this one.  Improv does not mean that the scenario is changing
all the time.  It does not mean that the characters are always successful.  It
can be done that way, but so can a prep game.  Admittedly, you're less likely 
to change something that you spent 10 hours getting ready, but that's more of
a shield than anything, and I doubt you really need that if you don't like that
type of play.

>3. Players dislike the feeling that they are bouncing around in a world
>which is unplanned by the GM -- if the GM doesn't know what is going on, 
>who does?
     This depends on players.  It can really only be answered by personal
choice.  (Unless it's not 99% improv in which case the first half of the above
applies.)

>4. Improv GMing is vulnerable to the capriciousness of the GM -- GM has a
>bad day, players have a bad day. With prep, the sceanrio is planned over 
>time, which has a leveling effect on the GM.
     A GM can easily ruin a well-prepared scenario if said GM is in a bad
mood.  All it takes is a few decisions against the party (even in a prep game
the GM has to make some decisions during the game).

>5. Improv GMs are more likely to throw in an insignificant detail on the 
>fly with could come back to haunt them as a logical hole in the game world.
     Easily handled.  Either come up with a reasonable way for that detail to
be wrong, or have it be a branch to another part of the campaign.  That's
what improv is all about.  Being able to come up with things on-the-fly from
player actions and NPC actions.
   
>Understand me here. I am STILL not saying my way is better or whatever. And
>maybe you (whoever you are) think you HAVE asnwered the above. I may not
>agree, but that's okay. Just pointing out some things I've noticed, that's
>all. This has been one cool thread, and I am not going to ruin with any 
>flames if I can help it.
      I'm glad it's stayed relatively flame-free too.  And while I did take
the first post I replied to as an "attack", I didn't take it as a flame.  I
certainly think mine wasn't either.  I'm just joining in with my observations
too.
                                Lord Goodgulf the Wizard


-- 
Lynn Richard Akers
"Before I became Vice President, I couldn't even spell potatoe-head.  Now I are
 one."      - Things Quayle never said......but could have 
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt9405b          Internet: gt9405b@prism.gatech.edu