The Forge Archives

I like to play ignorant characters.  I like to discover a cool imagnary place that I have no actual knowledge of.

But I don't like "following" a GM's "plot".  I'm happy to explore his world, but I wanna do it on my terms.

I have played plenty of games where the GM allowed or even encouraged me to poke at color bits and pursue what I found interesting in the world, but usually in the context of:
a) furthering his plot, or
b) providing a momentary digression which will soon be dropped, in order to return to his plot

It's been rare indeed that I've said, "Ooh, I wanna learn about THAT!" and had that interest guide the GM, so he focuses his prep on what I want to know rather than on what he already wanted to show me.  It has happened, but never because of a gamebook.

So, here's my question: does anyone know of a game that successfully makes this happen (as opposed to allowing it to happen, which many games do)?

I'm thinking of creating one.

Thanks,
-David

P.S. If I'm being too broad, and identifying a CA type would help: I'm envisioning a Sim game.

Not as such.

Probably one of the best candidates for a setting that SHOULD facilitate this kind of thing is Blue Planet.  There is a work in which the authors have gone to significant effort to produce real and interesting information which is attractive at multiple levels, far more so than the run-of-the mill fantasy boilerplate.  But, apart from providing this material, there is little in the way of structure or procedure that actually makes exploration happen.

I have used some tricks of my own to try to find out what players would like to see, such as polling them after a session as to what they might like to explore next, and then endeavoring to produce an at-the-table game that meets these desires.  But I have also encountered some significant difficulties. First and foremost is that traipsing around the countryside going "huh, look at that" just does not strike as me as being very interesting over an extended period.  There still, I think, needs to be some kind of engaging action that requires some activity or compels interaction with the setting and its interesting details.  Secondly, that can be a very work-intensive 'design-on-demand' approach, and makes you a hostage to fortune; one unlucky blank spot or lack of ideas brings everything screeching to a halt.

So I still think there needs to be some kind of plot or GM direction, but in the service of exploration itself, rather than plot as such.  How to do that I'm not exactly sure, and I hope we can get a discussion on the possibilities rolling.

What does "CA type" mean? Otherwise, I get that you want a Sim game. But... a Sim of what, actually? Pure exploration?

But any game can be about that, right? (or at least, I assume you're talking about fantasy or sci fi games.) Most games use exp points as a reward, so just only give them by how many "hexes" they uncover or by what percentage they learned of the GM world or however you define "explore". Also, only allow characters with classes/professions that match this, like Rangers or Scouts or Cartographers or whatever. Then, if you are going to make quests, it's not to destroy the dragon but to map the forest or to find the mouth of the river, etc.

In its purest form, it reminds me of a driving game my friends and I used to play on long car trips, especially in heavy traffic. We picked a random car alongside us and just alternated asking questions and answering them. "What's his name?" "Horatio. What does he do?" "He's in sales. Does he like his job?" "Yeah, but he's been passed over for a promotion by a woman. What's her name?" etc.   

All CA's have a base layer of exploration, but sim has (or can have) exploration as its point, its particular purpose, as opposed stepping up or addressing premise.

Anyway the hex idea does have potential.  There is an old game called Source Of The Nile which works in a rather similar way to that which you suggest; the basic action of play is to reveal/determine the content of unexplored hexes.  The Boardgame Geek entry for the game can be found here: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/1577

I use skill trees in Icar (http://www.icar.co.uk), although they're not really feats, it works very nicely. If you want to say a certain skill depends on more than one parent then you can show that in a diagrammatic form. See http://www.icar.co.uk/files/elements35.pdf page 24 for an example of this.

Another board game to have a look at is the classic Avalon Hill "Outdoor Survival".

(If you're old enough, you might remember it as an officially recommended accessory for D&D games...)

While you're at it, have a look at the old AD&D scenario "Isle of Dread" for an idea of what can happen when you have a big map full of encounters and then let the players do as they will with it.  Nothing they *have* to do, but lots they can go do.

Best,

Pete

Dave, this strikes me as remarkably similar to what I'm trying to do in my game over in this thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=25504.0), where you have been extremely helpful. You're approaching it from the Sim side, I think I've jumped over into full frontal Nar.

In a nutshell, I think you're looking for Dogs in the Vineyard without the Judgment. If your Dogs are not agents of the Elders but rather just a bunch of pretty tough guys who might be persuaded to help out, I think that could be just what you're looking for. Thematic stuff might be there, but only as a catalyst for conflicts among the NPCs and PCs. The next "Town" in this case is the part of the Setting directly in front of the PCs at the end of last session. Players would be free to wander about in the prep'd areas and do whatever they like. With tight conflict all around them there would be plenty to do. Important NPCs should express important parts of the Setting, so as you interact with them you necessarily explore Setting and as you wander through the Setting you are drawn to important NPCs.

Example from my current campaign:

- Haldren -
Cleric of Terra
Thane of the Order of Thorne
Totally loyal to the Emperor
Supports the Edict of Succession
Passed over for the important position of Chamberlain
Longtime friend of the current Chamberlain

You really can't meet this guy without asking a lot of questions about the Setting. He's tied into conflicts with several other NPCs, so you can't avoid him forever. Tie him to a PC and you make the conflicts personal. And yet, this isn't a linear GM plot. I have no idea what trigger will be pulled or where it will lead. Players can wander in any direction and they will have interesting things to see and do.

(Naturally, my campaign has holes in it. Lots of them. So this is more a goal than a description of where it is now.)

Other important points:

* Players should have strong Plot Authority (maybe just by letting them declare conflicts)
* The GM should have complete Content Authority
* Prep takes time. How much content do you expect to generate during play?
* You need to make allowances for "Game Under Construction" signs, unless you use a complete published Setting

All these suggestions sound perfectly compatible with what I'm after, but missing the point itself.  The point is not about how the GM makes his world interesting, or about whether the players can just wander around until they find something they like.  These are important too!  I like them!  But, what I'm looking for is a way for the players to actively steer what the characters explore, based on what the players find cool at that moment.

"But David," you might say, "if the GM makes a cool enough plot (e.g. based on detailed player feedback), and presents it well enough, the players are bound to latch onto its interesting bits and follow the trail, without even feeling like they're following!"

And I say, "Bullshit!"  Following is following and everyone knows it.  I'm not saying following the GM is bad!  It's just not what I'm going for here.  I want the GM to follow where the players lead.  If they never surprise the GM and choose to go somewhere and focus on something he hadn't anticipated, I'd be stunned.

Here's an example:
The PCs are hired to kill Orcs.  The mission has plenty of color and discovery.  After killing the Orcs, the PCs find a glowing stone with an unreadable inscription.  "Ooh!  Cool!"  The GM smiles as the players discuss how they want to find out what this is.  Then one of the players says, "What I really want to know is what the tattoos on that big Orc did.  Were they what made him so strong?  Could we copy them and be super-strong too?"  And everyone else is like, "Yeah!  Awesome!"  And the GM's thinking, "I just wanted to make him look scary.  What the fuck?"

What I want is for the players to be able to go learn something interesting about Orc tattooing.  Not maybe, not if the GM feels like it.  They absolutely do determine where to go and encounter an opportunity there to learn what they seek.

Assuming that's possible, do you see the appeal?  Can you envision how that might be cool in a new and different way?  Or have you played something that accomplishes this already?

Quote from: John Adams on February 07, 2008, 02:10:11 PM* Players should have strong Plot Authority (maybe just by letting them declare conflicts)

I could see a game working where the players say "We want to go where we can learn more about Orc tattoos!" and the GM opposes this somehow, and a roll is made, and the players win, and the GM says, "Okay, you find out (how is another topic) that the place to go is Bumbleshire!"  The thing is, I don't want the players to ever lose this conflict.

Quote from: John Adams on February 07, 2008, 02:10:11 PM* Prep takes time. How much content do you expect to generate during play?

My current best idea goes like this:
Each session begins with the PCs in a situation with something interesting to do.  They spend the session exploring that situation, and finish with it.  Then they decide what to do next, and tell the GM.  The GM goes home and preps the next session.

Dave, it sounds like straight-up conflict resolution to me.

Conflict: We learn all about this orc's cool tattoos.

If you win those stakes, the GM is compelled to cough up the goods. If you don't want the players to ever lose, up the cost of continuing the conflict, the longer is goes, the more it costs you. How much is this worth to you? (Or is that to Nar?)

Or the GM could just Say Yes and forget the conflict altogether if it isn't dramatic enough.

The wrinkle is in the prep/play balance you want here. Anything requiring prep must wait until next session, so it doesn't seem like a good conflict candidate, the GM would be forced to wing it. What if at the end of the session each player listed one element of the SIS they would like to see next time, and the GM had to include 3 of those elements in his prep? Then the players could make sure they hit those elements by declaring conflicts?

John,

The GM says Yes, the GM coughs up the goods, the "coughing up" process takes an entire play session.  I want rules that make this happen, not rules that might or might not.  So, no Conflict Resolution.

Your idea for element suggestions to inform prep is much closer to the mark.  I should state, though, that I would prefer to guarantee players only learning opportunities, not specific experiences.  I think suggestions to the GM of "here's what next session will be about" are cooler than "here's what next session will contain".  And by "be about", I mean the motives the player takes into that Situation, and the guarantee that those motives can be pursued.

QuoteSo I still think there needs to be some kind of plot or GM direction, but in the service of exploration itself, rather than plot as such.  How to do that I'm not exactly sure, and I hope we can get a discussion on the possibilities rolling.

It seems to me that the logical solution would be design your plot diagram as a graph, rather than a railroad or an open field.  It gives players enough choice that they don't feel trapped by arbitrary narrative requirements, but constrains the action enough that the GM can reasonably cope with unfolding events.

The other benefit of the graph structure is that you can perform a kind of 'dynamic caching'.  If your players are at a particular node of the graph, you'll know that you have to research and embellish the setting for any adjacent nodes.  It's more work than the railroad, but less than complete freeform exploration.  Nodes might not represent just physical locations, they could also be placeholders for major events or any other dramatic scene/setting.

You should also take care to ensure than any constraints placed on the player's exploration are for plausible reasons.  If you're treking through the barren desert as part of a trading caravan, 'you will get lost and die of thirst' is a perfectly viable explanation for why you can't wander off the beaten track.  This does not apply to a leisurely stroll through temperate wheatfields.  The barriers needn't be physical- a stubborn NPC you need to babysit or time constraints could work just as well, but there needs to be a believable reason for why the PCs wouldn't really have that option available.  'I Jump Right Off the Cliff For No Particular Reason!" is not a valid player decision.

Then, if all else fails, and the players take off in an unexpected direction, you might tie them up in a difficult, semi-random encounter long enough to eat up the remainder of the session, so that you can then brainstorm new content before meeting again.  Or, just explain the situation to them.  You may or may not wish to shepherd them onto the straight and narrow again, but, there has to be a plausible reason involved

Quote"What I really want to know is what the tattoos on that big Orc did.  Were they what made him so strong?  Could we copy them and be super-strong too?"  And everyone else is like, "Yeah!  Awesome!"  And the GM's thinking, "I just wanted to make him look scary.  What the fuck?"

What I want is for the players to be able to go learn something interesting about Orc tattooing.  Not maybe, not if the GM feels like it.  They absolutely do determine where to go and encounter an opportunity there to learn what they seek.

Are you saying that the players have both the right to explore the world as they see fit, and the right to dictate that where they explore will actually be interesting?  I'm not sure it's entirely fair on the GM that he has to make every nook and cranny of his setting rife with mystery and intrigue if his players choose to look in basically dumb places.  I dunno.

Well, there's nothing to stop the players trying various options to learn what the significance of that orc's tattoo might be, but there's nothing to guarantee they'll find out anything fascinating.  Of course, if you invested a lot of detail in describing the Orc's tattoo, then you were probably leading the players 'on' unfairly, but a good GM is supposed to insert red herrings into the description of a scene, just to keep players on their toes.  Not everything that catches the players' eye is neccesarily of great importance.

You can just say that orcs are not terribly communicative on the subject of their body art and it's connotations.  Maybe, if you like, you could arrange a later encounter with a similar orc tribe, and the head honcho has a similar tattoo of patterns on his face and body.  Perhaps it's a status symbol.  Perhaps it's the insignia of a diabolist cult that does, in fact, boost your mental and physical attributes -at the expense of devouring your soul.
Maybe the tattoo itself will have effects along those lines.  Maybe it can be used to gain entrance to a cult hideout.  Maybe it just looked pretty and adds some interest to the player's character sheet.  The players don't have to find out right away.
Certainly, a player is free to copy the tattoo if he desires, but point out that you don't yet know it's significance, so on their heads be it if it backfires.  As long as they don't arrive at definite conclusions before the next session, you can spin some elaborate backstory to cover yourself.  Nobody said the players have to find out instantly.

QuoteMy current best idea goes like this:
Each session begins with the PCs in a situation with something interesting to do.  They spend the session exploring that situation, and finish with it.  Then they decide what to do next, and tell the GM.  The GM goes home and preps the next session.

Sounds like a fine idea.  I would suggest that if you're tying the GM's hands in this fashion, you might to have some kind of resource which measures the degree of control the player or GM has over the world.  I.e, if the players compel the GM to let them wander off the beaten path a lot, the GM can accumulate 'influence points' that allow him to fudge rolls by the players during mechanical encounters.  Maybe some kind of democratic concensus mechanism is useful.  I couldn't say, I'm relatively used to GM fiat.

Alfryd,

Clearly, combining a partial version of my idea (GM prep is responsive to player interests) with what you're used to (GM preps a bunch of neat stuff with the expectations that players might take interest) will wear out the poor GM.  I think I might be able to largely ditch the type that you're used to, though, with no ill effects!

Quote from: Alfryd on February 07, 2008, 07:33:41 PMAre you saying that the players have both the right to explore the world as they see fit,

Yes, but only exploration within the limits of player-GM agreements will go smoothly.  Exploration that violates such agreements will force things like, "Well, we gotta end the session now guys, so I can prep the thing you decided to do."  Facilitating good agreements will be key, but I think it can be done!

Quote from: Alfryd on February 07, 2008, 07:33:41 PMand the right to dictate that where they explore will actually be interesting?

Yes, but only on a certain scale.  If on their way into a dungeon, the players decide to stop and examine the nearby flowers, those flowers may be boring as hell.  If they decide to search a certain building in a town, that building may be boring as hell.  But if they decide to embark on some sort of multi-step quest that'll take multiple hours of play (i.e., a session)?  Yes, it will be interesting.

My current thought is a structure like this:
Session = one Scenario
Scenario = a situation containing something the players have agreed they want to explore, complete with means for them to do so and some source of drama & tension in the attempt (e.g. obstacles)

Thus, if the players bail mid-scenario, the session is over.  They stopped caring about the thing that they told the GM would motivate them, so now they need to pick something else so the GM can go prep that.

Hopefully, this can be avoided.  It's the players' job to be honest and consistent in their interests, and the GM's job to create a Scenario that won't bore them while they're exploring it.  Providing tools to facilitate this will also be key.  Again, I think it can be done!

Quote from: David Berg on February 07, 2008, 02:40:15 PM
What I want is for the players to be able to go learn something interesting about Orc tattooing.  Not maybe, not if the GM feels like it.  They absolutely do determine where to go and encounter an opportunity there to learn what they seek.

Assuming that's possible, do you see the appeal?  Can you envision how that might be cool in a new and different way?  Or have you played something that accomplishes this already?

Yes and no.  One of the reasons I raised BP as an example is that the material is extensive and yet is still external to the GM.  It's not the GM's creation, in some respects the GM is only acting as interpreter or communicator of these externally existing 'facts'.  Of course the same can be said of most settings, although IMO to a lesser degree.  But it is not impossible for the GM to limit their own input primarily to the adjudication of discovery and interactions with the setting.

I think that could potentially be valid and entertaining.  But I really dislike the idea of prep-on-demand, mainly because it is something I am very poor at.  Even accepting the possibility of breaking a session, which I have both done and seen done, is not very satisfactory.  I've got a job and so forth, other commitments to my time, the prospect of a game that is going to potentially oblige me to find time in any given week (for example) to create the material for next week's session is a big ask.  It feels too much like running to keep up, and if there is no larger framework by which player activity can be at least partially predicted, maintaining that level of continuous creation is a lot like having a second job.

It irks me when people talk about Sim GM's "telling their story" because I do not think that is really whats going on.  The "story" as such is not important in its own right, its only there to provide a trail of breadcrumbs so that prep can be carried out in advance along the whole trail.  But I do think that the trail of crumbs is indeed serving a valid and useful purpose.  It would be more useful to me, at least, if the players' desires to investigate orcish tattoos could at least perhaps be postponed to the next trail of crumbs, kind of, OK I'll put that on my list of stuff to address next time, but not as soon as next session.

Hence I essentially agree with Alfryd's point about prepared material being non-linear, but this presents other problems that centre on making much more material than will ever be actually called on and thus goes to waste.  This too is a huge burden to place on a GM's time and resources.  But it may become much more do-able, I think, if the scenario/trail-of-crumbs is, again, external to the GM. In this case the GM and players are to some extent co-explorers, both encountering specific interactions that neither of them predicted at the outset, and instead experiencing interactions that were envisioned by an external third party, and seeing, quite literally, "how they play out". 

In addition:

Back in the good ol' days you could go into a game store and find a shelf-full of scenarios, and you could look at those as a group, and discuss whether or not the indicated stuff turned you on.  "Ooh look lizard men, lets get that one".  Precisely because the material was external and pre-made you could make at least some kind of informed choice about what you wanted to explore, and commit collectively to those particular games up front.  That, to me, was a perfectly workable relationship within the group, much more so than the later development of putting the burden of creation entirely on the GM's shoulders, and requiring players to buy in sight unseen.  I go into game stores these days and all I see is RULES, rules as far as the eye can see and virtually no actually playable content.

For anyone reading this who entered the hobby after these sorts of scenarios went out of fashion, you can see a list of the old D&D modules here: http://www.waynesbooks.com/DDModulesBseries.html  Look at all that stuff for just one rule-set! Bring back Keep on the Borderlands, say I.

David,
  Of the games I have actually played, SoY comes the closest to what you are talking about. Although Ensemble might, but in my actual play - even though it is GM-less, it has proven to allow each indivisdual player less control over the over flow of the narrative.
  There probably are some great GM-less games out there that might do what you want.
  As to playing DITV without Dogs, I think it is a bad idea. The ditv mechanics rely on a character type that is highly motivated and relatively inflexible in their views. Look at the escalation path. Why would anyone risk the d10 fallout unless they were willing to die for what they believed in? Don't get me wrong, I think you CAN play ditv rules in another setting, but you have to do it with a class of characters that will die for what they believe in (Star Wars Jedi was a good example I have seen floating around).
  Anyways, good luck Dave and let us know what you find!

David,

Check out InSpectres.  A player can describe their character, say, looking under a rock to see what's under there.  A roll is made, and based on that roll, either the player defines what's under that rock and what happens with it, or the GM does.  Either way, the outcome still has do deal with "what's under that rock," and whatever is defined becomes FACT, regardless of whether anyone ever planned on it.

My group played InSpectres for the first time last night, and this turns out to be really easy to do (partially because InSpectres is really humorous).  Check it out, and I think you could apply the principles of those rules to what you're talking about pretty easily.

-Marshall

Dave,
I own SoY, but haven't played it.  I'm kind of at a loss for how to determine "what gets played", but I'm pretty sure that the GM doesn't have sole Content Authority.  Right?  Don't the players get to contribute beyond just saying, "My character pursues X"?

Marshall,
Similarly, I can't see a way to apply InSpectres' mechanism without allowing players to determine world content.

Contracycle,
I hear you on the value of published material!  That would be my ultimate contribution for those GMs with limited time on their hands... but I only have so much time on mine, and writing up (and illustrating) a few more hundred pages of material is gonna have to wait.

I also hear you on the upsides of filling the world with neat stuff and having scenarios lead to each other in satisfying ways.  That was my plan for my Lendrhald game, until I started thinking this new idea might be better.  The problem with even the best-organized web of scenarios is the limit on meaningful player contribution.  In a game where the players have no directorial powers, I feel like giving them total ability to point the camera would be hugely rewarding.  A constrained ability to point the camera is really just freedom of sequence -- i.e. in what order do we play through the scenarios?  This is, IMO, not all that meaningful a contribution.

Does that make sense?

If something could be done to make the prep-on-demand as unburdensome as possible, what would you think?

-David

Whoops, I didn't realize that you wanted the GM to have sole authority over content.  Now, by "authority" do you mean deciding what's in and what's out, or making all content-based decisions on his own without input from the other players?  If it's the latter, that's, uh, well, honestly it's something I don't understand at all.  I'm not going to assume that it's evil because I don't like it personally, but I'm afraid I can contribute nothing helpful.

But, if it's the former, using an InSpectres-like dynamic the player is allowed to *suggest* things, but the GM gets final say might be a place to start.

-Marshall

@ Contracycle

QuoteHence I essentially agree with Alfryd's point about prepared material being non-linear, but this presents other problems that centre on making much more material than will ever be actually called on and thus goes to waste.  This too is a huge burden to place on a GM's time and resources.  But it may become much more do-able, I think, if the scenario/trail-of-crumbs is, again, external to the GM. In this case the GM and players are to some extent co-explorers, both encountering specific interactions that neither of them predicted at the outset, and instead experiencing interactions that were envisioned by an external third party, and seeing, quite literally, "how they play out".

Naturally, a good campaign setting pre-made would be useful, but this doesn't solve the more fine-grained problem of integrating the players into the world, which NPCs they have to deal with, what's the plot-hook, etc.  If the players' actions are meaningful, they have to wind up changing that world on a scale commensurate to their powers, which means you'll inevitably need to fill in the gaps yourself.

I think the problems of content overload can be alleviated partly through using varying levels of detail to prep potential scenes beforehand.  If you find your players have decided to enter scene A, you might write a 40-word description for scenes B, C and D, adjacent to scene A, and an 8-word description for scenes E, F, G, H, I, J, K and L, adjacent to B, C and D.  You then embellish your previous 40-word description for scene A into a 200-word description before the next session, where your players decide to head for scene C.  Again, you embellish your 40-word description for C into a 200-word description, while scenes G, J and K grow to 40 words each, and so on, and so forth.

You might also want to group scenes into acts, acts into plays, etc, and use a similar prep method for these supergroups to keep ahead of the players.  You might have formal rule specifying things like, "the players must have at least 3 formal options available in a given scene.  If they ignore these options, the GM gains an influence point.  If the GM provides fewer than 3 options, or provides options that lead directly to the same scene, the players each gain 1 influence point."

@ David Berg

QuoteYes, but only on a certain scale.  If on their way into a dungeon, the players decide to stop and examine the nearby flowers, those flowers may be boring as hell.  If they decide to search a certain building in a town, that building may be boring as hell.  But if they decide to embark on some sort of multi-step quest that'll take multiple hours of play (i.e., a session)?  Yes, it will be interesting...
...Thus, if the players bail mid-scenario, the session is over.  They stopped caring about the thing that they told the GM would motivate them, so now they need to pick something else so the GM can go prep that.
Hopefully, this can be avoided.  It's the players' job to be honest and consistent in their interests, and the GM's job to create a Scenario that won't bore them while they're exploring it.  Providing tools to facilitate this will also be key.  Again, I think it can be done!

I can see what you're getting at now.
My major concern- aside from the pressure of content generation contracycle mentions- would be that you're not holding the players to any given focal point of interest longer than one session, so it's difficult to ensure a recurrent plot thread, and makes it easy for the players to abnegate responsibilities or commitments they've made to NPCs in prior sessions, or generally elude the consequences of their actions.  You'd need some method by which you can say, "Okay, you can write the plot, and I'll write the content- but I will hold you to what you write."  Otherwise the GM winds up supplying, in essence, window-dressing.

Hi!
  Dave, There are two modes of play in SoY (as far as I know)
1) All the players work out what scene is about
2) The GM (aka SG) writes a Key scene. The nature of a Key scene is its "about" one of your char's Keys. And you decide what keys are on your char sheet, so you decide what its about.
  So, in the most indirect way, it does what you want. Because the Keys can be very specific. Also, if you change your mind, you can buyoff a key and buy one that matches your new interest.
  Also, I am not sure if this is what you are looking for, but Donjon lets the player decide/create what is in the world. So, when you go to roll to see if there is a secret door, if you succeed, you decide if there is one, not the GM.

Quote from: David Berg on February 08, 2008, 04:10:12 PM
I also hear you on the upsides of filling the world with neat stuff and having scenarios lead to each other in satisfying ways.  That was my plan for my Lendrhald game, until I started thinking this new idea might be better.  The problem with even the best-organized web of scenarios is the limit on meaningful player contribution.  In a game where the players have no directorial powers, I feel like giving them total ability to point the camera would be hugely rewarding.  A constrained ability to point the camera is really just freedom of sequence -- i.e. in what order do we play through the scenarios?  This is, IMO, not all that meaningful a contribution.

Well I agree that merely choosing sequence is not that empowering, but that was not quite what I was thinking of.  I am suggesting something more akin to using an appropriate subset of such scenarios, rather than working through all of therm.  Or perhaps you could run through set A with a given group of characters suited to its problems, and set B with another set of characters suited to those problems.  The main advantage I see is that the players together, including the GM, select what they want to play from a "menu" as it were.  That I can see as a functional version of pointing the camera.  When the players register an interest in investigating orcish tattoos, that is the point at which you crack out the scenarios aimed at the exploration of orcs and cue them up for play.

I'm not entirely sure that I want a more fine-grained camera-pointing than that.  IME, I already have a lot of freedom to investigate different things in a sim game through character action.  I can and have sent my character off to learn things, usually things related to the action of the piece, sure, but nevertheless I am the one putting the questions and obliging the GM to give me answers.  Sometimes I have restrained myself from going "off pitch" on the basis of an educated guess as to where the the limits to the GM's prepared material are likely to be found, which is a limitation, but not one I find overbearingly irksome.

In addition, I did not mean to propose that you, necessarily, should be obliged to write such things.  If a suitable methodology for writing them that is transferable from group to group can be found, then I can write one and you can write one and then we can swap.  Or alternately, for people more interested in actual publishing for money than I am, they could be a serial product in a periodical or similar format.

Quote
If something could be done to make the prep-on-demand as unburdensome as possible, what would you think?

Well sure, if it can be done, but I'm not sure it can be done.  Alfryds idea of a flexible network of entries that get fleshed out, perhaps something like the tag clouds that are popular of late, might be viable, but there seem to me to be some essential and inherent difficulties with creating information ex nihilo.  As an analogy, pencil sketch may be a functional, fast way to depict something, but the result is not likely to be as detailed as those obtained by taking the time to set up with an easel and oils.  So sure I'd like to see and discuss any propositions as to how to do that sort of thing, I just can't think of such a mechanism myself at the moment.

Hi David

I do not know if I really understand what you are going for, because when I read through this thread I ask myself: What is the problem?

For what I can see you want the game to work something like this:

1) The players specify some "elements" they want to explore in the next sessions based on what happened in the previous session.
2) The GM will create a situation based on these elements for the next session.
3) In the next session the players explore this situation.
4) Start over from 1.

I have run a couple of games using this structure and I haven't really had any problem with it. There is a few point which are worth noting, though:

* Two or three elements are more than enough for the GM to construct an interesting situation around (one element could actually do it just fine), so if the players, during a session, want to specify more element than this, it is probably a good idea to make a prioritized list.

* Some of the elements, the GM has build a situation around, may never come into play during the session - the players just never go that direction, because they focus more on some other elements. You should decide how to handle these "abandoned" elements, so the GM does not feel that he has to force them on the players.

* The issue about the preparation time: If you ask the right question and use the right tools (like relationship map), it will not take more than 30 minutes to make an interesting situation with enough material for 4-6 hours of play. (The trick is to make a situation not a story. Not only will it lead to railroading if the GM has a story, but it will also take much longer time to prepare).

The only thing you really need to make a game based on this, is to have some way for the players to write down what they want to explore in the future, and have a guide for how the GM can build a situation around these ideas.

- Anders

Contracycle, I think we agree on the benefits of having a lot of designer-provided content to choose from, and I think we agree on the downsides of asking a GM to create that much content himself.

As for freedom of investigation, I think that some scenarios will provide a lot, and some (such as dungeon crawls) will provide little.  My assumption is that some dungeon-crawling is fun, and should be supplemented with some camera-pointing, but I, like you, would be content to keep that supplementation at the large "session" scale I've described.  I do worry, though, about creating a game that can get boring in the middle of the session... Situation-creation tools for the GM (or designer) will be key.

Publishing and selling series of scenario-chains actually sounds appealing to me, I'm just not sure how practical it'd be.  In the short-term, swapping creations with other play groups sounds great!

As for making prep-on-demand unburdensome, here's an idea:
1) form general pre-game consensus on what kinds of adventures the players enjoy
2) GM comes up with some situations whenever he has the time, complete with everything except the identity of the reward
3) when the players pick a reward they want, the GM plops that into one of the situations he's already created

Quote from: Anders Larsen on February 09, 2008, 09:48:02 AM
I have run a couple of games using this structure and I haven't really had any problem with it.

Cool!  Did your own group just come up with the idea to do it that way, or was there some game text that helped?

Quote from: Anders Larsen on February 09, 2008, 09:48:02 AM
The only thing you really need to make a game based on this, is to have some way for the players to write down what they want to explore in the future, and have a guide for how the GM can build a situation around these ideas.

Right.  I think the key part here is the guide.  A good guide will make this game useful; a bad guide will make it no better than plenty of informal practices already being used.

I like your emphasis on "situation, not story", and I like Ryan Stoughton's "make only Problems, Rewards, Assets and Threats" advice.  I would guess that a Relationship Map is not always usable for things like dungeon crawls...  I have little experience with Relationship Maps, though, and may be short-changing their potential.  Have you ever seen a Relationship Map that connected stuff other than people?

-David

Why is prep so important. I've probably run dozens (maybe even hundreds, there were a few years where we games almost every night) of games in my life and I don't remember doing in prep, per se, beyond the bare minimum. It seems like the only pre-requisite for prep free play would be a simple enought system, maybe one that had some way to inspire the GM. I thinking of SAGA (Dragonlance or Marvel (Both of which I feel are heavy on the sim-support) in particular as being good candidates. So, where's the catch. Why is prep neccessary if your not playing a stat/structure heavy game a la GURPS or D&D 3+?

I suppose you could think of it as texture and reason.  The game world must be textured in a way similar to that of texturing surfaces in computer games, by way of analogy.  It's not just the bare-bone walls and gross structures that are important, but also how they look, and create mood, and integrate with one another.  And secondly the world must be reasonable, it must operate with predictable causality, even , and some might say especially, when those links are not explicit.  So if play is going to occur in a place, then that place must be visualised and 'textured' and brought to life so that it is interesting and rewarding, and some forethought must be invested in causal interactions and how they might affect or prejudice future acts or invalidate established data (otherwise players cannot investigate the world in a reasonable and logical way).

If you stripped a novel down to who said what and went where, it would not be nearly as engaging as one in which its imaginary environment is realised through description, enters the mind almost as as if perceived by the senses, and provides a tangible context to those actions and movements.  The preparation creates all that world-realisation stuff.

Well said, Contracycle.  That is in fact the type of play I'm going for.  I wasn't explicit about that before, but now it's out there.

Any thoughts on my "plop rewards into scenarios?" idea are welcome.

Experiences with other games that do (not can) accomplish some or all of what I'm going for are welcome most of all.

QuoteAnd secondly the world must be reasonable, it must operate with predictable causality, even , and some might say especially, when those links are not explicit.

QuoteWell said, Contracycle.  That is in fact the type of play I'm going for.  I wasn't explicit about that before, but now it's out there.

That all sounds well and good, but consider a situation where the players have, for instance, been arrested for slaughtering some guardsmen in the middle of a large city 2 sessions ago.  And then the players indicate that they have no interest in following a 'standing trial or being locked up' scenario during the next session.  It seems to me that you can have a rational, consequential world here, or freedom for the players, but not both.

QuoteAlfryds idea of a flexible network of entries that get fleshed out, perhaps something like the tag clouds that are popular of late, might be viable, but there seem to me to be some essential and inherent difficulties with creating information ex nihilo.  As an analogy, pencil sketch may be a functional, fast way to depict something, but the result is not likely to be as detailed as those obtained by taking the time to set up with an easel and oils.  So sure I'd like to see and discuss any propositions as to how to do that sort of thing, I just can't think of such a mechanism myself at the moment.

Well, the basic idea is that you refine a rough sketch by degrees into an oil painting as the players' focus of attention wanders closer to a given portion of the canvas.  Again, if we take your surface texturing analogy, this would be analagous to mimapping (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mipmap) of textures at different distances from the viewer- only, instead of taking the highest level of detail and working down, you take the lowest level of detail and work up.

Much of the canvas could even be left entirely blank.  i.e, only the first scene or two needs to be worked out in detail, which a few adjacent scenes, a broad plot outline or act structure roughed out beyond that (and some meaningful, deterministic reasons for why the players would get involved at a given point or level of detail,) like guidelines or perspective markers.  Of course, this has the drawback that you still need to anticipate the players' choices ahead of time, but since you rough out adjacent scenes at a lower level of detail, you can cover your options more comprehensively than usual- particularly if the player's choices meaningfully constrain future behaviour.
An analogy might be the game of Go, which starts off with a seemingly endless field of possibilities, but gradually constrains available choice until play becomes pretty linear.

I do think that explicit player-chosen rewards may be a good starting point, because they allow the player to set some kind of direction without necessarily revealing the structure of the whole "plot", in whatever form that takes.

I have previously had some thoughts in this direction, like getting rid of XP and handing out rewards directly.  So instead of "adventuring" for experience, you instead choose a mission or whatever that will result in increasing an attribute, or raising some skills.  And then that actual change can be brought about and recorded mid-play in something akin to a training montage.  This is the pattern of movies like say Rocky, in which the main character struggles to achieve this sort of gain and then also puts it to use for some purpose soon after.  Alternately you could build scenarios with character specific goals.  So maybe you have priest-type character and you can over them a mission that leads to them becoming bishop, or another which leads to them acquiring a relic of the saint so-and-so.  Then in choosing which path to pursue they are giving consent to doing "whatever it takes" to achieve that sort of goal.  But integrating these sorts of character-specific constructions with multiple characters seems tricky.

QuoteThat all sounds well and good, but consider a situation where the players have, for instance, been arrested for slaughtering some guardsmen in the middle of a large city 2 sessions ago.  And then the players indicate that they have no interest in following a 'standing trial or being locked up' scenario during the next session.  It seems to me that you can have a rational, consequential world here, or freedom for the players, but not both.

Well yes and no.  You could choose to see it as, you are totally free to get yourself sent to prison.  Anyway its not an unsolvable problem; if you set it up right you could stage a breakout or rescue before they even arrive at the slammer.  But that brings us back to the problems of planning with a short lead-time, both for the players and the GM.  Obviously I don't see any real way to play a game which consists of "you look through the bars, another day passes", so something would have to be done to avoid that situation.  And yet, whatever is done would have to be Not Silly, not disqualify any established data, etc.  All this said players can often enjoy the sense of impending doom or tight deadlines and work themselves into a fever pitch as a result.  The question is not really whether it can be done, but whether the game can be stand being put on hiatus while you figure out how to do it.

So, prep is necessary for texture and consequences? Well, I think I have to disagree. I'm reminded of Amber: Diceless Roleplay by Eric Wujcik (who, very sadly, is dying of cancer) in the section about how the GM is to handle the plots of the godlike major players (Oberon and Dworkin) and Wujcik advice is of course, don't bother to make their plots. The reason is so that the GM can play it like whatever happens, Oberon knew, he planned it, there you go. This is a technique I've used extensively in running Vampire, and I honestly think Amber is as close to a "good GM's bible" as anything I've ever read.
That whole book is about being good at improve, and in fact, that ability is tied pivotally into the game's "system." Whenever a challenge is faced, the GM actually must know how it works in order to allow the players direct actions to have immediate effect. This is made even more difficult when you consider that this know how it works approach even applies to things like magic and the nature of the universe.
As far as color and texture go, prep can add to these things, but if handle clumsily (over prep) it can actually hinder there delivery. I think any GM who wants to be able to cater to his players wants and needs should spend as much time practicing improvisational techniques (free writing maybe, or playing Once Upon a Time) as they do prepping for play.
Of course, this is from a very biased source. All my experience is with improv, I've never utilized more than bare bones prep work.

Hi!
  If I may respectfully suggest, check out my game.
http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_12/201000/201024/4/preview/Legends_of_Lanasia_RPG_Beta.pdf (http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_12/201000/201024/4/preview/Legends_of_Lanasia_RPG_Beta.pdf)
  The default model is a GM-driven setup. But there is a mechanic called Destiny that allows players the ability to inject their own interesting sub-plots into the game. And the earn those points by advancing the plots the GM think are interesting.If you think exploring is important, put together a sub-quest to explore something. The idea is you use Destiny points to get what you want from the game (you can trade in Destiny points for loot, new story elements or plot twists).

  Other games that allow this sort of thing, of course, Donjon. And I think that Keys bring a lot to the table in TSoY. DitV too (Home of the "Say yes or roll the dice" rule). I really think in terms of GM prep, Player involvement and Genre simulation, DitV is tops. The gaff is, the mechanics in DitV only work when the PCs are the types of characters that have an inflexible personality and that they are willing to die for what they believe in. I don't think it is tied to that setting, Like it would work for Jedi, but not for a dungeon crawl for instance.

  I hope these ideas help. Good luck man!

@ contracycle

QuoteI have previously had some thoughts in this direction, like getting rid of XP and handing out rewards directly.  So instead of "adventuring" for experience, you instead choose a mission or whatever that will result in increasing an attribute, or raising some skills...  But integrating these sorts of character-specific constructions with multiple characters seems tricky.

If you're going with a sim game, I always thought raising skills/attributes on the basis of useful practice seemed logical.  If you use your pick locks skill, pick locks gets better.  If you use acumen to call a bluff, your acumen improves, etc.

QuoteYou could choose to see it as, you are totally free to get yourself sent to prison.  Anyway its not an unsolvable problem; if you set it up right you could stage a breakout or rescue before they even arrive at the slammer.

Yes, but the point is the players are pretty clearly not free to spend the next session exploring the rich tradition of cobble-making that caught their eye en route to the gulag.  Sure, there are certainly ways to get around the problem, even without standing trial or being incarcerated, but you can't just perform a thematic u-turn and ignore the problem entirely.  No matter how much the players may feel differently.
The larger point being that, in a cohesive, believable world-setting, the players actions may have equal but opposite reactions which come back to bite them in the ass.  With great freedom comes great responsibility.

QuoteAll this said players can often enjoy the sense of impending doom or tight deadlines and work themselves into a fever pitch as a result.  The question is not really whether it can be done, but whether the game can be stand being put on hiatus while you figure out how to do it.

Well, since you, the GM, sent the guards along to arrest them in the first place, presumably you can anticipate the possibility of an escape attempt, and rough up some appropriate 40-word knock-on scenes accordingly, before the 200-word arrest is ever staged.

What you have to worry about is the players striking off in a completely unanticipated direction.  Which is what David mentioned as the weakness of pre-scripted campaigns.  I agree, but as far as I see it, there are two solutions- either minimise the degree to which players can stray (by either imposing mechanical/role-play barriers, or trying to widen your catchment of possibilities using incremental detail or scene re-use,) OR be prepared to make things up on the fly.  A lot.

@ masqueradeball

QuoteSo, prep is necessary for texture and consequences?  ...As far as color and texture go, prep can add to these things, but if handle clumsily (over prep) it can actually hinder there delivery.

I don't disagree on any particular point.

Why does causality have to dictate the way time is spent in play? Like say, with the players getting into trouble but not wanting to a jail scenario. Why not just say: OK, so you got arrested and all and in the night you escaped, now, back to that cobble-making. Perhaps the reason is because there's a feeling that real world time and in-game time must be connected? Maybe, its because its takes away the GM's power of in game herding?
What I mean by that is say the PC's start killing folks right and left and you say to yourself, as the GM, that this is breaking you sense of realism or compromises your view of the SIS or whatever, so as a technique to diminish this behavior you punish it in a way that doesn't have to be un-fun for the players, but gets the point across, the cops come and try to lock them up. To drive this message home, you'd then make the players expend real world time and in game resources to get out of the problem they put themselves in to, perhaps enough of each that they conclude, I don't want to kill folks no more.
Or maybe, its a different reason? Can you clear up why these things should correlate, because I think I have some solutions in terms of possible game mechanics, but only if I understand where your coming from with:

QuoteThat all sounds well and good, but consider a situation where the players have, for instance, been arrested for slaughtering some guardsmen in the middle of a large city 2 sessions ago.  And then the players indicate that they have no interest in following a 'standing trial or being locked up' scenario during the next session.  It seems to me that you can have a rational, consequential world here, or freedom for the players, but not both.

QuoteSo, prep is necessary for texture and consequences? Well, I think I have to disagree.

So you disagree.  So what?  I fail to see why you feel a need to butt in and assert this point of view.  The thread is explicitly aimed, and explicitly labelled, as attempting to discuss a form of play that is clearly different from yours.  Why do you care?

QuoteMaybe, its because its takes away the GM's power of in game herding?

And at this point you go from expressing a point of view to simply being insulting.  I suggest if you have nothing useful to contribute that you simply ignore this thread.

Quote from: Alfryd on February 10, 2008, 11:30:30 PM
If you're going with a sim game, I always thought raising skills/attributes on the basis of useful practice seemed logical.  If you use your pick locks skill, pick locks gets better.  If you use acumen to call a bluff, your acumen improves, etc.

Quote

Call of Cthulhu, and some others I believe, operate in this manner.  It's ok, but effectively disallows any use of character progression as a consciously chosen reward, and thus does not help us to poll players or gain their consent for a particular bit of topical exploration.

Quote
Yes, but the point is the players are pretty clearly not free to spend the next session exploring the rich tradition of cobble-making that caught their eye en route to the gulag.  Sure, there are certainly ways to get around the problem, even without standing trial or being incarcerated, but you can't just perform a thematic u-turn and ignore the problem entirely.  No matter how much the players may feel differently.

Well I'm not sure the players in such a game WOULD feel differently.  Such a thematic U-turn would it seem to me be a fairly severe violation of causality and internal consistency and thus be unsatisfying.  Noticing a thing that you would like to explore at some point does not necessarily imply that it would be best to do so immediately and at the cost of causality and consistency.  I'm not militantly against that sot of approach however and open to suggestions.

Quote
Well, since you, the GM, sent the guards along to arrest them in the first place, presumably you can anticipate the possibility of an escape attempt, and rough up some appropriate 40-word knock-on scenes accordingly, before the 200-word arrest is ever staged.

Yes, but in a manner analogous to the PvP/debuffs thread, if that happens early in a session, and requires a suspension of play while this gets negotiated or figured out, you may be introducing a a cure that is worse than the disease.

There are other sorts of holes you can fall into.  An example is the difficulty I have had using snipers in Cyberpunk or modern games.  A good sniper could be a kilometer away and just won't miss; as a result, without some pre-engineering, the danger is that the internal logic requires a PC be insta-gibbed before they are even aware of the danger.  My standard fix for this problem is to ensure that there is an NPC available to take the bullet instead; this does not invalidate the effectiveness of snipers, but givers the PC's the opportunity to respond and take cover before they are themselves exposed to risk.  So yes, if I can anticipate these things, I can take steps to ensure they are not problematic; if they arise in play, unexpectedly, of which getting arrested is a good example, I may not have such a fix in place.

Being able to prepare such things would indeed be aided by obtaining players conscious buy-in, or responding to explicit requests to go in a certain direction for reasons of their own interests.

I am currently running two games, one is a standard hack and slash D&D game, the other a shadowrun game. 

In the D&D the players are generally led by the nose from encounter to encounter, and this is pretty standard because the effort involved with constructing an encounter that is "just right" for the party is a time consuming process, even if you have been doing it for a long time.  And d&d is essentially a table top board game anyway.

My shadow run game is completely different.  Even though the system is crunchy as hell, i tend to make the game more freeform, with there being a less emphirsis on combat.  Due to the nature of the setting, the players can basically do anything they want, and so to keep this level of freedom, i plan in a completely different way, with most of the game being made up on the spot.

I split my prep into two main sections

• I have long term goals/story elements.  End points that i want the players to get to eventually, but how is upto them.
• I have powerblocks - essentially people who have their own agendas and that the players may run into.  These consist of the name of the organisation and a few of their goals, and their releationship with other powerblocks.

Basically i give the players a goal and then just react as they bump into all the powerblocks, which i use to nudge them towards the resolution of each story element.

Advantages

• Very little prep needed.
• Players essentially control all short term game elements to give a real sandbox feel.

Disadvantages

• Have to be good at making stuff up!!
• Combat, when it happens is annoying.  As the system doesn't really support making up encounters on the spot.  So most of the enemies are "Generic Mook No X" in terms of stats. Additionally, the combat system is crunchy and so tends to bring the game to a halt, when instead the players should havethe complete opposite fealing as the leap into combat addrenaline pumping.
• Players tend to like to bugger off in different directions as they all have different aims/goals, and although a GM could force them to stay together, in a truly free setting, why couldn't they split up, with the specialist doing different things.  This is a problem for a combat system which takes a long time, because combat with 1 player means that the rest can be removed from the gaming process for a long period of time.

Hence i propose that to make a system that works better for a player controlled game, i would want a system where the creation of interesting combats (Not a walk over but also will not kill the party) is a simple process that takes little time.  And that the combat system is a fast process, so that combats with inderviduals can be done without the entire party present.

Ray

Contracycle and Nolan, please do not continue your personal disagreement here.  For what little my opinion is worth, it seems like Nolan had an honest misunderstanding based on the meandering nature of this thread.

The meandering is my fault for being wishy-washy on the "brainstorm solutions, guys!" front.  That wasn't my initial intent with this thread, but I didn't wanna shut anybody up once it started.  So, I'm going to now suggest that anyone who wants to contribute suggestions please keep in mind the following:

• By "player directed exploration" I mean on some meaningful scale, but not necessarily at every moment of play.  Here's an example: the GM prepares restrictive adventure scenarios, within which there's an obvious trail to be followed; the players pick which scenarios to play.  I am fine with a structure that doesn't work if the players are dicks.  If you tell the GM you wanna explore thing X, and then instantly drop thing X to chase squirrels, you are a dick. 
  
  
• By "GM-created world" I mean a world that is not in any way, at any time, created or co-created by the players.  You control your character's actions, you pick (e.g.) some adventure scenarios to play, that's it.  Resolution is determined by "what would happen" according to gameworld logic, and not by made-up fun stakes a la many of the Nar games that have been mentioned.

More than brainstorms, though, I am looking for any success stories of doing this exact thing.

Dave M., I dunno if your game actually meets these criteria, but I will happily check it out regardless, just for potential inspiration.  I have read TSoY and am reading Dogs now in hopes that town creation will provide me some useful tools.  I remain interested in exploring whether relationship maps might expedite GM scenario prep.

Quote
Cool!  Did your own group just come up with the idea to do it that way, or was there some game text that helped?

What I do is really something I have pulled together from a lot of different games and from stuff I have read on various forums. You may want to look at "I a Wicket Age" which is the game that come closest; but I do not think it do exactly what it is you want.


Just to give you an idea of how you can easily build an situation around a suggested setting-element, I will try to give short guide to how I do it.

As setting-element I will use the example you gave: "What I really want to know is what the tattoos on that big Orc did.  Were they what made him so strong?  Could we copy them and be super-strong too?"

First I try to identify various story elements I can work with. Here are roughly the questions I ask myself to do this:

1) What is the object of the goal?

This is simply what the characters are after, in this case it is the magical tattoos.

2) What is it that the character have to do to archive the goal

When the characters want to explore something, there is normally some condition which has to be fulfilled before the characters are satisfied. It is a very good idea to identify this because when this goal is archived the characters will move on to something different. In this example the characters want to learn to use the magical tattoos themselves.

3) Who will direct oppose the characters in their strive for the goal?

Before there is any excitement there have to be an enemy. In this example it is the Orcs who are the direct enemies, because they do not want to give their secrets away to humans.

4) Define a third party who have a perpendicular interest in the goal?

This one is a bit harder to explain. The thing is that a situation with only two parties, going against each other head on, is not very interesting, so you will need a third party that can complicate the situation. in this example it could be a nearby church who view the Orc tattoo power as the work of demons, and so, will not only try to take it away from the Orcs, but will also try to prevent the characters from getting hold of it.


This is basically what is needed, but it is always nice to have some extra material. Here are some ideas for that:

* An innocent party.

Have some innocent people caught up in the conflict, can be a very good way to raise the stakes. Maybe there is a nearby village which had had an semi-friendly relationship with the Orc, but after the church have initiated the conflict against the Orc, the people of the village is now mistrusted by both parties.

* A mysterious/unknown factor.

Have a mysterious person, or some mysterious people around who have some interest in the situation, but who's motive can not easily be determined. This could be a powerful wizard who is acting strangely lately, but no one knows what he is up to.


The next step is to identify NPCs. There should probably be two or three per group:

Orcs - The chief, the shaman, a young warrior.
Church - The head priest, a machinery employed by the church
The village - This depends on who the character normally want to interact with when they enter a village.
And then there is the powerful wizard.


The next step is to make the relationship map. This is done by drawing some circles on a paper which represents the different fraction and the important NPCs. Then you can make arrows between these circles that indicate interests. For example, there will be a circle for the Orcs and a circle for the church. An arrow from the church to the Orcs could then indicate the church's interest in destroying the Orc magical secret.

When you have done this you will have a web of interests (just be careful not to have too many - it will then just get confusing). This will give you a good overview of the situation, and if something happen in one place it is normally easy to see who have interests in this and how they will react.


The last point is to decide how the game should start. For this example a good place could be that the PCs come to the village and someone approaches them and ask them to help. And from there you can just let things happen.


Ok, this has been a very sketchy explanation, but it will take a while longer to explain everything fully. But even though this may not be exactly what you are going for, I hope it can give you some ideas.

- Anders

Hi!
  I think ditv is your ticket. And before you ask. No, I am, not one of those crazy ditv fanboys that thinks it solves everything, lol
  I have played and GMd several sessions of ditv and for my money, it is probably the best balance of letting the players do what they want (the ditv version of rule 0 is advice to the GM of "Say yes or roll the dice" meaning if there is not a force in the town actively resisting the Dogs efforts, then whatever they want to narrate happens and your job is to have the world react realistically).
  GM prep is reduced to looking at the chain of sin and figuring out where your town is on the escalating ladder and why. That is such a vital ingredient to playing the world, that almost no other prep is needed. I have seen some GMs make/re-use wild west maps or find photos of desert landscapes/old towns. But its not necessary for GM prep.
  The game does put a sort of mini-cap on the exploration in the sense that the little ladder of sin is supposed to escalate the longer the Dogs spend in town. So if you were dead set on exploring you would almost always have to face full on demon possession in every town as the town slowly slid deeper into demonic influence as you were exploring the town. And that is not necessarily a bad thing, just might make the town finales a little boring.
  I would say definitely find a group and play some ditv, especially if you can find a GM who has played before. You will be pleasantly surprised.
  Anyways, good luck on your quest man!

Hi David !!! Sorry to jump in so late, but I hope I can provide some insight. If I get you right, your concerns are exactly one of those I had (or having, depends on the point of view) for Avalanche (not yet published).

But first, a simple question : are you looking at some way to come with a mechanic to reinforce your goal or are we talking here about a way to, let's say, write or structure, a scenario ?

I'll just a give you an overview ; I'll let you see if you want to investigate more ...

What I'm proposing is a way to structure pre written plots from a high level point of view : the exact structure can be found here (http://www.cycles-rpg.com/blog/index.php?s=jargon&sentence=AND).
Now, this structure is generic and can be used for any kind of narrative use (ie it might be used for other purposes than rpg). And what does this structure allows : to manage multi plots, using a calendar based structure (as opposed to chapters based).
How does this work ? A little bit as the "plot points" (but I use a web instead) mentionned by Alfryd and a little bit like the multiple scenarios (the "menu") mentionned by contracycle. Except that all those scenarios occur at the same time. So that :

QuoteA constrained ability to point the camera is really just freedom of sequence -- i.e. in what order do we play through the scenarios?  This is, IMO, not all that meaningful a contribution.

In what order ? The calendar one !!!

That said, what type of game can this generate ?
- The "scenario" is not about the PCs (they are never mentionned), so, as there is no predefined role for them ; this is truly player directed.
- As "events" happen into the world, indepedant of the PCs, there is a sim feeling to the game ; not the system, but about a living world.
- PCs decide what plots/sub plots they want to explore. As the scenario is very high level, players and DM complete the "holes" as they see fit.
- Bottom line, in my opinion, this really, but really changes my approach toward pre written scenarios (and even rpg in general). The game turns out to be about the PCs' place into the world. Which is what I'm looking for in a game. For more on this, I invite you to read this article (http://www.cycles-rpg.com/blog/index.php?s=hermeneutic&sentence=AND).
@ masqueradeball : I've had this conversation about the necessity of prewritten plots so many times ... But I need one (from an existential point of view, see the article above).

So, that comes to some kind of "modular" writing, which means, a lot of work. But, I think it would fit a product very well. And note that since it is not about the system, it can't be called nar or sim, as CA is system related.
Also note that this type of writing allows a very, but very fast DM's prep.
Finally, feel free to use any of my theory if this can help you.

@ masqueradeball

QuoteWhy does causality have to dictate the way time is spent in play? Like say, with the players getting into trouble but not wanting to a jail scenario. Why not just say: OK, so you got arrested and all and in the night you escaped, now, back to that cobble-making.

Because then, the world, the setting, the texture and flavour of the place, are, as I mentioned before, all relegated to window dressing.  It's just another form of railroading, only in favour of the players and against the GM.  It strains suspension of disbelief and it's grossly unfair to the person who invests the effort in the content- the GM has no incentive to construct a believable and internally consistent world if the players can (effectively) ignore it's rules whenever they find them even slightly inconvenient.  This also goes against the grain of a Sim game (one of David's objectives), where there are mechanical chains of cause and effect in action.

I mean, consider a case where the players decide they want to go raid the headquarters of a necromantic cult in the forbidden city's sewers.  The combat goes badly, partly through bad luck, partly through incompetence, and they're at the cultists' mercy- but the GM decides, reasonably enough, that instead of being killed, the players have been captured alive for later sacrifice.

Player 1:  Ah, that sounds kinda boring.  I want to explore the underground river we saw on the way in instead.
Player 2:  Yeah, I mean... do we even have ranks in escape Artist?  I vote for the river.
Player 3:  Wasn't there that big, carved door on the second left turning before we ran into the Shoggoth.  Remember?  I bet that was, like a treasure hold, or something...
GM:  Ah- Fuck it- NO.  You have been captured by cultists and are about to be sacrificed to appease the appetites of their ravening corpse god.  There is no plausible in-game mechanism by which your characters could explore the river or come to the door without handling this problem first.  So you are going to sit your asses down and DEAL WITH THE ISSUE.

Being arrested and potentially imprisoned is a major event that threatens the PCs' welfare, careers and life goals in a significant fashion, and can't be handled trivially.  So that is something you need to play through.

@ contracycle

QuoteWell I'm not sure the players in such a game WOULD feel differently.  Such a thematic U-turn would it seem to me be a fairly severe violation of causality and internal consistency and thus be unsatisfying.

I would certainly think so, but David has made it quite clear that the players have, supposedly, absolute authority to dictate what the next session should be about.  They might simply wish to abnegate their responsibilities and take the cheap option of avoiding dealing with anything they consider unpleasant.  I don't think what the players want to explore is at all relevant in situations where their characters simply don't have the option available.

QuoteYes, but in a manner analogous to the PvP/debuffs thread, if that happens early in a session, and requires a suspension of play while this gets negotiated or figured out, you may be introducing a a cure that is worse than the disease.

I believe the method that David suggested was that new material would be prepped between sessions.  Since you have a good deal of control over when the arrest is staged, all you need to do is introduce the guards toward the end of a given session.  Your players can then discuss how they intend to handle the problem, and you flesh out the scenario between then and Friday.  Again, changes that you introduce are not the problem here.

QuoteI can take steps to ensure they are not problematic; if they arise in play, unexpectedly, of which getting arrested is a good example, I may not have such a fix in place.

What, exactly, is so unexpected about the players being arrested for slaughtering guards, two sessions ago?  Is this not ample time to set the wheels in motion?
If you're talking about instant consequences to the player's actions- such as sawing off the branch you're sitting on- well, yes, that can be difficult to prepare for.  But it's also an inherent danger of any Sim game, and frankly, if they knew snipers wouldbe involved, your players may be getting exactly what they deserve.

I would say, however, that players should always have 'fair warning' of consequences to their actions.  If you slaughter guards in town, it's reasonable to expect that you can be arrested for it, particularly if there were witnesses.  In contrast, being arrested for a crime a given PC committed seven years ago in a different kingdom (that no-one knows about,) is probably not something the GM can fairly introduce.

@ David Berg

QuoteHere's an example: the GM prepares restrictive adventure scenarios, within which there's an obvious trail to be followed; the players pick which scenarios to play.  I am fine with a structure that doesn't work if the players are dicks.  If you tell the GM you wanna explore thing X, and then instantly drop thing X to chase squirrels, you are a dick.

The players aren't neccesarily dicks if they decided to slaughter guardsmen in town- maybe the guards were drunk and rowdy, and opted to pick a fight, or were molesting innocents, (a la The Big Fat Kill from Sin City.)  But that's beside the point- the players should know that killing guards raises a Complication that will come back to haunt them if they're not careful.  That limits their choices.
A good example of this sort of thing is when Mal Reynolds incurs Adelai Niska's wrath in Firefly after returning the stolen drugs in the train job.  Mal also has to step twice as hard to avoid Alliance patrols once he takes the Tams (as wanted fugitives) under his wing.  Restrictions on available freedoms aren't neccesarily a drag to play- they provide challenges and recurrent plot hooks that generate tension and foster drama.  But it does mean that, on occasion, the GM has to put his foot down.

Quote from: David Berg on February 11, 2008, 12:33:43 PM
More than brainstorms, though, I am looking for any success stories of doing this exact thing.

I'm not sure we are going to have too much luck looking for success stories as such, because it seems to me this is a new approach.  Early D&D-type play was simply rigid; there was the literal dungeon which controlled movement and you pretty much progressed from encounter to encounter reacting as each event occurred.  Subsequent developments in driving toward something more than random exploration produced the idea of the overarching story line, introducing the 3-act play structure and so on, all of which produced the GM-controlled pseudo-story that Narr is a reaction against, and which isn't very satisfying for sim play either.  So I am not sure there is any precedent at all for anything much like your proposal.

Now, the single product which I have been best able to translate into actual play was the Hardwired supplement for CP2020, which I have mentioned before.  What struck me about this is that it does use something like the 3 act play structure, and does have a distinct and fixed direction of progress, and did not really permit much player deviation from the path, but it also was very elegantly put together.  Thus, in act 1, the PC's acquire the mcguffin (a flask of weaponised polio) and find themselves hunted, in act 2 they are offered an out, as long as they agree to do a favour for some Russian mobsters involving a casino scam, and in act three they get the mcguffin back and get to use it against the people who were hunting them, thus neatly solving the initial problem.

What I liked about this was the way it worked easily, because the links between each step were quite organic and natural.  It was not nearly as restricted and controlled as old school dungeon crawls, and allowed a lot of freedom of movement in within each act, which in turn allowed the GM and players to play freely within some fairly large bounds.  For example, the only limit on act 1 was that there was no way off the island on which they were located until they made contact with the Russian mobsters who had the facility to get them off.  It was not simply do X then Y then Z at the GM's behest, and we had a lot of fun playing with the paranoia of the hunt, the frustration of finding their efforts to escape limited and blocked, and stoking up the sense of threat and danger.  Amid that activity, I was able to take advantage of what they were doing and seek a way to point these toward the Russian mobsters, so that when the contact was finally made it did not feel heavy handed, but seemed to emerge seamlessly and organically from their own efforts.  And they were, indeed, relieved and grateful to have finally found an escape route.

Another element is that although the 3 acts were explicitly linked in fixed ways, there was a significant topical dog-leg in the middle that supported the illusion of naturally emergent events.  It was not just one big problem that they had to keep hacking away at, the mcguffin was taken off their hands in act 2 and played no part in that action.  However, the mcguffin returned to haunt them in act 3, which served to link all the acts into a thematic whole; the players were at first horrified to see the damn thing again after going to so much trouble to dispose of it ("what the FUCK is that doing here" were their exact words), but of course this time the situation was substantially different and they got to see it and treat it as a resource rather than a burden.  So one might say, they were able to explore the mcguffin from a different angle, or in a different light.

Obviously, this is not the kind of player-directed exploration you are looking for, but may offer some useful approaches to working with fixed paths, and successfully concealing those paths so that the sensation of being dragged by the nose is trivial or non-existent.  Having those established links in fact substantially liberated me from worrying about what kind of decisions the players were making, and trying to direct or control those decisions all the time; I only had to successfully hit one point that linked each act to the next.  Stuff spontaneously created in each act had little to no impact on the next act, because the transitions in time and place were quite significant, and so the amount of causality I felt obliged to track was also reduced.  I did have to do some improvisation in terms of "managing" the direction of play, but that was not improvisation of setting detail as such, the creation of new facts; that stuff was all pre-established (by novels rather than RPG text as such in this case) and my efforts were directed toward presenting them and bringing them into play.

So, while not quite what you are proposing, thats the nearest I have to a success story of GM-directed play, and which also broke out of 'follow-the-tunnel-to-the-next-encounter'.

Sebastien,
I read your website.  I would love to play in your game, but I would hate to prep it!  As you said, prep results from this might make a good product.  I definitely dig the idea of having stuff occur in the world that the PCs are in; a dynamic sandbox is obviously "realer" than one that just sits around waiting for PCs to traverse it.  In terms of chronology, I think what I aspire to to achieve is that the GM preps only what he needs, but some of those needs are filled by world events that occur at relevant times.  Alas, I don't have a more specific plan than that just yet.

I am curious: how do you refer to your planned events during play?  Is it like, "Okay, the PCs went to sleep.  Cross off February 10th on the calendar.  Ah, I see on the calendar that February 11th contains a blizzard!"?

Dave M.,
I can't see using DitV's resolution rules, as players get to narrate things other than just "my character tries to do X", and in-gameworld success is based on things other than in-gameworld causality (e.g. player story interests as represented by dice).

As for town creation and escalation, I don't want to hard-code a predictable "this will get worse" into my game scenarios, but some sort of "this scenario is in a certain state, and that state has the potential for change" sounds useful.  I think I'll build myself a DitV town...

Anders,
Yeah, not exactly what I'm going for, but it does give me some ideas!  Thank you for the level of detail.  Your points 1, 2, and 3 are basically the Rewards (fulfilled goal), Avenues (general approaches to achieve goal) and Assets (specific means to achieve goal), and Threats (obstacles to goal) that I'm already using. 

The perpendicular interest is something I hadn't thought about.  Looking at your examples, I actually think "perpendicular interest" breaks down into a conditional help/hinder relationship with the PCs.  So we have three different conditions:

• a) PCs fighting Orcs, or b) having beaten Orcs, PCs taking their magic - Church helps (a), hinders (b)
  
  
• a) PCs hold clear upperhand and can annihilate Orcs vs b) PCs and Orcs are evenly matched, promising a long bloodbath with innocents caught in the crossfire - local peasants ignore PCs in case (a), hinder in case (b)
  
  
• a) PCs learn interesting things, or b) having learned, PCs try to use knowledge for personal gain - wizard might hinder (a) if he likes keeping secrets, but help (b) if PCs' powers will aid his own

Does this strike you as an accurate summary of the value of these "perpendicular" interests?  If so, I think my advice to GMs might actually begin with "think about some conditions where Threats and Assets enter and leave the PCs' path".  The 3 (a) vs (b) examples I listed above are, respectively, Asset->Threat, neutral->Threat, Threat->Asset.

As for a situation where you weigh getting what you want vs innocent lives, I don't really want to give players any disincentives to pursue their goals.

2 or 3 NPCs per Interest sounds like a decent rule of thumb.

As for the relationship map, I guess that's an answer in the affirmative to my earlier question, "Do they work for things other than individuals?"  In this case, we have relationships between the Interests that may become Threats or Assets.  I'm not sure which would be more efficient, a web-like map, or a list of conditions.  I should probably try both.

Contracycle,
Very interesting.  Act 1 sounds like the players were put in a flexible situation (survive being hunted, using whatever means occur to you!) within a closed situation (get off the island by finding the one way off!).  This exact set-up worked well in my Rat Island game.

I think maybe the key here is that the flexible situation needs to be interesting enough that the closed situation isn't resented.  I mean, I've had plenty of games where failure to get off the island would have frustrated the players, and finding the way off would have met with, "About fuckin' time."

Huh.  I wonder whether this is an actionable breakthrough, or just, "Well, duh, but pulling it off is hard."  Speaking of pulling it off:

Quote from: contracycle on February 12, 2008, 08:24:17 AM
we had a lot of fun playing with the paranoia of the hunt . . . Amid that activity, I was able to take advantage of what they were doing and seek a way to point these toward the Russian mobsters, so that when the contact was finally made it did not feel heavy handed, but seemed to emerge seamlessly and organically from their own efforts

Do remember your methods for this?

I am assuming that, if you had done a worse job at this, the game would have been much less successful.

Quote from: contracycle on February 12, 2008, 08:24:17 AM
Another element is that although the 3 acts were explicitly linked in fixed ways, there was a significant topical dog-leg in the middle that supported the illusion of naturally emergent events.  It was not just one big problem that they had to keep hacking away at, the mcguffin was taken off their hands in act 2 and played no part in that action.  However, the mcguffin returned to haunt them in act 3, which served to link all the acts into a thematic whole

Was this three sessions of play, or one?

I have an idea that basically gurantees every five or so scenarios will add up to more than the sum of their parts.  "Ah!  We learned in Mission 5 that the potion of visions from Mission 1 will allow us to see the door that the key from Mission 2 fits!"  That kind of thing.  Not quite as tidy as what you describe... but it might hit the same virtue, which I think is cumulative progress over continued play...?

Quote from: contracycle on February 12, 2008, 08:24:17 AM
Having those established links in fact substantially liberated me from worrying about what kind of decisions the players were making, and trying to direct or control those decisions all the time; I only had to successfully hit one point that linked each act to the next.

It sounds like, as GM, you mainly worried about the closed scenarios, and just enjoyed letting the players choose within the flexible scenarios.  My hurdle for this as a GM is always arbitration -- if the players come up with a plan to scam the casino at blackjack, what's the security like around the blackjack table?  Where are the cards stored?  When I adlib answers to those kinds of questions, garbage pours out.  I mean, I hear your point about the casino never appearing again later, so standards can be relaxed -- but, the place still needs to function while the PCs are in the process of hacking it.  Thus, I'd want to prep the casino -- not every last inch of it, but all the ways that the players might try to rob it.

Did the mod (or novels) prep the casino for you?  Are you just really good at logical ad-lib?  Did your players not care about plausibility?  Or is there some other explanation for your group's success?

@ contracycle

QuoteSo you disagree.  So what?  I fail to see why you feel a need to butt in and assert this point of view.  The thread is explicitly aimed, and explicitly labelled, as attempting to discuss a form of play that is clearly different from yours.  Why do you care?

masqueradeball's point seems perfectly valid, if only from a supplementary standpoint.  Prep was not explicitly mentioned in David's initial post.  I think.

QuoteCall of Cthulhu, and some others I believe, operate in this manner.  It's ok, but effectively disallows any use of character progression as a consciously chosen reward, and thus does not help us to poll players or gain their consent for a particular bit of topical exploration.

Why would using a given skill not be a conscious choice?
I'm not sure what you're looking for, exactly.  Are you saying that you want some method of determining plot direction based on what the character's (as opposed to the player's) goals and interests are?  Perhaps a list of Goals/Fears which offer mechanical rewards but limit the player's choices if they crop up?

QuoteSo, while not quite what you are proposing, thats the nearest I have to a success story of GM-directed play, and which also broke out of 'follow-the-tunnel-to-the-next-encounter'.

That's a very interesting example.  I think it works well simply because the barriers on player action were plausible aspects of the gme world, rather than imposed by fiat.

@ Anders Larsen
I find your procedure to be interesting and well-structured, but a little flawed.

Quote(1) ...This is simply what the characters are after, in this case it is the magical tattoos.

(2) ...In this example the characters want to learn to use the magical tattoos themselves.

3) Who will direct oppose the characters in their strive for the goal?

4) Define a third party who have a perpendicular interest in the goal?

Well, you can decide that these tattoos are magical, but that's an assumption not strictly justified by the description.

I believe this contradicts David's goal that the player's do not get to determine the content of the world.  If they want to explore the subject of orc tattoos, fine.  They don't get to dictate that orc tattoos are magical or can be copied by non-experts.  That would be the players writing the content.

I would amend this to saying 'what difficulty or obstacle will complicate attaining this goal?'  It might not always be a specific power bloc- they might simply have to decrypt some particularly obscure writings, etc.  This might be a long-term project stretching over several sessions with otherwise seperate combats/conflicts occuring in the foreground.

Often useful, certainly, but is it strictly neccesary?  Perhaps just the insertion of some larger plot hook, such as the 'innocent party', 'mysterious stranger', 'unknown factors' you mentioned beforehand?  Maybe we could put together a list?

QuoteThe next step is to make the relationship map. This is done by drawing some circles on a paper which represents the different fraction and the important NPCs. Then you can make arrows between these circles that indicate interests. For example, there will be a circle for the Orcs and a circle for the church. An arrow from the church to the Orcs could then indicate the church's interest in destroying the Orc magical secret.

That's quite interesting, actually, since allying with one group would antagonise others.  You could use this to mechanically simulate constraints (i.e, being arrested if you antagonise the city watch/Adelai Niska faction) for the players.

@ pells

QuoteHow does this work ? A little bit as the "plot points" (but I use a web instead) mentionned by Alfryd and a little bit like the multiple scenarios (the "menu") mentionned by contracycle. Except that all those scenarios occur at the same time.

That's an interesting notion, but I agree with David that I'm not certain how it could work out in practice.  Perhaps a small (but comprehensive) example or two on the prep involved would be useful?  I was hoping that the process of gradual refinement I mentioned would allow a compromise between flexibility and preperation.

@ David Berg
I don't disagree with your analysis on any particular point, but I would still like to know how to intend to deal with constraints on the players actions resulting from past behaviour.  Are there, or are there not occasions when the players are simply not free to explore as they like?

Alfryd,
If I had a virtual world on my computer telling me what was around every corner, and all of it made sense and had a decent level of texture and richness, I would say, "Zero constraints!"  Failing that, I'd like to get the players to constrain themselves, by saying, "Here's what we wanna do," and accepting that it'll fuck things up (probably by halting play) if they change their minds. 

As for repercussions of previous actions in the medium- or long-term, it should usually be plausible for players to simply run away from those.  We do one mission over here and piss everyone off, but then we do another mission elsewhere, and it's all good.  On the other hand, if it's fun to have lingering animosities, by all means, use 'em. 

The only trouble-spot I see is immediate repercussions in the midst of a mission, i.e. we can't go into the Cave of Wonders cuz we just beat up the town guard and were thrown in jail.  It should be made clear to the players that if you do something to interfere with your own mission, yes indeed, your mission will be interfered with.  Randomly assaulting the town gaurd en route to the Cave of Wonders says to the GM, "We wanna play a jailbreak instead of a quest!"  Which qualifies as the players fucking things up by changing their minds.  On the other hand, if you assault the town guard because they (as controlled by the GM) provoked you, then the GM oughta have a fun jailbreak prepped, which gives the players info about the Cave of Wonders to boot.

QuoteFailing that, I'd like to get the players to constrain themselves, by saying, "Here's what we wanna do," and accepting that it'll fuck things up (probably by halting play) if they change their minds.

That's what I mean.  If the players decide they're going to attack the town guards (and have reasonable knowledge of the likely consequences,) then they just placed a constraint upon themselves.  The point is that the players can't simply fast-forward past unpleasant ramifications, if their characters wouldn't have the option of handling them trivially.

QuoteAs for repercussions of previous actions in the medium- or long-term, it should usually be plausible for players to simply run away from those.  We do one mission over here and piss everyone off, but then we do another mission elsewhere, and it's all good.

Well sure- if you can run away from those problems, by all means do.  But if you can't manage to do so, then I think the players should be obliged to role-play their escape, regardless of whether they think it will be fun.  Otherwise, what's the incentive to respect the world?  I just don't see what's so magical about a single session when it comes to enforcing cause and effect.

QuoteOn the other hand, if you assault the town guard because they (as controlled by the GM) provoked you, then the GM oughta have a fun jailbreak prepped, which gives the players info about the Cave of Wonders to boot.

I agree, broadly speaking.
I mean, certainly the GM shouldn't trap the players between a rock and a hard place (if not of their own choosing.)  And if the players go to jail, it's the GM's responsibility to provide some viable escape route.  But there's a difference between the town guards provoking the PCs, and the PCs being obliged to attack them.  Going back to the Firefly example, Mal could have chosen to deliver the cargo to Niska, (thus improving relations with a powerful crimelord,) whereas the miners were a relatively small and unimportant local faction, (so pissing them off would be pretty low-risk.  It just went against Mal's moral code.)
Now, if the Guards were so belligerent (and well organised) that the only alternatives to killing them were being imprisoned, molested or (insert disaster scenario X here,) then yes, that would be foul play on the GM's behalf.

My other concern would be... what if the players nominate to explore something that the GM knows would take multiple sessions to get useful information about?  I mean, if you opt to visit the village down the road, fine, there's an obvious and immediate route for getting from A to B.  But what if- due to factors the GM has already described- there's no plausible way to find out about orc tattoos, or visit a cave of wonders, or to climb the summit of a distant mountain range, or topple a world-girdling empire, during the next session?  If that happens, the GM will have to sketch out multiple scenes (in varying degrees of detail) to satisfy the player's demands, which may have to be scrapped if the players lose interest.

.

QuoteFailing that, I'd like to get the players to constrain themselves, by saying, "Here's what we wanna do," and accepting that it'll fuck things up (probably by halting play) if they change their minds.

Oops.  I misunderstood your point here.  Strike my 'unpleasant ramifications' remark.

Hi!
  Yeah, I don't think the ditv design mechanic could or even should work for every game. But, I do think that you have to play it to appreciate what it can and can't do. Also, once you see it in motion, maybe it might inspire you to come up with a system that does do exactly what you want.
  As to the mechanics, it's not as much of a dirty-hippie game as it sounds. Once the dice are thrown, the action really breaks down to mini-task resolution with the authority and scope of the action determined by the dice (just like in a trad game). And just like in a trad game, everyone, GM and players, have the option to say, that narration doesn't really match the dice thrown. Surprisingly, that doesn't happen very often, but it can and does. Just like in a trad game (or any other game for that matter).
  Have fun man!

David, a couple of points, but I'm not sure I understand you all the way ...

QuoteI read your website.  I would love to play in your game, but I would hate to prep it!  As you said, prep results from this might make a good product.

If you can provide a DM with a complete product (which means a lot of work from the author's/designer's part), then prep, using Avalanche's design, is very, but very easy !!! And very fast (by the way, that's one the main goal of the project).

QuoteI am curious: how do you refer to your planned events during play?  Is it like, "Okay, the PCs went to sleep.  Cross off February 10th on the calendar.  Ah, I see on the calendar that February 11th contains a blizzard!"?

First, for more on the subject, see those (http://www.cycles-rpg.com/blog/index.php?cat=21) (I'm explaning how to use the web of events for writing/reading/DM's prep/play - which is incomplete at the moment). But, to give you an idea, I provide between 20 and 40 events for any given week (and Avalanche is built on a full year calendar), for all the locations in the scenario's region. Now, those events don't happen on a specific day, but either in the beginning, middle or end of the week. Using specific days would be too much of a constraint.
Also, there are two types of events : specific and generic.
Generic would be something like : Uproar in the city - there are battles happening in this town between group  X and Y.
Specific would be something like : The king is killed.
How to play it ? First, yes, you must play day by day (so, yes, "Cross off February 10th on the calendar" is the way to play). Let's say this is february 11th. As a DM, you take a look at the events of the calendar, for the location of the player, for the middle of week two of february (note here, you can pinpoint). For general purposes, you can use events that are at the end of this week. Events have a one week opportunity window. Seeing those events, according to what the players are interested in, and what they do, you might or not, present some events listed.
That said, I like to challenge the players : if they are in town T1, interested in plot P1, and I can play an event happening in plot P2, I'll present it, most of the time. That way, the PCs need to make a clear decision. Are we interested in P1 ? Because, remember, they can't take part in P1 and P2, for a given week (in fact, they take part in P2 later in the calendar, but the plot would have advanced, and thus their influence would not be the same on it).
I'd say that playing that way, I see the role of the DM very differently. You sit back, pinpoint events, challenge players and manage their impact on the various plots. This is very easy, as the information is recovered very easily (very fast).

QuoteThat's an interesting notion, but I agree with David that I'm not certain how it could work out in practice.  Perhaps a small (but comprehensive) example or two on the prep involved would be useful?  I was hoping that the process of gradual refinement I mentioned would allow a compromise between flexibility and preperation.

Examples ? Yes, sure !! Here are one (http://www.cycles-rpg.com/teaser/AvalancheTeaser_EN.pdf), at the very last page of the teaser. That said, the prep works a little bit like play : you pinpoint and prep according to the player's current location and current time on the calendar. You don't have any idea how this is easy !!!

QuoteIf I had a virtual world on my computer telling me what was around every corner, and all of it made sense and had a decent level of texture and richness, I would say, "Zero constraints!" 

That's one the goal of Avalanche : to provide a service based web. And the most important thing in it are not the details, but the credibility of what's happening in the world.

About the prison and the guards' problematic : there are two things there.
1. the reasons the PCs got in jail in the first place (I could see an event in Avalanche where guards arrest anybody that is armed in a city, in response to an uproar).
2. how they get out of jail

As I see it, 1 could be managed thru plot, but 2 would need a system, no ? Thus, I repeat my question David : are looking at a mechanic or a design to write/structure a scenario ? Or both ?
This seems to me like a structuring question to the answers we can provide to your concern.

Finally, about your "player-directed exploration of GM-created world", I do think it is the exact same concern as what I call "our story (player-directed exploration) within the adventure (GM-created world)". Or how is it possible to come with a prewritten scenario, that would give me, as a DM, the texture (credibility) I need without directing the PCs ? Or, how to come with a plot that doesn't come in the way ?

For me, this is a fluff matter, not a crunch one ...

Quote from: Alfryd on February 13, 2008, 03:08:22 AM
what if- due to factors the GM has already described- there's no plausible way to find out about orc tattoos, or visit a cave of wonders, or to climb the summit of a distant mountain range, or topple a world-girdling empire, during the next session?  If that happens, the GM will have to sketch out multiple scenes (in varying degrees of detail) to satisfy the player's demands, which may have to be scrapped if the players lose interest.

If your goal is to topple an empire, you need to set a one-session(ish) goal or interest that you think furthers that.

Re: "no plausible way to find out", I think a gimmick is required here, along the lines of an oracle that gives PCs just the right amount of information to get to the next scenario.  I have some ideas on how to make this as non-contrived-seeming as possible, but I'm gonna wait a bit to present those (might need a new thread).

Quote from: Alfryd on February 13, 2008, 03:08:22 AM
Well sure- if you can run away from those problems, by all means do.  But if you can't manage to do so, then I think the players should be obliged to role-play their escape, regardless of whether they think it will be fun.  Otherwise, what's the incentive to respect the world?  I just don't see what's so magical about a single session when it comes to enforcing cause and effect.

I do not think this is a helpful approach.  The GM is there to be a facilitator of fun, their own and that of the players.  Taking a moralistic tone and attempting to drive home "lessons" makes the relationship between GM and players contentious and hectoring.  Cause-and-effect is there to be explored, not enforced.

I think that if/when you see players making decisions like attacking guards that trivialise the world you already have a problem in terms of the social contract between players and GM.  More likely than not, this has occurred because the players are not finding the game fun, and are therefore making their own fun.  That problem is not going to be solved by the GM taking on the role of a policing authority and attempting to teach them the error of their ways.  I don't think GM's should ever be in the position of punishing players, that is simply not healthy at any level.

Quote from: David Berg on February 12, 2008, 07:14:27 PM
I think maybe the key here is that the flexible situation needs to be interesting enough that the closed situation isn't resented.  I mean, I've had plenty of games where failure to get off the island would have frustrated the players, and finding the way off would have met with, "About fuckin' time."

Agreed, but: it seems to me that in practice all game of this type have some kind of boundary, but in this case the boundary arose in an explicit manner, with its own rationale, rather than being imposed for its own sake.  It was neither a case of the GM saying "you just can't" or trying to leap through hoops to redirect players away from an "invisible wall"-type boundary.  The limit thus had buy-in from the players and was not experienced as a constraint on play so much as a property of play.

QuoteDo remember your methods for this?

Mostly it was exploitation of their contacts and the like that made them aware of the situation.  So, once they realised that they were in some kind of trouble (not in itself unexpected given the genre and so forth), the Fixer of the group starting hitting his contacts to see what could be done, and those contacts starting telling them the heat was on, and eventually started refusing to talk to them.  They also went and staked out the ports and spotted suspicious types hanging about; there was some open, world-clarifying discussion between us as to the nature of security devices in the setting and therefore what kind of hurdles there may be to surmount.  In  addition, they already knew the enemy had air power, which had been illustrated in the very first scene in which they acquired the mcguffin, and would be able to hit a boat on the open water with ease.  So they kept a low profile and carried out some light-touch probing of the perimeter, rather trying to break out directly themselves.

Two significant events played to this.  The first was when I told the players that they had apparently been photographed by some "tourists", and they spent quite a while investigating said tourists, right down to finding out the name of their dog, before they became convinced that this was a coincidence.  I had intended this to be a throw-away event and had to ad lib quite a lot more detail about the tourists than I had prepared.  Secondly they made direct contact with the head of security of the corp that was after them and tried to negotiate a way out, so I played the security guy as sufficiently creepy and menacing that they just didn't trust him to let them live, and broke off discussions of their own volition.  Again he was not a defined character, but improvised for the moment.

The most reliable contact they had was a hacker (there was no hacker in the group) who had no physical presence on the island and therefore was somewhat beyond the range of the hunt itself.  This served as a conduit to bring in outside resources, the Russians on the mainland, who were able to get them off by virtue of having a fully stealthed smuggling boat which would be able to avoid the corp's fighter cover.  I didn't give them this right away, I had him only promise to "look into it" after significant promises of cash and favours were offered.  Eventually he directed them to the Russians who "might" be able to help and the players conducted their own negotiations.  In this regard it was no deus ex machina[/], the players did not feel themselves to have been rescued, they felt that they had successfully used their own resources, primarily the Fixer's contacts, to develop a solution.

QuoteI am assuming that, if you had done a worse job at this, the game would have been much less successful.

Yes, although in this regard the framework served me well.  For example, because I had a particular kind of "out" in mind, which was specified purely to set up the next act, when I ad libbed the security guy I already knew that I wanted the interaction with him to come across as negative.  So I knew what I was doing with that scene, what kind of impression I wanted to convey, and therefore what purpose the NPC was there to serve.  That gave some direction to my improv, it was not purely "what would happen", it had an aim of a kind driving and informing my own decisions.  That, I think, is the primary virtue of having the pre-linked structure.

Quote from: contracycle on February 12, 2008, 08:24:17 AM
Was this three sessions of play, or one?

Yes three, of which the first was the longest.

QuoteI have an idea that basically gurantees every five or so scenarios will add up to more than the sum of their parts.  "Ah!  We learned in Mission 5 that the potion of visions from Mission 1 will allow us to see the door that the key from Mission 2 fits!"  That kind of thing.  Not quite as tidy as what you describe... but it might hit the same virtue, which I think is cumulative progress over continued play...?

I think there are two things here.  The first is that there was a sense of direction which guided my improv, as above.  In the light of the discussion of players fighting guards and so forth, I would say that what this facilitated was that I was not purely governed by "what WOULD happen", but also what SHOULD happen.  If I already knew that getting thrown in the clink was not what I wanted to happen, I would start thinking of a way out as soon as a scuffle with the guards broke out.  My job then becomes one of plausibly rationalising a way out of the dead end, because I already know it is a dead end.

The second is that the thematic link-back gave the whole thing a much more satisfying structure after the fact than it would have had if it had been purely cause-and-effect, with no other considerations.  The overall arc of play reinforced itself, and so more so than with most of my games, it was a thematically united whole instead of just a series of events.  That is the component that I think "cumulative progress" provides, and extra dollop of thematic and story-like fun that supports and reinforces the sense of internal consistency.  Thats not usually the way I think, and having this established for me as a goal by an external author allowed me to concentrate on making it happen, without giving away the fact that I was making happen.

Quote
Did the mod (or novels) prep the casino for you?  Are you just really good at logical ad-lib?  Did your players not care about plausibility?  Or is there some other explanation for your group's success?

Yes, there was already a plan, and the players just had to carry it out without making any mistakes or getting themselves into undue trouble.  This was arguably the least interesting and most dungeon-like of the 3 mini-plots, but worked well enough, and the players introduced some elements of their own so they could cash in themselves as well.  This was mostly a case of running the scenario as writ and simply playing the parts of NPC's and providing physical descriptions and the like.  The only concern was that they shouldn;t bite the hand that fed them, but they were sufficiently grateful that they didn't have any desire to do so anyway.

@ pells

QuoteExamples ? Yes, sure !! Here are one, at the very last page of the teaser.

Uh.  Yeah.  Just to point out- I would not personally consider 1.7 megs of data to be a small example.

I'll look that up and get back to you.

@ contracycle

QuoteI do not think this is a helpful approach.  The GM is there to be a facilitator of fun, their own and that of the players.  Taking a moralistic tone and attempting to drive home "lessons" makes the relationship between GM and players contentious and hectoring.  Cause-and-effect is there to be explored, not enforced.

I'm sorry if I came across as high-handed or overbearing, and if you are comfortable with non-enforcement of cause and effect, by all means leave it out.  But it seems to me that cause and effect which isn't enforced isn't really cause and effect at all.  The intention here is not to berate the players for alleged misdeeds, but simply maintain a believable setting.

To take an example in miniature- say the players are in combat- within a single session- and a player finds himself going toe-to-toe with a heavily armoured knight.  The player's character swings his sword, but the knight's damage reduction/AC/whatever is much too high for this to have a decent chance of success, and he deals no significant damage.  If the players, at this point, say 'can't we just fast-forward to the bit where we loot the bodies'?  The GM is fully entitled to ask 'How?' -and if the players can't provide a plausible explanation for how they dispatch their enemies and swagger off laden with swag, all in one fell swoop- then the GM says 'the knight, only angered by your efforts, proceeds to smack the crap out of you' on the next round.  Asking whether the players consider this immediate prospect enjoyable is missing the point.

This isn't intended as some arbitrary punishment.  It's just a realistic depiction of how the world works.  The whole point to that knight having high armour class was never to fuck the players over, but to provide a challenge that must be worked around through variation in tactics.  Freedom exists to allow that variation, but structure is needed to make it interesting.  Otherwise, you have the following.

Player 1:  "Awww... my attack roll wasn't high enough.  Phooey!"
GM:  "Yeah, looks like that Knight will be pissed now. ...ah, what the hell.  When he's getting up, -the Knight trips over on his own shoelaces!"
Player 2:  "Hooray!"
GM:  "And then he dies of a heart attack!"
Player 1:  "Yaaay!"

What are they, children?

Alfryd,

Your example is a perfect demonstration of what contracycle posited -- there is already a social contract breakdown, based on lack of shared fun ("you thought I'd enjoy fighting a knight, but I don't").  I agree with him that social disconnect cannot be repaired by in-game anything (e.g. causality enforcement).  You need to stop play at that point and fix the agreement about what people find fun.


Contracycle,

I'm mulling your play example.  It seems like I should be able to deduce some useful "do"s and "don't"s from that, but it may take me a while.  If you have any generalizable takeaways from this game beyond what you've stated thus far, I'd love to hear 'em.

I never said that, in this hypothetical session, the players didn't enjoy themselves.  Maybe, after taking a beating, they realised that the knight was slow enough they could use hit and run attacks with slingstones, or was susceptible to illusion magic.  Maybe the fact this initial obstacle cropped up actually made the session more enjoyable, since they can now pat themselves on the back for being so cunning, (as opposed to the standard 'I hit it with pointy implements' routine.)  Obstacles sre fun.  But they have to carry consequences in order to be obstacles at all.

An interest in answering "How?", and a desire to have that answer arbitrated by in-game causality, represent one specific play style.  Yes, that is the play style I'm going for.  If all players are clear on and agree to this, everyone at the table will desire that obstacles carry consequences.  If certain players do not understand this, conversation is required.  If, understanding, they decide they don't like it, they should go play another game.

My game will endeavor to create said understanding and agreement.  For the purposes of this discussion, let's just assume it works*, and everyone wants obstacles with consequences.

What interests me here is how to deliver said obstacles.  I think we've had some good discussion of that, and I hope it continues.

*feel free to start a new thread to tackle that issue! -- just don't use this one

Quote from: David Berg on February 07, 2008, 02:40:15 PM
What I want is for the players to be able to go learn something interesting about Orc tattooing.  Not maybe, not if the GM feels like it.  They absolutely do determine where to go and encounter an opportunity there to learn what they seek.

Assuming that's possible, do you see the appeal?  Can you envision how that might be cool in a new and different way?  Or have you played something that accomplishes this already?

If you mean a system that allows the players to create their own content, then there's Donjon and similar games.  But that doesn't seem to be what you're getting at. 

It seems like you want a system that produces content from the GM on demand, regardless of the GM's desire or ability to produce that content. That's not possible.  It can't be done. Can't happen.  You'd need a magic wand.

What if the GM is stumped by the player's desire to explore orc tattooing?  What if the GM doesn't actually know anything at all about tattooing?  What if they haven't thought out the full details or orc society?  You're going to create a game system that generates content without player input or GM input?  The absolute best you could hope for is random charts to create content, but it will always be possible to bust such a system.

Well there's content and there's content, I think.  I don't think answering a question like the orcish tattoo's would be a problem for me as such; even if I have nothing prepped about the tattoo's, coming to a decisions as to whether they are magical or mundane is not a real problem as long as I have some time to make that decision.  What will be much more difficult will be to construct an entertaining sequence of play that answers that question.  For example, maybe a way to answer the tattoo's question is to set up an Indiana Jones type scene in which the PC's crouch unseen on a ledge watching an orc shaman bestow such tattoos on a champion, or maybe "activates" them through some magical process.  The question is then not so much about the nature of the tattoos themselves, as to the mechanism for displaying and conveying that information - how do I get the players into that position so they can make that observation. The problem then is not the establishing of facts, which I think is pretty easy, but instead a mechanism for actually introducing those facts into play in an elegant manner.  A somewhat harder example might be if the tattoos are mundane and indicate status things like ranks or scout badges; in that case you might need to understand a fair bit about orc society before the information the tattoos are conveying (to other orcs) is comprehensible to the players; maybe in that case you really want to bring the players into contact with some old sage who has the equivalent of anthropological knowledge about orcs and tell you how to recognise and interpret the meaning of those tattoos.

Working from a sufficiently large body of established data, answering or creating such detail is I think the stock-in-trade of Sim GM's and few will encounter real difficulty answering a specific question.  Far more problematic, I think, is constructing a process of play that introduces that information into the SIS in the form of a game that is entertaining to play.  The answer itself is probably not going to comprise a very large part of a session of actual play, ands its the rest of the session that needs to be built to support the delivery of that answer.

Quote from: contracycle on February 15, 2008, 06:26:12 AM
Well there's content and there's content, I think.  I don't think answering a question like the orcish tattoo's would be a problem for me as such; even if I have nothing prepped about the tattoo's, coming to a decisions as to whether they are magical or mundane is not a real problem as long as I have some time to make that decision...

It wouldn't be a problem for me either, but I (and presumably you) know something about tattooing amongst early civilizations, and could wing it pretty easily.  But there are plenty of subjects that I know very little about, and I'd have to do some research before I would feel comfortable answering questions about, say, the function of courtiers in the court (I have no idea what courtiers actually do).

Given time to think, research and prepare, a good GM should be able to detail out most anything enough to make an adventure out of it.  I mean I can go read up a bunch on courtiers, and figure out exactly who they are and why kings bother with them.

But David seems to be asking for something other than that, something that forces the GM to provide content on demand.  Maybe I'm misreading him, but it almost sounds like he wants to create a system that treats the GM's creativity like a slave to the desires of the player.  Which bothers me a bit, as it doesn't seem to show much respect to the GM as a person.

The "on demand" issue: in general, yes; at every instance, no.  (I said it better earlier... maybe got lost amongst the pages of posts?  I bet you can find it...)  The players' statement that they wish to learn about Orc tattoos says nothing about how they'll learn.  It's still up to the GM to decide whether tracking some nearby Orcs will reveal their secrets, or whether saving a princess from an astrology cult's golem will give them the info they seek (turns out the princess was hiding from the golem in an ancient Orc graveyard, complete with notes on the deceased!).

Why would the PCs go to rescue the princess?  Because they know that somehow, they will have an opportunity to learn about Orc tattoos.  How do they know this?  See the oracle gimmick.

...at least, that's my current best idea.

@ pells

QuoteThat said, what type of game can this generate ?
- The "scenario" is not about the PCs (they are never mentionned), so, as there is no predefined role for them ; this is truly player directed.
- As "events" happen into the world, indepedant of the PCs, there is a sim feeling to the game ; not the system, but about a living world.
- PCs decide what plots/sub plots they want to explore. As the scenario is very high level, players and DM complete the "holes" as they see fit.
- Bottom line, in my opinion, this really, but really changes my approach toward pre written scenarios (and even rpg in general). The game turns out to be about the PCs' place into the world. Which is what I'm looking for in a game. For more on this, I invite you to read this article.

After perusing you system, and the Avalanche example a little more carefully, I would say that, while I don't especially disagree with your objectives on any level, this doesn't exactly conform to the kind of game that David has in mind.

Essentially, you've traded a single railroad plot for multiple concurrent railroad plots, and allow the players to hop between them at will.  Which is fine, except that you've multiplied by the amount of prep required by the author by the number of concurrent plots.  You have cleverly managed to cover the full range of player exploration in both space and time by attaching histories for associated geographical factions.  But if they players can truly impact that history, how do you prepare for future sessions in an economical fashion?

From your website:
"The critical points : there are two kinds. The entry ones represent the major "events" (or "facts", if you prefer) from the past that influence the current scenario. For instance, in LOTR, a critical entry point would be "Bilbo has the ring". If a critical entry point does not reflect the reality of your game, than the impact on the scenario will be major. As for the exit critical points, they do represent the "major events" from the current scenario that can influence the future. So, an exit critical point of a scenario should turn out be an entry critical point of another, later, scenario. Those critical points are a way to make jonction between the scenarios."

This is where I become unclear.  You seem to make provision for the players' ability to affect the world at certain predefined points (whenever there's a delicate balance between two forces which could go either way?)  -but what if the players have advanced in power and influence sufficiently that they've become movers and shakers in their own right?  Why should they not be able to wreak merry hell with the material?

Now, to be clear, I would consider your sytem to be an excellent guide to composing a large scale structure or framework for the player characters to inhabit/explore, with realistic constraints, but the amount of detail that you provide is prohibitively expensive for homebrew efforts.  I am hopeful that the technique of incremental detail I propose earlier may remedy this difficulty.  But neither will satisfy David's requirement that:

1.  The players do not determine the content of the world.  The GM does.
2.  The players can require that whatever aspect of the world they choose to explore will be interesting.

I fear these objectives are close to contradictory, but what if the players decide to explore something when genuinely bears no significant relation to the plots you've prepared?  This more or less compels the DM to attach great importance to, and flesh out accordingly, whatever aspect of the world the players deign to notice.  And then all your prepped material and elaborate web of interwoven plotlines are for nought.

QuoteIf you can provide a DM with a complete product (which means a lot of work from the author's/designer's part), then prep, using Avalanche's design, is very, but very easy !!! And very fast (by the way, that's one the main goal of the project).

Yes, but again, we're assuming for the present, that the GM is making up this world from scratch.  Besides, much the same constraints on time and budget will apply to any publisher with limited resources.  I consider your approach to be a significant advance, but it carries it's own problems.

@ contracyle

QuoteAgreed, but: it seems to me that in practice all game of this type have some kind of boundary, but in this case the boundary arose in an explicit manner, with its own rationale, rather than being imposed for its own sake.  It was neither a case of the GM saying "you just can't" or trying to leap through hoops to redirect players away from an "invisible wall"-type boundary.  The limit thus had buy-in from the players and was not experienced as a constraint on play so much as a property of play.

I would consider your session description to be an excellent example of using plausible constraints to provide the players with challenges they enjoy (as well as helping to curb the amount of material you would have to prep.)

@ MKAdams

QuoteWhat if the GM is stumped by the player's desire to explore orc tattooing?  What if the GM doesn't actually know anything at all about tattooing?  What if they haven't thought out the full details or orc society?  You're going to create a game system that generates content without player input or GM input?

I think that David covered this by allowing that any exploration objective specified by the players for which there isn't an immediate and obvious route would only be covered in the next session (and might take multiple sessions to yield meaningful results.)  That should give the GM ample time to research background.

Not as a particular point of contention, but I found this hilarious:

"In a world gone horribly wrong, where actions have no consequences, where all of humanity has become unaccountably oblivious to blatant violations of the time-space continuum, where rules exist not to be broken but to be disregarded, where continuity is irrelevant... anything is possible."
-Roger Ebert (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080213/REVIEWS/703454342), Jumper review.

Of course, I've always held that movies and games have very different objectives, but I think it gives some idea of, ah... potential pitfalls to complete player freedom.

QuoteThe problem then is not the establishing of facts, which I think is pretty easy, but instead a mechanism for actually introducing those facts into play in an elegant manner.

QuoteWhat interests me here is how to deliver said obstacles.  I think we've had some good discussion of that, and I hope it continues.

*feel free to start a new thread to tackle that issue! -- just don't use this one

Well, it seems to me that challenges normally form a natural aspect of the world.  You wouldn't have to go out of your way to introduce them.  As for how to deliver said obstacles, well, I mean, that's a balancing/setting issue, and you're right, it goes beyond the scope of this discussion.  But, I think you might use obstacles as a sort of 'plot currency' in exchange for particular exploration requests by the players.  Anything that requires a lot of work on the GM's behalf will be proportionately difficult to back out of.

1.  If there is an obvious and immediate route for exploring the player's topic of interest, then this will be explored in the next session.

2.  If there is no obvious and immediate route for exploring the topic, but no established reason for why it should be difficult to explore, results should be forthcoming within 2-3 sessions. The players may choose a different immediate topic to explore in the upcoming session, and the GM may, optionally, introduce a constraint that makes it harder to backtrack from the long-term exploration.

3.  If no obvious and immediate route for exploration exists, and there are established facts about the world which make exploration of the subject difficult or impossible under present circumstances, then this forms the basis for a major plot structure stretching over many sessions.  The GM may select the topic of the next scene for the players, and introduce 2-3 constraints which make backtracking from this exploration difficult or impossible, (again, under present circumstances.)  The player characters must have some compelling pre-stated reason to explore the subject.

QuoteI have an idea that basically gurantees every five or so scenarios will add up to more than the sum of their parts.  "Ah!  We learned in Mission 5 that the potion of visions from Mission 1 will allow us to see the door that the key from Mission 2 fits!"  That kind of thing.  Not quite as tidy as what you describe... but it might hit the same virtue, which I think is cumulative progress over continued play...?

QuoteRe: "no plausible way to find out", I think a gimmick is required here, along the lines of an oracle that gives PCs just the right amount of information to get to the next scenario.  I have some ideas on how to make this as non-contrived-seeming as possible, but I'm gonna wait a bit to present those (might need a new thread).

I think you might be able to combine these two together. e.g, If the players request some kind of difficult, long-term exploration, that's your cue to script some kind of larger plot hook.

Well, maybe it would help to throw in some terminology...

Locales.
Locales are permanent areas/places.

Factions and personalities.
These are groups (cultures, natiuons, etc) or agents, similar to the player characters, capable of making informed choices and with some awareness of the world and history.

Events.
Events are tied to a particular locale and faction/personality.  Before scripting an event, the GM has to ask-
Why does this event occur?  Can the players realistically affect it?  If they can affect it, what are the likely alternative outcomes?

Level of Detail (LoD.)
Events, Locales and Factions/personalities which the players can most realistically explore in the near future should be described in greatest detail.  Remoter prospects should be described in successively lower detail.

Level of Persistance (LoP.)
Events which occur due to powerful, deterministic forces on a large scale (and are therefore difficult for the player characters to affect or even explore) have a high Level of Persistance.  Events which are local, limited or down to chance factors (and therefore easy for the player characters to affect or explore) have a low Level of Persistance.

Links.
An explicit pre-stated path for exploration.

Constraint.
An explicit pre-stated block on exploration.

Bridge.
An Event which provides a Link surmounting a previous constraint, usually permitting exploration on a higher level of persistance.

If it's possible to go from Locale A and Locale B, then logically, it should be possible to go back from B to A.  That's a Link.  A constraint blocks travel in one or both directions.

Alfryd,

If "plot currency" actually is felt as determining gameworld content, that's too meta for me.  As far as backing out of a situation, I'd prefer to treat the symptom rather than the problem, and just forge some 100% workable agreements on what's fun to play.  I know this is a tall order, but I am hopeful!

As for long-term exploration preferences, I think letting those evolve over time might be best for the GM's workload.

Quote from: Alfryd on February 21, 2008, 12:03:49 PM
Well, maybe it would help to throw in some terminology...

I dig it.

Quote from: Alfryd on February 21, 2008, 12:03:49 PM
Locales.
Locales are permanent areas/places.

Fine name.  Perhaps largely irrelevant -- see LoD.

Quote from: Alfryd on February 21, 2008, 12:03:49 PM
Factions and personalities.
These are groups (cultures, natiuons, etc) or agents, similar to the player characters, capable of making informed choices and with some awareness of the world and history.

These are already in my game text as Interests (see Anders' post and my response), so I'd prefer to use that, unless you see a problem with it.

Quote from: Alfryd on February 21, 2008, 12:03:49 PM
Events.
Events are tied to a particular locale and faction/personality.  Before scripting an event, the GM has to ask-
Why does this event occur?  Can the players realistically affect it?  If they can affect it, what are the likely alternative outcomes?

Agree with this final stage of the process, but not sure what you have in mind as the first step, i.e., GM says, "I will create an Event."  When, and why?

Quote from: Alfryd on February 21, 2008, 12:03:49 PM
Level of Detail (LoD.)
Events, Locales and Factions/personalities which the players can most realistically explore in the near future should be described in greatest detail.  Remoter prospects should be described in successively lower detail.

Absouletly, but I think perhaps I can be more precise than this.

Locales/Events/Interests that can be explored in today's session should be described in greatest detail.  Everything else in the gameworld can be divided up into two categories:

1) will not be referenced in today's session -- don't waste a nanosecond on it
2) might be referenced in today's session -- make it able to be referenced, and nothing more.  This means come up with some names and the basics of a situation.  "In the town of Thulford, there is a shaman named Greymuth who claims to be able to protect the town from Orc raiders who've afflicted nearby villages."  Done.  (The Thulford info will come up in the middle of the current scenario, and there's no reason to expect the players to bail on the current scenario, so going to Thulford will not happen this session.  Hmm, perhaps I should emphasize, "Don't drop hooks into a scenario before the scenario's really underway!")

Quote from: Alfryd on February 21, 2008, 12:03:49 PM
Level of Persistance (LoP.)
Events which occur due to powerful, deterministic forces on a large scale (and are therefore difficult for the player characters to affect or even explore) have a high Level of Persistance.  Events which are local, limited or down to chance factors (and therefore easy for the player characters to affect or explore) have a low Level of Persistance.

As with Events: When and why?  I definitely agree with the relevance of these considerations, but only if High-LoP events are actually created.  They may not be.  Or pehaps they are, but all pre-campaign, not pre-session.

Quote from: Alfryd on February 21, 2008, 12:03:49 PM
Links.
An explicit pre-stated path for exploration.

Do you mean established during play, and thus "on the table" in future play?  If so, great!  If you mean, "the GM prepped it", I don't see a need for any prepped Links between scenarios, only Links within the scenario of today's session.  Or, well, see my final thought in this post.

Quote from: Alfryd on February 21, 2008, 12:03:49 PM
Constraint.
An explicit pre-stated block on exploration.

Bridge.
An Event which provides a Link surmounting a previous constraint, usually permitting exploration on a higher level of persistance.

If it's possible to go from Locale A and Locale B, then logically, it should be possible to go back from B to A.  That's a Link.  A constraint blocks travel in one or both directions.

Ooh!  This has some cool potential.  Let me run through some examples:

1) The players decide to go to the marshlands.  The GM doesn't want the players to go there, ever, and imposes some Constraint for this purpose.

2) The players decide to go to the marshlands.  The GM has only a very fuzzy idea of what the marshlands are like, and would have to spend a lot of time prepping them.  Fortunately, when he decided that the marshlands might be referenced, he also came up with a Constraint: the rainy season.  You can't go to the marshlands for another two months, cuz it'll all be flooded until then.

3) Same scenario, different Constraint: the border wall.  You can't just stroll into the marshlands, because the Palatine army has built a wall across the only entry point, which they guard.  Unlike two months of rain, however, the PCs can do something here.  They can sneak, or climb, or haggle, or bribe, or lie, or maybe even pick their moment and try to fight their way in.  This could be a fun session in itself, and gives the GM an extra week (or whatever) to prepare the marshlands.

4) Same as (3), except there is the explicit potential for the PCs to form a relationship with the guards such that they can travel to and from the marshlands as they please.

My thoughts on these:

(1) is not acceptable.  If the marshlands are ever going to be mentioned in play in some interesting fashion, they can't be simply a dead issue.  The one exception I'd make to this is for an obvious categorical impossibility, like "There might be something interesting on teh surface of the moon," in a game with no space travel.

(2) is not as fun as (3) or (4), but I could see valid reasons for using it every once in a while.  It seems like a generally non-optimal solution to "I don't wanna prep fast", though.

(3) is great if the players enjoy the guards/gate scenario.  The key here would be the GM leaving his initial description of the situation open enough (e.g., "There's only one way into the marshlands, and you hear that Palatine controls it.") that he could later prep the specifics to be something the players find fun.

(4) offers a bigger reward to the players, with a permanent Link instead of a temporary one, and thus might inspire a little more enthusiasm.  When (3) and (4) are equally plausible, I'd go with (4).  When (3) is more plausible, I'd go with (3).

So, basically, most Constraints would exist to be turned into Links by the PCs.  The process of transformation should be fun to play -- in a game about exploration, I'd think the players oughta like building Bridges*.  It also buys the GM some time to develop the next Locale.  A few Constraints would be turned into Links by PC-external Events, for large-scale campaign reasons and perhaps world-plausibility reasons.  And a very few Constraints would just be, "sorry, that was pure Color, it's not explorable."

I could go on to talk about (2) more, but I'd rather pause for now.

Final thought:
When does the GM identify a Link or a Constraint?  Well, at the end of a session, the players pick what to do next, and they should be able to pick between interests that are either Links or (3)- or (4)-Constraints.  That is, they should already know not to set their hearts on a (1)- or (2)-Constraint.  (1)s should be easy.  So, I guess what this means is that before any given session, the GM needs to identify any (2) Constraints, and present them as part of the hook: "Thulford's shaman does blah blah blah; Thulford is many months' travel away."

* for groups where this is not true, though, I don't think they should be forced to spend full sessions conquering obstacles and not getting the info they wanted to pursue... perhaps a solution is just to imbed some Secrets in every scenario, even a "talking to the guards of the wall" scenario

QuoteThese are already in my game text as Interests (see Anders' post and my response), so I'd prefer to use that, unless you see a problem with it.

Suits me.

QuoteAgree with this final stage of the process, but not sure what you have in mind as the first step, i.e., GM says, "I will create an Event."  When, and why?

It just strikes me as part of the GM creating the world.  Why insert Orcs, or descriptions of their tattoos?  You have to put in something, and people in that world will make an impact on the world.  That's an Event.  The point is, the GM should be very careful when scripting events that the players could have power to affect.

QuoteAs with Events: When and why?  I definitely agree with the relevance of these considerations, but only if High-LoP events are actually created.  They may not be.  Or perhaps they are, but all pre-campaign, not pre-session.

I'm sorry- I should have amended this definition- LoP can include Locales and Interests, as well as Events.  To give an example, say that one of your players asks to look toward the east horizon while riding.

"You see a distant line of amber mountains, stretching far toward the coast, their peaks still flecked with winter snows despite the season."

-here you've established a Locale with High LoP and Low LoD.  There's not much the players can do to move mountains around the place, (and they're also a significant Constraint, since you'd probably have to go around them.)  For that matter, the coast you mentioned would have similar properties.
A powerful monarch or large nation exhibiting solidarity would be Interests with High LoP, since it would be quite difficult to get close enough to harm or simply talk with the former, and the latter is too large and uniform to deflect from it's course (at least, until the players become much more influential.)

I certainly agree that a certain amount of pre-campaign briefing on the world and general backdrop would be essential for the players.  But the amount of detail in that briefing on various topics would itself be a reflection of level of persistance and proximity to the players.  You'd describe their immediate surroundings and important events in greatest detail, while distant lands or minor interests might get a passing mention.

QuoteIf "plot currency" actually is felt as determining gameworld content, that's too meta for me.  As far as backing out of a situation, I'd prefer to treat the symptom rather than the problem, and just forge some 100% workable agreements on what's fun to play.  I know this is a tall order, but I am hopeful!

QuoteAbsouletly, but I think perhaps I can be more precise than this...
1) will not be referenced in today's session -- don't waste a nanosecond on it

Well, here I feel there may be some friction between your objectives.  Say the players ask to explore the subject of Orc tattoos, and the GM knows there are certain obstacles the players must circumvent or overcome to get that information.  So the GM knows that the players must go from Node A to Node B to Node C to Node D to get that data.  So he then has to flesh out that path of exploration, which is a lot of work- and that's fine, provided it actually sees use.

So, to ensure that the GM isn't overburdened with work, you need to either:
1.  Reduce the average workload per Node.
OR
2.  Ensure that it's hard for players to stray from the given path.

The method of incremental detail exists to permit (1), while constraints exist to allow (2).  With incremental detail, the GM can simply provide a rough outline of Nodes B and C, and a few words for D, while the players explore Node A.  If the players lose interest no great harm is done, as the GM had only scripted bare bones of later prospective sessions.
With constraints, on the other hand, players have an incentive to finish what they started, so that the GM's work won't go down the crapper.  (Even if they don't like the initial setup, there may be a long-term satisfaction to dealing with the obstacles introduced over successive sessions.  As long as those constraints don't persist unnecesarily beyond that subplot, it seems fair.  A similar rule exists for single sessions- constraints introduced for that single session should be reasonably surmountable within that session.)

The other reason why I would favour detailing locales/events/interests beyond the current session is so that you can A. help brief your players on larger aspects of the world when called for, and B. (a similar consideration,) maintain consistency, internal logic and continuity between different sessions and encounters.

Quote(1) is not acceptable.  If the marshlands are ever going to be mentioned in play in some interesting fashion, they can't be simply a dead issue.  The one exception I'd make to this is for an obvious categorical impossibility, like "There might be something interesting on teh surface of the moon," in a game with no space travel.

(2) is not as fun as (3) or (4), but I could see valid reasons for using it every once in a while.  It seems like a generally non-optimal solution to "I don't wanna prep fast", though.

(3) is great if the players enjoy the guards/gate scenario.  The key here would be the GM leaving his initial description of the situation open enough (e.g., "There's only one way into the marshlands, and you hear that Palatine controls it.") that he could later prep the specifics to be something the players find fun.

(4) offers a bigger reward to the players, with a permanent Link instead of a temporary one, and thus might inspire a little more enthusiasm.  When (3) and (4) are equally plausible, I'd go with (4).  When (3) is more plausible, I'd go with (3).

I agree, by and large.  Certainly, the GM can't arbitrarily decide the players can't visit a given Locale, which should otherwise be trivial to explore, if he hasn't thought to prep some believable constraint in advance.  And certainly, most constraints should be surmountable with enough thought and effort.

For instance, cozying up to the guards might require undertaking some quest on behalf of their captain (who finds a little plausible deniability useful for the purpose, or he wouldn't be hiring adventurers,) that then permits you entry to the marshlands.

Quote* for groups where this is not true, though, I don't think they should be forced to spend full sessions conquering obstacles and not getting the info they wanted to pursue... perhaps a solution is just to imbed some Secrets in every scenario, even a "talking to the guards of the wall" scenario

Well, the purpose I had in mind is that a constraint (introduced after a subplot request) exists as an incentive to the players to complete that sub-quest, not that it actively impedes completing that subquest ...that would just be cruelty.
For instance, if they want to undertake that Marshland-exploration subquest (which, after all, didn't have an immediate and obvious route for exploration,) the guards' captain will want a favour in exchange for letting them pass.  If you can provide that favour (which should be possible as part of the subquest,) all is well.  If not, failing to live up to your side of the bargain may have long-term ramifications (such as the arrest scenario from earlier.)

QuoteWhen does the GM identify a Link or a Constraint?  Well, at the end of a session, the players pick what to do next, and they should be able to pick between interests that are either Links or (3)- or (4)-Constraints.  That is, they should already know not to set their hearts on a (1)- or (2)-Constraint.  (1)s should be easy.  So, I guess what this means is that before any given session, the GM needs to identify any (2) Constraints, and present them as part of the hook: "Thulford's shaman does blah blah blah; Thulford is many months' travel away."

I'll have to think about that some more.  I would say that Links/Constraints would mainly be used by the GM for prep purposes, to help ensure a reasonably open but relatively structured world, and wouldn't be made explicit to the players unless neccesary.  If the players ask about the marshlands, then the GM tells them about the rainy season or border guards.

I mean, one of your objectives is that the players can legitimately seize on some aspect of the world's description which was just there for colour.  Now, if you're cool with the GM saying "sorry, that was pure Color, it's not explorable," on occasion, (and I agree it should only be occasional,) then that's fine.

Alfryd,
I think we're communicating well on most of this stuff, but there may be an important disconnect.  Let me see if I can get at the heart of it.

Quote from: Alfryd on February 22, 2008, 10:36:29 AM

QuoteAgree with this final stage of the process, but not sure what you have in mind as the first step, i.e., GM says, "I will create an Event."  When, and why?

It just strikes me as part of the GM creating the world.  Why insert Orcs, or descriptions of their tattoos?  You have to put in something

In the instance of Orcs, they are a creation of the game-designers, a pre-condition of play, and might well be an incentive to play. 

Once a group's decided to play, it is the GM's job to determine what they're psyched about (e.g., Orcs? not Orcs?).  That, and only that, is the "something" that the GM has to put in.

Quote from: Alfryd on February 22, 2008, 10:36:29 AMWell, here I feel there may be some friction between your objectives.  Say the players ask to explore the subject of Orc tattoos, and the GM knows there are certain obstacles the players must circumvent or overcome to get that information.  So the GM knows that the players must go from Node A to Node B to Node C to Node D to get that data.

How could the GM possibly "know" that?  Because he made it up.  Why did he make it up?  If the answer is, "to entertain himself," he's doing it wrong (for this game).  If the answer is, "to entertain the players," then either Node D should be right around the corner, or Nodes A,B,C are all addressing player interests quite directly in their own way.  Either of these is inherently fun.  Imposing constraints to keep players on a path they might otherwise want to leave (e.g., if A,B,C don't address player interests) is not inherently fun and should never ever be necessary.

Are we in agreement on all of this?  If so, the disconnect I'm perceiving is probably just semantics.  If not, then it's going to be hard for me to use your ideas, as they are fundamentally not about what I'm trying to do here.

QuoteHow could the GM possibly "know" that?  Because he made it up.  Why did he make it up?  If the answer is, "to entertain himself," he's doing it wrong (for this game).

I'm referring to case 3 given a few post back:  "if no obvious and immediate route for exploration exists, and there are established facts about the world which make exploration of the subject difficult or impossible under present circumstances..."
Yes, the GM made it up, but if he states that as part of the world's description before the players make their decision, then it's binding.

For instance.  Let's say the players want to visit a town on the other side of the mountains, which requires you either go around or through them, and there are bandits to one side and feuding armies to the other, and packs of wolves.  This has all been established before they made that choice.  So whatever the players do is going to involve a fair amount of blood, sweat and tears, just to keep things plausible.  (Now, this might not be the case with learning about orc tattoos specifically, but the principle stands.)

How, exactly, is a GM supposed to make provision for the characters' toppling a world-girdling empire unless he goes to significant trouble to puzzle out exactly how they might go about doing so?  Empires don't just topple themselves.  (Or if they do, there are reasons for it, which must be detailed as facts about the world.)

QuoteEither of these is inherently fun.  Imposing constraints to keep players on a path they might otherwise want to leave (e.g., if A,B,C don't address player interests) is not inherently fun and should never ever be necessary.

Again, I think there may be a conflict between long and short-term gratification here.  Having your ass kicked by a Knight with high damage reduction is not fun.  Having to deal with situations which include the threat of a Knight-with-high-damage-reduction can be.  But this is a secondary issue.

You're basically saying that the GM should never impose a constraint which bugs the players for more than a session or two.  Which would be fine, if the GM were never required to plan ahead more than a session or two.  But you want the players to be able to specify long(er)-term subplots, regardless of plausibility, and you want individual episodes to add up to more than the sum of their parts, regardless of advance planning.  And either of these structures could become epic in scale (indeed they must, as ever-more-powerful characters attract the attentions of more and more vested Interests.)  Discrete, disconnected sessions simply can't maintain that kind of continuity unless the GM plans well ahead.  You don't want the GM to use incremental detail, and you don't want to penalise the players for wasting his work.

So what, exactly, is he or she (the GM) supposed to do?  It seems to me you pick one or the other, unless you have a magic wand.

The following may also be of interest, as it addresses many of the same concerns.
http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/plot/proactivity.html

QuoteOnce a group's decided to play, it is the GM's job to determine what they're psyched about (e.g., Orcs? not Orcs?).  That, and only that, is the "something" that the GM has to put in.

Sure, fine, absolutely, but if the players decide that Orcs are indeed what they are psyched about, then Orcs enter the story and enter the world.  Orcs make decisions and have their own interests, and that will generate Events.  Once the players decide that orcs are what they want to explore, orcs won't just disappear from the world when and if they lose interest.

Put it another way- why can't the GM put it in if he feels like it?  As long as it doesn't immediately interfere with the players' likely plans (i.e, impose a Constraint,) it's just another aspect of setting.  Nor are those events neccesarily whimsy on the GM's part- sometimes they're just natural outgrowths of pre-stated facts about the world, combined with effects of the player's own actions.  (And again, the players are not neccesarily dicks for inviting those repercussions, nor is the DM for making such invitation a prominent possibility.)

Well, anyway, that's my current perspective.  Look, I'm no fan of the railroad plot, but life is not, realistically, an entirely open and level playing field.  You'll have to strike a balance between the two if you want to maintain suspension of disbelief.

Quote from: David Berg on February 22, 2008, 02:28:32 PMHow could the GM possibly "know" that?  Because he made it up.  Why did he make it up?  If the answer is, "to entertain himself," he's doing it wrong (for this game).  If the answer is, "to entertain the players," then either Node D should be right around the corner, or Nodes A,B,C are all addressing player interests quite directly in their own way.  Either of these is inherently fun.  Imposing constraints to keep players on a path they might otherwise want to leave (e.g., if A,B,C don't address player interests) is not inherently fun and should never ever be necessary.

Jesus David, did a DM pee in your cheerios when you were a kid or something?  Why do you hate game masters so much?

I mean, let's just stop for a second and ask a simple question:  What if the DM described the Orcs has having tattoos because the source art shows them having tattoos, but the DM himself is ambivalent on the issue of tattoos, isn't interested in them, and would be bored by adventures revolving around Orc tattoos?

You seem to be of the position that this doesn't matter, that the DM's fun isn't a valid consideration, and that the DM's imagination and energy are enslaved by the "fun" of the player.   I mean, I don't know, maybe I'm just really having a hard time understanding you, but reading your demands my first thought "Dear fucking god am I glad this guy isn't one of my players!"

And I don't mean this as an attack on you, I just seriously wonder if you've thought about the human element of the DM in this?  Do you yourself DM?  Would you want to run a system where the players could choose any element from your game at random and force you to spin it into an adventure, even if it's of no interest to you and you have no real good ideas about how to do that?  Would you want to run a system that made it a point of the game that the DM's interests, the DM's fun, is of negligible concern when compared to the player's fun?

There's just something so inherently selfish about what you want that it really kind of offends me (mostly because I identify with the DM far more than the player, having far more experience in the first role).   I'm looking at your first post again, and you're talking about how you don't care what the DM has put effort in to, you don't care about his "plot", and you just want him to serve your interests.  I honestly can't see any reason why any DM would want to play that way, and I'm also not sure how that would work with multiple players.  I mean, you seem to be ignoring (or unaware of?) the two primary reasons DM's use plots:

1) If you know where the adventure is going to go, you can prep the parts that you need prepped, and leave the other areas blank.  If you know the plot will lead the players into the Desert of Desolation, you don't need to worry about what's going on in the Swamp of Slaughter.  If the player's whim is dictating things, then the DM can't prepare things way in advance, because he has no idea where is campaign is going.

2) A plot if is a great way to get a group of players with wildly disparate interests all on the same page, in the same place, going the same direction.  If each player is guided by his own interest, and the DM is forced to indulge that interest and sacrifice his own interests and the plot, then it's going to be very hard to keep the game from going in as many different directions as their are players.

Another thing that sticks in my craw about this idea is the memory I have of this player, "Chris."  I never wanted Chris in my games, but he came included with two players I did want, and they were a package deal.  Chris always played Elven Fighter/Mage/Clerics.  He was that guy.  Once, Chris ate up 30 minutes of game time describing a knife he wanted to buy.  I finally had to shout at him and tell him that no one cared how many fucking amethysts were set in the fucking hilt of his fucking dagger, shut up, buy your damn knife and let's fucking move along.  And the idea of letting Chris interests, his boring, mundane and irritating interests, dictate where my imagination goes, giving him any sort of control over what I'm allowed to do as a DM, sickens me and fills me with dread.  The guy was barely tolerable as a player, but if we were playing the way you want, I would have had to fucking kill him.

I don't know, I guess I could boil this all down in to one question:

Why would I want to DM a game like this?  What do I get out of it?  Where's my fun?

@ MKAdams
Perhaps, if you could formalise what the GM's interests in playing the game are likely to be, we could find some way to resolve the two perspectives?

I think you raise an interesting point when it comes to ensuring the characters have a set of consistent motives for working together toward more-or-less common goals.  I think the pre-campaign briefing and prep session should include some mechanism for character creation that helps to integrate the players as a common force with more-or-less compatible goals (at least for most of the plot.)  I recall legend of the Five Rings puts some emphasis on this?

Maybe the players could include their characters' personality traits as kind of constraint, in line with a merit/flaw system.

Perhaps, instead of using constraints to herd players along the straight and narrow, you could offer a Bridge as a reward at the end of minor subplot.  Or perhaps use both.  I think, it may be useful to have some form of challenge resolution system to help ensure a balance between the GM's interests and each of the players.  Maybe some kind of collective vote, with a tie in favour of the GM?  I still think that some form of plot/influence point system could be helpful here.

Okay.  We have some starting terminoloy.  Guidelines so far...
1.  If a constraint results from the player's actions, they should have fair warning first.
2.  If a constraint results from entering into a long-term subplot, the severity of that restraint should be in proportion to the complexity of the subplot.
3.  The GM shall not otherwise impose constraints upon the players.
4.  The GM shall not trap the players between a rock and hard place (unless by the conditions of 1 and 2.)
5.  The players may always explore an aspect of the world if there is an immediate and obvious route for doing so.  They need not do so during the same session.
6.  Constraints must be believable, non-arbitrary and non-retroactive.
7.  Completed subplots should have a reward in proportion to the constraints that were imposed (such as a Bridge.)
8.  If the players request to explore an aspect of the world where there is no immediate and obvious route for doing so, the players and GM must use some sort of resolution mechanic.

Sounds fairish?

Alfryd,
If the GM initially makes something up cuz it'll be fun to play through, then yes, of course, that made-up thing will persist and may act as a constraint within further play.  All I'm saying is, that's one of a very few reasons why constraints should exist.  Your recent list shows that we are on the same page about most of this, but there's still some disconnect.  I think I may have identified the source: "long-term" missions.

I should specify again that the purpose of this system would not be to ensure that PCs can achieve any goals, just that they can achieve knowledge goals.  If they want to topple an empire, they are guaranteed that they can learn and learn and learn all about any facet of the empire they want to know about.  They are not guaranteed that this info will in fact enable them to topple it!  In a game about exploration, "topple an empire" is a shitty priority.  It's a fun supporting goal, but an awful main goal.

If you want to take these ideas and use them in a game that's all about players using their characters to dramatically change and alter the gameworld, feel free!  But my idea is all about exploration and discovery, with broad-scale change as a big "maybe", not a reason to play.


Ken,
Great question.  That absolutely needs to be part of my pitch: "why the fuck would you GM this?"

Here's the thing: the whole reason I'm creating this is to use it when I GM!  I swear.

My GMing history has followed this pattern:
- make a plot
- fill the plot with good and evil factions
- hide the evil factions' plans, methods, and identities from the good factions
- in play, have the players discover info on the evil factions, and use that knowledge to save the world
- throw obstacles at the PCs that they will just barely kill
- make the ending that I had in mind happen

I am really good at doing this in a way that my players have enjoyed.  But I'm tired of it.  I've come to feel like a story-teller, not a story-collaborator.  I don't want the job of managing everyone else's input, of making sure everyone turns to the right chapter in my story.  Finding a way to do it that doesn't make them feel too disempowered is merely necessary, not actually fun (for me).

What I'd rather do now is not make up plots, but make up snapshots.  "Here's something cool in the world!  Go look at it in-character!  Feel the coolness!"  Except I don't want to have to convince the players that it's cool, and I don't want to just cross my fingers and hope they find it cool.  I want them to say, "Here's what we think is cool, make something up with that in mind."  Thus, two levels of feedback:
- pre-game questionnaire on "what kinds of tasks do the players enjoy doing" -- planning, talking, fighting, gambling, etc.
- pre-session statement of "next let's learn about Orc tattoos!"

"Let's learn about Orc tattoos!" is not a stifling constraint, it's an inspiring jumping-off point!  My "snapshot" can be a swarm of rabid monkeys guarding a stolen black box with a complicated, logic-puzzle lock on it if I want!  (Assuming logic puzzles are among the tasks my players enjoy.)  And what's inside the black box?  A vial of weird ink!  As long as the players (and PCs! that's what the gimmick is for) know that something in my scenario is related to Orc tattoos, they've got all the reason they need to go up against my obstacles and observe the coolness of my snapshot.  I don't need to give them a reason!  They picked it themselves!

Now let's assume this works.  If it does, that gives me the option of filling the world with plots too!  If I want to reveal monkey plots and the players want to learn about Orcs, we can do both!  This isn't the same kind of plot-making as the kind I used to do; I give up a certain kind of authorial control.  I think, however, that it's a kind I don't miss.

Re: coolness of monkeys, this is another type of agreement that the players (GM included) need to arrive at.  My current preference is that the gamebook presents a gameworld with a certain aesthetic.  For those groups who dig that aesthetic, the GM will create in accordance with it, and have well-founded expectations that his cool bits will in fact be deemed cool.  For those groups who don't dig the gameworld aesthetic, they will play another game (and maybe steal my system ideas if they like them but don't like the gameworld).

I don't know whether that's the end of my explanation or just the beginning; feel free to keep the questions coming.

Ps,
-David

P.S. As for Chris and his stupid amethysts, that sounds like a fundamental inter-player disconnect that no game should ever be designed to accommodate.  At best, the game should help the players realize that a disconnect exists, so that Chris says, "I don't wanna play this game," and the group either punts him or plays something else.

David,

Okay, I'm confused.  This latest post is very reasonable and makes a lot of sense, and if this is what you've been after all this time, then I'm finally on the same page.  Your earlier posts seemed to indicate that you wanted a system that would allow players to decide what the next "cool snapshot" would be despite GM reluctance or resistance to explore certain parts of the setting.

I'm still uncertain what it is you're looking for.  To get the sort of play you're describing, you don't need a new system.  You just need to talk to your players.  If you are willing to let them set the agenda, if you are willing to allow them to decide what they'll explore next, and they are willing to play explorer, then you're done.

If the GM is not willing to do that, no system will change that.  A system that strong-arms the GM into detailing areas of the campaign he finds boring, dull or uninspiring isn't going to produce better game play, it's going to produce bitter and resentful GMs.

Ken,

I've tried to make a distinction between the GM's scenario ("cool snapshot") and the players' knowledge pursuits ("secrets").  Maybe I've done a shitty job of that in this thread. 

Here's my best shot:

1) The players can decide that they will be given an opportunity to learn about Orc tattoos, and they cannot decide whether this opportunity will include ghosts or monkeys or Orcs or magic swords or evil wizards etc.

2) In addition to this, the players can hear about ghosts or monkeys or evil wizards and go explore that too, not knowing what knowledge might be gleaned, if they really feel like it.

3) In (1), where the players are guaranteed an interesting secret, the GM does his best to provide a cool snapshot.  In (2), where the players are guaranteed a cool snapshot, the GM does his best to provide an interesting secret.  GM and players should be on as close to the same page on "cool" and "interesting" as possible.

I may use that in the text if folks find it effective.

Quote from: MKAdams on February 23, 2008, 04:59:39 PM
To get the sort of play you're describing, you don't need a new system.  You just need to talk to your players.

The new system is (I hope) a way to make that communication as effective as possible.  I think that's a large part of what many new (to me, anyway) RPGs have to offer: providing the right guidelines, questions, and in-game structures to facilitate agreement on inter-player dynamics.  Specifically, the inter-player dynamics of this game as opposed to other games.  (That last part is less about my play group and more about a group who might see my game on a store shelf.  "We like playing explorer and setting agendas as players!"  "I like allowing that as a GM!"  "This sounds like our kind of game!")

If you're confident in your own ability to create such a dynamic with no player questionnaires or exploration fiction or in-game oracles or prep pointers, then more power to you.  Personally, I like all the help I can get.

@ David Berg

QuoteIf the GM initially makes something up cuz it'll be fun to play through, then yes, of course, that made-up thing will persist and may act as a constraint within further play...  I think I may have identified the source: "long-term" missions.

By 'initially', do you mean before the campaign starts, or when the DM describes a new scene which the players have entered?

QuoteIf they want to topple an empire, they are guaranteed that they can learn and learn and learn all about any facet of the empire they want to know about.  They are not guaranteed that this info will in fact enable them to topple it!  In a game about exploration, "topple an empire" is a shitty priority.  It's a fun supporting goal, but an awful main goal.

Even accessing information on a given topic may not, in itself, be a trivial task, and you still have to maintain consistency and coherence over multiple sessions, especially if you want multiple episodes to add to up to more than the sum of their parts.

From my personal perspective, if you're playing a Sim game, there's no good reason why I shouldn't be able to alter a portion of the world that I'm capable of exploring in detail.  Otherwise, it feels like a tease.  There are two reasons for this:
1.  The act of observation changes the observed.
2.  Knowledge is power.
If I know everything there is to know about a world-girdling empire- it's strengths and weaknesses, allies and enemies, ethnic composition and military strength, down to what the emperor has for breakfast tuesday- then there's no good reason why I shouldn't be able to topple it, or at least have a fair go.

As far as I can tell, you're saying that if the players want information on topic A, there is no guarantee that what they learn or do will actually be applicable to the source of topic A, but will simply be an incidental side-effect of pursuing goal B.  (Ghosts, or monkeys, or evil wizards, or whatever.)  The players' interests become window-dressing for whatever linear plot you foist upon them (leaving aside what should be directly and obviously explorable.)

QuoteAs long as the players (and PCs! that's what the gimmick is for) know that something in my scenario is related to Orc tattoos, they've got all the reason they need to go up against my obstacles and observe the coolness of my snapshot.  I don't need to give them a reason!  They picked it themselves!

This would be great, if you didn't have to deal with plausibility, advance planning, or cause and effect.  And if the GM were guaranteed to be enthusiastic about whatever the players want to explore.  But your first-post example strongly implies that the GM had no clue that the players would want to explore Orc tattoos, that it has nothing to do with the material he's prepped, and that he has no particular enthusiasm for exploring the issue.  This is a legitimate complaint on Ken's part and you have to address it.

QuoteNow let's assume this works.  If it does, that gives me the option of filling the world with plots too!  If I want to reveal monkey plots and the players want to learn about Orcs, we can do both!

QuoteIf you're confident in your own ability to create such a dynamic with no player questionnaires or exploration fiction or in-game oracles or prep pointers, then more power to you.  Personally, I like all the help I can get.

Certainly.  But this will require a certain amount of advance planning on your part.  Depending on the scale involved, and the amount of established facts about the world, potentially quite a lot.  You either need to use incremental detail (to cut your losses,) or ensure the players have some motive/incentive to explore that topic beyond the next session (to penalise wasting your work/reward it's use.)

Because, and I have to say it, there is no guarantee the players will actually find the subplot interesting beyond the next session or two.  If the players lose interest within that session, sure, that'll cause play to grind to a halt, which is it's 'own reward'.  But there's no incentive for them to show similar respect for long-term goals- despite being the very goals that they specified- given our GM is obliged to service their whimsy between each session.  You're basically trusting to the players' good faith and sound judgement about what will or won't prove engrossing in the long term.

Now, simply saying 'This system won't work if the players/GM are dicks', and blaming failure on 'a breakdown of social contract' is not helpful.  The whole point to having rules in a collaborative storytelling endeavour is to give incentive- and guidelines on how- to behave fairly to eachother- Otherwise you have Cops and Robbers.

"Bang, you're dead!"  "...No I'm not!"
RPG rules exist to help negotiate the social contract.

QuoteGM and players should be on as close to the same page on "cool" and "interesting" as possible.

How?  How do you intend to promote this goal?

Quote1) The players can decide that they will be given an opportunity to learn about Orc tattoos, and they cannot decide whether this opportunity will include ghosts or monkeys or Orcs or magic swords or evil wizards etc.

2) In addition to this, the players can hear about ghosts or monkeys or evil wizards and go explore that too, not knowing what knowledge might be gleaned, if they really feel like it.

Then what incentive, exactly, does the GM have to invest effort on the orc tattoo subquest, knowing full well that the players can take off an utterly irrelevant tangent, and never return?  You're pretty well saying exactly what I and Ken were complaining about- that the GM's interests and workload are irrelevant and subservient to the whims of the players.

This reply is a little off the beaten path, but I wanted to throw in another... something you may want to consider.

There are a lot of subtle techniques you can use to focus the game on the players' interests. They kind of straddle the line of player creation, which if you've stated you want to avoid, but nevertheless can create very much the feeling you want.

One is to use a system that has character bits that tie directly into the setting. For instance, if you have stuff like Keys (from The Shadow of Yesterday), Muses (from Nine Worlds), or mechanically enforced ties to bits of the setting (like relationships, oaths, etc), you can use those to create the world and the events within it. As a GM, you create or develop the parts of the setting that meaningfully interact with the characters and their "bits". Since the players are designing the characters, they are, in a sense, creating the fiction of the game world. However, it doesn't feel like it to them, since they are still discovering the details through you, the GM. The difference is that it makes the GM's job much easier--you have a good grasp on what to emphasize and what to deemphasize.

As a non-mechanical alternative, consider Kickers in Sorcerer. The players are creating the starting line, but the game is still all about exploration and discovery for them. However, the Kicker has effectively told the GM what the player is interested in exploring.

A second technique is to allow player input to structure the exploration of your world. For instance, let's say a player takes interest in finding traitors within an organization.

You most often see this in recent games in a pretty hard-over-the-head sort of approach. But there are subtle ways of doing the same thing.

The "hard" way:

--The player authors elements of the world corresponding to their research.

The "soft" way:

--As a GM, you zoom in on the area they are exploring and give them _something_ to find. You can figure out how it all ties together later. For instance, the same PC, from above, begins to look for traitors in the organization. You may not have had any plans for betrayal within that particular group. But, now that a player has taken interest in it, you zoom in on the issue and give them *something*. Perhaps they find someone involved in suspicious activity. Later, perhaps in-between sessions, you can brainstorm how that fits in to the rest of your setting. Chances are that it will! (You'd be surprised, honestly.) If it doesn't, then you'll figure out whether that character is being framed as a traitor, or perhaps is involved in some activity that makes them suspicious, or something else.

Who is framing that character? What weird activity are they involved in? You go back to the world elements you've already developed (especially any you haven't had a chance to throw in yet), and find one of them that can fit this role. For instance, you had this idea about some weird, illegal, yet government-sponsored research happening in a bad part of town, and the players didn't get a chance to explore that. Now is the time we discover that the character they're investigating is drawing attention because he's involved in this research somehow. Or, that NPC who is important to the action but you haven't been able to fully bring in? He's paid this poor fellow to betray the organization, so if the PCs follow the traitor, they'll find the NPC.

A third example is allowing players to frame their own scenes. You can do this in subtle ways--just by asking the players questions about "what happens next". You may find that you do this already, and just haven't noticed. For instance, a scene or encounter ends. You turn to the quietest player and say:

--"OK, Dave, what are you going to do next?"
--"Uh, I want to go ask the General about dating his daughter."
--"How are you going to find him?"
--"Didn't someone say he often has lunch with visiting officials? Maybe there's an ambassador in town or something, and I can catch them at the hotel's restaurant..."
--"OK! Let's go! You walk into the hotel lobby. Sure enough, behind the little artificial waterfall, you see the General having lunch with some strangely-dressed man..."

The player has effectively framed that scene, with you just supplying at bit of specific narration. But chances are that it doesn't feel like that to the player. To the player, it's just *logical* that the General would be doing that, so it just reinforces their belief in the world--it appears that the world is alive and coherent.

The reason these techniques work is because of the players' suspension of disbelief, or whatever you want to call it. They really, really want to believe in your world. Whenever they suggest a course of action or investigate a particular element, it's because that's what makes sense to them at that moment. If they're looking for traitors, it's because it's logical to them, as players, that there would be some. If they want to check for traps, it's because it makes sense, to that player, that their opposition might have planted some in that location. If they're asking an important person about something, it's because it *makes sense to them, based on their understanding of the fictional world* that this person would know that piece of information. By giving back at least a part of that (maybe straight-up, maybe with a twist), you strengthen their belief in the fictional world, and give them a stronger suspension of disbelief.

(It's not a straight jacket for the GM, however: for instance, they may be mistaken about that important person giving them the information. They may later discover that the important person is completely misinformed, or has simply lied to them.)

For the same reasons, the techniques are effectively "invisible" to the players--the exploration of the world just feels natural and seamless because the players are really getting into the process and *discovering stuff* that interests them. Their discoveries are flowing from the logical assumptions they're making about the fictional reality and how it works. When that is confirmed, the fictional reality just seems more real, and more coherent. (Some improv drama teachers say, "do what is obvious". It's kind of the same thing, and good advice.)

In short, the sort of advice you hear here--allow yourself to be loose about the world and the backstory, focus on the PCs, and play your NPCs as strong motivated characters of your own--really works. It doesn't follow the _process_ you're looking for, but you may find that it gives the _results_ you're looking for.

Best,


Paul

Alfryd,
I worry our back-and-forth here is becoming counter-productive, like we've started down a path to repetition over the same issues.  Right now, I think it'd be cool to see you outline your ideas of how this sort of game should be made to happen.  I mean the whole process, from, "We find this game on the shelf," to, "we finish our first campaign."  Would you be down to give that a shot?  If not, no problem.  Just let me know, and I'll ponder how best to proceed...

Quote from: MKAdams on February 22, 2008, 03:56:08 PM
You seem to be of the position that this doesn't matter, that the DM's fun isn't a valid consideration, and that the DM's imagination and energy are enslaved by the "fun" of the player.   I mean, I don't know, maybe I'm just really having a hard time understanding you, but reading your demands my first thought "Dear fucking god am I glad this guy isn't one of my players!"

I don't see the proposition working that way.  As has been pointed out, there is a distinction here between plot and knowledge goals, and the reason for this device is to bring some mutuality to a situation which is, by default, the enslavement of the players interests to the GM's.  In the conventional way of doing things, the players have no choice but to do what the GM wants them to do or else there is no game; but this may in fact have nothing in it that interests the players.  That gets UnFun in a hurry.  So the point here is to obtain some buy-in from the players, to negotiate with them some element in which they are interested, and in so doing ensure their interest and make the whole exercise more collaborative.

Because the knowledge goal as such does not mandate plot content as such, it's still possible for the GM to exercise the kind of authorship that they enjoy, so long as they in turn recognise and adhere to the constraint of the players interest.  You could say, you still have to negotiate the maze, but you have been able to choose the type of cheese at the end of it.  That seems viable to me.  The GM doesn;t exactly have to write a "tattoo subquest"; they merely have to include the subject of of tattoos in some kind of quest.  Such a "limitation" may actually prove to be a creative spur.

I think that insted of haveing a setting or rules that inspire exploration and PC lead story lines, a diference in GMing and player style is what is requied.

I created a game that ended up being played exsactly as I imagine you whant to play. It was based on a world I had created for a story and the rules where created very quickly. Maby because I was a first time GM or because the players where first timers as well, I did'nt even know about game prep, and the players showed almost no inclination towards following any plot hooks I created. so quite naturaly the game whent in a direction where the players where proactive and followed there own intrests, set their own goles and created their own plots often based on backstory they had created for their character. this resulted in very little game prep for me as I quickly lerned that any detiled plot I created was a compleat wast of time and energy and would soon go out of the window when play comenced. insted I would make a genrell plot for what was happening in the world (war, civle unrest etc) and try and have things hapen to the players that fited their actions in relation to the world plot. So if the players decided to kill the mercenery captin insted of accepting the mission he ofered (someting that seemed to happen all to often) they would find them selves being hunted by the mercenery band or by the law and the players would then have to find a way to escape from the band, negociate withthem or kill them all, a situation that could take many game sessions to resolve and could lead in any number of directions.

the game play relied on both the players and GM being very involved and proactive in game direction. we found this style of game play to be very enjoyable to bothe parties (PCs and GM) as the players got to do things they where interested in and the GM got to play the game almost like a PC as they would never know eexsactly wat was aroun the corner or who they might meet. Another advantage to this style of play was it was very quick and fluid as snerios had to be created on the fly. the game could also be played anywhere and in any space of time as no detaild game prep was requierd.

anouter advantage of playing like this for me was that the world i created very quickly got fleshed out and more detailed as the PCswould ask questions of me and the setting that I had not even considerd.     

Ok, admission and warning first: I skimmed over some of the (many) replies to this subject. It looks like you're looking for a good way to let the players wander around a world and discover all the little quirks that make it a unique setting. I still think you're getting hung up on the idea that something unexpected needs to be prepped, so I thought I would throw my .02 in. I've run a number of games with little to no prep, but they were still successful because I put a lot of work into the world before hand. I had a plot, which the players followed, eventually, but they had their chances to explore around the find bits of the ancient history of the world, and that was really cool.

Basically, the plot was about the players overthrowing an evil baron making a bid for power, but the exploration is what's important here. Before running this game, I spent a couple months putting together more information on the world. I have a strangely good memory for world information, so I didn't have a lot of written notes, but a more writing-oriented DM could write out a lot of detailed notes. When the players deviated from the plot, I knew enough about the world to make up something credible on the fly. They're going to his little mark I made on the map, denoting some ruin? Um... thinking fast, I decide it's a tower left behind when the ancient civilizations fell, and that the lower level contains all sorts of nasties not meant to be unleashed on this world. The players go in and start exploring, so I make up a couple of rooms for them to explore, and while they're exploring, I'm thinking about some kind of monster encounters. First I decide on swarms of tiny things, insect-like, to force them to close the heavy stone door they walked through. They slam the door shut to keep themselves safe, and now they're stuck in this tower, forced to wander around to find a way out. Now they're in this big room, which they hadn't gotten a chance to look at while running from the creepy insects, and so I'm thinking up a puzzle encounter. I'm a Zelda fan, so I bring in a Zelda-style puzzle. I tell my players there's a sliding mirror on each wall, at different heights, and when they examine more carefully, they find a small hole in the wall, which the setting sunlight will come through. Additionally, I tell them there's a gem on a pedestal on the opposite side of the lower mirror, the only thing on the floor.

Now they spend a while sliding things around, messing with stuff, etc, so I have more time to think about what's left of the adventure. The NPC travelling with them collapsed when the baddies attacked, so the cleric decides to see what he can do for him. This NPC has been helping them, but they also know he works for the Baron, who is the main villain of the story. He looks kind of demonic when they take his mask off, so they're naturally worried about what he might be. He's unresposive to them, and they don't know why. On and on they go, but this is turning into more of a story than anything.

Ok, the point that I was trying to get to is this: detail your world a lot before you start the campaign. Then, instead of prepping between sessions, do continuous prep while other things are going on. Make up something vague while the players are approaching the new Locale, then add more and more details to make it consistent with the world. I think that would let you avoid halting gameplay.

Quote from: contracycle on February 25, 2008, 02:39:09 AMI don't see the proposition working that way...You could say, you still have to negotiate the maze, but you have been able to choose the type of cheese at the end of it.  That seems viable to me.  The GM doesn;t exactly have to write a "tattoo subquest"; they merely have to include the subject of of tattoos in some kind of quest.  Such a "limitation" may actually prove to be a creative spur.

Yeah, it seems like a variation on the Bait & Switch, except the players get to choose the bait.  The players wnat to investigate orc tattoos, the GM wants to run a dungeon, and instead of saying "No exploring orc tattoos, I'm running this dungeon I already wrote." the DM just says "Ok, you go back to town and ask around about orc tattoos and find out that the Sage Adrionack knows a lot about orc culture.  Unfortunately, he's being held captive in a dungeon (which I already designed)."

I don't think thats valid either, bait-and-switch implies the players are not getting what they signed up for, but they are.  You appear to be going out of your way to adopt a hostile position.  First you object to players choosing direction, then you seem object to the GM accommodating them.  I really do not understand what you are getting at.

But the GM isn't accomodating them in any meaningful sense, because the players have no actual influence on plot heading.  before, I was under the impression that the world was being relegated to window dressing for the players' interests, but now (it seems) the players' interests are relegated to window dressing for a railroad plot.  They're still jumping through hoops, but the players get to decide what colour hoops.

Anyway.  I'll try to come up with something more constructive later.

That seems again to presume a binary position - that either players exert plot control, or they are confronted by a railroad, and that this is unavoidable.  Surely the proposition is precisely to discuss mechanisms for avoiding both of those pitfalls?

I didn't mention this before because I have done so often in other threads, but I have often used a device in which I ask the players for "images" appropriate to the world, like a frame from a movie.  A second or two of action and dressed sets.  The best example, because it was short and punchy, was one in which a player said "Dudes in gas-masks running through smoke", in a cyberpunk game.  So I went away and wrote a plot which would produce this as one of many events.  Having that point to aim for focussed my own efforts, and provided some assurance that what I was making would indeed be of interest.  I could be confident that I was hitting some of the things which attracted the players to the setting and genre in the first place, and that they would therefore enjoy and appreciate it as I presented it.

I think polling player interest in some manner is a good and useful thing to do, and an express mechanism for doing so, allowing players to indicate what they would like to learn about in a world, may offer an opportunity for Sim to break out of the railroad and start becoming a more collaborative exercise with the players, while still keeping the texture and reasonableness that comes from detailed preparation.  Hence I think it is a potentially useful and promising question to ask how this might be done effectively.

Ken (MKAdams) and Gareth (contracycle),
Your points look compatible to me.  It is a lot like a bait & switch, as long as the "switch" is to something the players have previously specified as generally agreeable (e.g. "we like dungeon crawls" in Ken's "sage in dungeon" example).

As for forming that general agreement, my current thought is pre-game questionnaires.

Will,
I'm pretty sure I've played in the way you describe.  I like it, but it's not what I'm going for here.  That type of totally-responsive improv world-creation tends not to produce anything I find "worthy" of exploring.  Playing through with some other purpose in mind, yes.  But this thread is about an exploration-first game.  ("Worthy" includes a large dose of "solid- and real-seeming" for me -- observing it being created automatically blows this.)

opsneakie,
I envy your multi-tasking skills.  As GM, I'm usually too concentrated on describing the PCs' environment to prep simultaneously.  If you can do it, though, rock on!  Sounds very time-efficient.  As for front-loading prep, I think it's definitely a legit option for those not terrified of doing work that never sees play.

Paul,
The "worthy" caveat applies here too -- the real world doesn't conform to convenient guesses, and a gameworld that repeatedly does so feels "rigged".  I think this means that your example of finding the general is unlikely to happen quite so efficiently -- questions would need to be asked first, etc.  That may not detract much from your main point, I just wanted to mention it in case you saw efficiency as a key virtue.

As for "give them something to find, and figure out how it all ties together later," I agree on the upsides, but I'm not sure how to eliminate the potential downsides.  It's often a delicate balance to make something both interesting and world-appropriate, and I find it much easier to strike that balance with prep than with improv.

I also think the gameworld must include dead-ends to be plausible.  The key for play is just making sure that very little game time is wasted exploring these.

I see potential here... further comment welcome...