From: sl9b4@cc.usu.edu (Deep Six)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Improvisation!
Date: 16 Aug 92 03:07:58 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <Bt1MyM.E0p@acsu.buffalo.edu>,  
 swann@acsu.buffalo.edu (Stephen Swann) writes:

> Now, whose method is "better"?  I'd say it's just another matter of
> personal preference, wouldn't you?

I figured we would get around to this sometime. If you want to call 
off this thread on account of personal preference, that's okay, but
I've always thought that was sort of a cop out. I mean, pretty much
everything we talk about on these groups comes down to personal 
preference and taste, but if no one discussed anything just because
everything was up to personal taste, then all threads would be three
posts long. Thus:

Post 1: I like my way.
Post 2: I like my way, but it's all a matter of personal choice.
Post 3: Okay. Nice chatting with you.

Nice and polite, easy to follow, but not very enlightening, I'd say.
I've really enjoyed this thread, and have learned a lot about the 
merits of ``winging it.''

>>Why not try to prepare, and if they do pull something you didn't 
>>expect, THEN improvise.
> 
> Because (1) that method takes more time than I want to spend (i.e. any),
> and (2) I don't need to.  :-)

Ah, but by your own admission there are things you can't do by just
improvising, so you are limiting yourself. Other GMs (like me) have  
the benefit of using both ways (using prep as their front line and improv
as a back up, or vice versa). 

>>Well, you certainly didn't invent rebels, dissidents, cults, betrayals, 
>>or any of that other stuff. 
> 
> That's a rather silly flame, don't you think?

Well, when you quote just that one line, I guess it could be considered
a flame, but it wasn't intended as such, and I apologize if you took it
as one. The point of that statement was that political science and 
sociology are already there, and if a person knows enough about them
(like you), he/she can use basic principles as cards. The different
combinations are your plots.

>>And playing off the cuff that way, you could
>>not have created the actual scroll as a prop (like I think I would have).
> 
> You mean, you would have created and actual piece of paper with all that
> info on it?

Well, I think I would have made a scroll on weathered paper that is
ready to fall apart. The players could have a lot of fun looking at it and 
opening it. Even in a game that is founded on imagination, an occasional 
visual aid can be very stimulating. Now, I think that would be worth my 
time without writing anything on it. But I think I would take out my quills 
and scrawl some runic symbols on the scroll which would represent the basics
of the Drow society. I'd use some Latin or something the players could 
figure out a little of. The rest I would say would have to be read by the 
mage or thief or whoever. That would be on a type-written page, so they 
could refer to it. Maybe it would have some clues buried in the text. 
Wing that.

> Well, this is true, but don't you think it's -really- stretching the
> point to claim that one's life experience should be counted toward
> your percentage of "prep time" for DMing?

Well that's why I said ``in a way'' that counts as preparation. The 
point was that, if you can take random scraps from your forebrain and
put together good plots, advance prep can work wonders.

> Isn't the essence of creativity just taking things that already exist,
> and combining them in new and interesting ways?  

Yes, but the difference is that you're just making it up here and there,
while in a prepared scenario, the characters are discovering things set
there for them to discover. Example -- the players are searching a room.
In an improv game, there might be something there, maybe not. It depends 
on if you just make something up to be there. In a prepared scenario, 
there is a definite reward system. If the players are clever, they might
decide to look under the floorboards (where there is ALREADY a key, gem
gun, whatever). If they do, they are rewarded by finding the prize. Now,
in improv games, the players are just searching in a room that wasn't 
there 5 seconds ago, and there may not be anything there unless you come
up with it. If they do find something, it's not a reward, it's just some
thing you thought into existance seconds (or even minutes before). See
the difference?

>>> See, I never bother, because I never have the faintest conception of
>>> what my players will decide to do from one minute to the next.  
>>
>>They must not have very long attention spans. 
> 
> That's kind of a cheap shot.  I was only pointing out that I never
> know what sub-plot they might elect to pursue, or what "goals" they
> might set for a particular playng session.

Now there you go again, taking that one line and making it into a flame.
I do apologize (again) for my snottiness, but hey, look at your statement.
You sound like you are completely out of touch with your players, and they
are completely clueless as to what they are going to do in the next five
minutes. I have NEVER played with a group that changed direction from 
minute to minute, how did your players stay interested long enough to 
learn the history of that Drow civilization?

> Do they tell you what they're planning to do next session?  My players
> don't tell me.

Well of course they tell me. I hear this sort of thing all the time --
``Hey I think one of these times we should probe hill on the perimeter,
it's an infiltration waiting to happen.'' I don't have to prepare the 
hill right then, I just make a note and start thinking about it. I'll 
prepare it later. And what is to keep you from asking your players what
they might be doing next session?

>>How do you know they'll never visit or meet your preparations if they 
>>haven't yet?

> Maybe if I forced it into the campaign.  

Well, they're forcing you to improv everything (according to you), so 
why not force them to play some prepared material? You don't seem to 
mind being forced into a style of play, why would they?

> But what makes you so sure they'll ever get there in the "natural course" 
> of events?  There are places in my world map that they've never been to, 
> and may never go to.  I'm not about to spend time making up stuff about 
> those parts of the campaign, I've got better things to do with my time.

Hell I didn't say I prepared every corner of the earth. Just parts that
are likely to see adventure (the sewer system of a city is much more 
likely to see adventuring than, say, the toy shop). And some prep doesn't 
concern locations. Some of it is NPCs, general ideas, generic buildings.

> Ah, see, I consider my entire campaign, which mean the main "world
> map" and all of the alternate planes of existence and such to be the
> stage.  That's too big to write up in detail.

It's also too big for your players to play in all at once, so you'll 
never have to worry about writing it all up in detail. However, if 
they do decide to globe hop to a portion of the ``stage'' that I 
didn't expect, I can wing it, or ask for some time to prepare. While
improving, other GMs (like me) can do everything you can. With the prep
time, other GMs (like me) can do things you can't.

>>They want to see three-color maps, props, pictures, drawings and 
>>overlays for the miniature map.

> My players Just Have To Make Do with my *wonderful* descriptions. :-)

Well, I rest my case then. If your discriptions are wonderful, think of
what kind of visual aids you could come up with. Got ya.

>> You just shuffle your reams of possibilities and spew out a new variation.
> 
> That's all anyone can ever do, unless you're claiming that you can
> invent something totally new, and never before seen in this world...?

Okay, you have a point, but there's still a difference.

[Cool, and improvised, plot deleted.]

Very good. And no, I didn't hear that old one before. Maybe you ARE 
in the wrong business. But plots are only part of the game. There is 
no WAY you can improvise mechanics as fast as a prepared GM can. I mean, 
you're running AD&D, right? You have to at least write up hit points
and you probably have to write up more (like weapons, special skills
or whatever). Unless you are using ``cookie cutter'' enemies (boring)
you have to write up your encounters on the spot. In a big encounter
or a mass battle, that could be pretty time consuming. A prepared GM 
has it all written up. He just pulls out a nice, neat sheet from his 
note book and he's ready to roll.

>Another thing I don't do is have "planned endings" to adventures).
                 ^^^^^^^^
That should read ``can't do.'' Of course there are no planned endings
in your games. There's no planned anything. You have no idea what the 
players are going to do and neither do you. There's no reward system
there's nothing for the players to ``figure out.''

And to match your improvised example, here is a prepared example of
a game I was in (I didn't GM). The game was Recon, and the party was 
a Navy Seal team, sent in via river boat insertion to interdict 
suspected enemy activity on our division's flank. So we do. It's a 
good game, lots of shooting, running around in the jungle and so on.
And then we ran into a squad of NVA regulars. That was odd, cuz no we 
had expected to see only VC in the area. But no one thought about it 
then, we were trying to stay alive alive at the time. We squeaked 
through and polished off the NVAs, and did a routine search of the 
bodies. Among other things, we found some situation maps and a medical 
bag belonging to the medic. The GM hands us the maps and a black bag full 
of bandages, a couple medical tools and some assorted medicine bottles. 
We thought ``big deal?'' and turned our attention to the situation maps. 
On the maps we found troop emplacements, patrol routes, tunnel maps and 
a bunch of stuff that would come in major handy. 

Then the grenadier says, ``What's this?'' The rest of us looked up
from the maps to see him holding some sort of beaded necklace with a 
little cross. We passed it around, most of us thinking, ``So what, it's 
just some jewelry, now back to this map..'' Until our demolitions guy 
says, ``Hey! This is probably a Rosary.'' So we started thinking. Why
would an NVA have a Rosary? Stole it? Why would he keep it? It's not
worth anything.. unless.. he's Catholic. A Catholic NVA? Unlikely. Maybe
he's French. Did any of the other NVA have stuff like this? No. Our medic 
and the grenadier were looking at the NVA maps while we were discussing 
this, and they came up with the final piece -- all the large troop 
emplacements, all the patrols and all the tunnels centered roughly on
some French plantations. We went home and did some research. All the 
plantations were owned by the same French family, who were suspected of
being Communist sympathizers. Bingo. An affluent French family supporting
VCs in a very sensitive area. The NVA connection? Back to the maps. Aha.
A quiet little supply route into the area -- a branch of the Ho Chi Mihn 
Trail. 

So there you go, a great plot (no better than your improvised one), but
carried out in a way that it couldn't have been done in a ``winging it''
game -- with prepared maps, clues, and props. There's no way you can 
plant stuff like that in extemporaneous story lines. Besides not having 
the actual props, it's hard to plant subtle clues like the Rosary. In an
improv game, you'd say, ``Oh, and by the way, there's a necklace in the
bag'' and try to make it sound harmless. And if you didn't mention the
Rosary, no one is going to say, ``is there anything wierd in the bag? Like
a Rosary?'' With the physical props, the clue was buried under bandages 
and stuff, plus there were other things to distract us (the maps, a flurry 
of discussion, and plus the game was going ahead).

Now, I am not trying to convert you here, and I know you aren't trying
to convert me. I see this as a learning thing, where you show me the 
strong points of your preferences, and I do the same. It's not really a
contest to see who has better ideas or who can argue better, but it is 
stimulating to debate and counter-debate, even if it is just about
gaming.

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   +
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc