The Forge Archives

The Easter weekend brought about a few good opportunities for actual play, which sadly has left me feeling demoralised and down over RPGing in general.  I thought I might post a little of what happened together with a question about the cause of the morale loss.  Bear in mind that the obvious problems with what happened aren't actually that much to do with the eventual question, other than that they were the experiences that left me asking it (and I'm not sure why).

There were two games planned for the Easter weekend: one was a 'test  run' of Mutants and Masterminds, and the other was a run of the much-postponed Unknown Armies I've mentioned here before.  Unfortunately not all the players involved in the UA could make it, so I decided instead to run Bill In Three Persons for the remaining players as a 'system taster'.

The M&M test game - again using a sample adventure - was a disaster.  Basically, one of the players was a munchkin, and because I hadn't played the system before I didn't catch his broken character until it was too late.  He defeated three villains in a single attack on the first round of a battle, and then destroyed their plan two turns later.  Total playing time: 10 minutes.  (There's more detail on the Green Ronin forums if anyone cares.)  The main reason for this test was that I hoped that the Power Level system would alleviate the classic problem I have with supers games - that all of the complexity and detail in character generation gets turned back on itself when the GM has to design villains to counter the players abilities just enough to create a comic-book style showdown.  It didn't.  Oh well, lived and learned.

The Unknown Armies game went a bit better.  The three characters - with reference to my former post - were the Punisher clone, the "mean badass", and the auto speedfreak.  They pulled over to the three Bills and helped them out, the speedfreak investigating the circumstances of the accident and finding them rather bizarre.  

Sub-scenario one: They moved to the end of the aisle, Punisher immediately shot Skeet, Badass shot Bill.  The cop told them to drop their guns, Punisher shot Manning (who had taken his last action to put down the safe and get his gun out), and the other players surrendered to the cop.  The cop took a shot at Punisher (because he fired again when told to put his gun down!) but missed, and Punisher then surrendered too.  The weapons were taken from the three (although most of them had others concealed - UA is very lax on equipment rules, but I figured it doesn't really matter that much given that combat isn't mean to be that huge) and they were shepherded over to a holding area while the cop went to deal with the customers held in the florist.  Since they'd killed Bill, that was a scenario win.

Sub-scenario two: They walked into the apartment, saw Don with his mouth sealed over.  Punisher blew his Unnatural check and frenzied on Bill and killed him.  They then cut Don a new mouth and tried to interrogate him.. they rolled quite badly but I fudged that Don was so freaked out by that point he admitted to the business with the girl (forcing a Self check on Punisher, as he realised that killing Bill had violated his Noble; not that he minded, as the player has basically stated he wants Punisher to be a sociopath, although he doesn't know about Avatars yet).  They went to Don's apartment, searched it and found the girl, but by then there was little more to do, so the scenario ended.

Sub-scenario three:  The PCs went into the trailer and saw the mutilated body and got an explanation from the cultists.  Badass annouced he was going to throw Bill at Satchel (he actually took "throwing people" as a skill) which he did, causing the rest of the cultists in the trail to either panic or go on the defensive.  Punisher (predictably) shot Bill, then Satchel shot Punisher and rolled a crit.  Punisher's player very quickly learned why gunfighting everyone in UA is a bad idea.  The others PCs blew up the trailer and dived out.  End of adventure.  Total time: about an hour.  The Punisher player then said he wanted to make a differently-themed character if he was just going to get blown away all the time, but I tried to convince him that a hard guy with a gun can make a difference in UA.. you just have to be more careful than that.

But the negative feeling I got afterwards wasn't about the munchkinism, or the violent solutions (hey, I *knew* the guy was playing Punisher, I *expected* that).  It was about the fudging and shifting I had to do.  I mean, basically, as I sat there running I had numerous occasions where I was saying "well, right now I either have to get them to roll a dice or come to some unqualified judgment about their roleplaying skill, and if they fail or aren't good enough, then the game's going to be over".

This happened several times.  In the M&M, I had to have one of the villains cough up the location of their secret base even though the player blew the Intimidate roll because if they didn't, they wouldn't find it.  In UA, I didn't really think it was reasonable to have Don admit that he had kidnapped the girl, but if he didn't, they'd never find out about that part (and Punisher would never have faced the Self check as he'd never know he'd done anything wrong).  

And this seems to apply regardless of group, regardless of game, regardless of setting: "if they fail, then nothing happens and it's over".  Even if there isn't a predefined plot, a dynamic developing plot can still be brought to a crashing halt by a failure at the wrong moment.  Or look at the i-System games: if somebody manages to roll a 1, I get to narrate a negative consequence, but if I hose them enough to affect future actions seriously then the game is over, and if I don't they don't give a damn.

There must be a middle ground somewhere, but to be honest I really can't see it.  Am I doing something wrong?  Am I thinking about this all the wrong way?  Any help would be appreciated, as right now I just feel really down on the whole RPG business.

What you're missing is the "failure means adversity" principle.

Never have a failure mean that things come to a stop. Just don't ever rule that way. Always interperest a failure as a continuation of the situation with an additional problem worked in.

Failed Intimidation die roll? Don't have the guy clam up, have him give directions to a trap. Once they discover the trap, they can make another roll with a bonus representing how pissed off they are.

Failure by the players to ask "the right questions"? That's a horse of a different color. Unless it's a Gamist game you're playing with failure as an acceptable option, the "neccessary information" must always come out. So, just have players roll for it. Make it another Intimidation die roll. Or smarts, or whatever. If they succeed, then they get the info. If they fail, then they get the same treatment as in case one.

As long as you keep throwing adversity in front of the characters, the players will be pleased, and the plot will continue. And as long as the plot continues, the final goal can be reached (assuming that it's important to you for that to happen).

Just remember, failure doesn't mean that the plot stops dead, it means more adversity.

Mike

Hey Hyphz,

'Know howya feel buddy.

Quote from: hyphz...The negative feeling I got afterwards...was about the fudging and shifting I had to do. I mean, basically, as I sat there running I had numerous occasions where I was saying, "Well, right now I either have to get them to roll a die or come to some unqualified judgment about their role-playing skill; if they fail or aren't good enough, then the game's going to be over."

And this seems to apply regardless of group, regardless of game, regardless of setting: "If they fail, then nothing happens and it's over." Even if there isn't a predefined plot, a dynamic developing plot can still be brought to a crashing halt by a failure at the wrong moment. Or look at the i-System games: if somebody manages to roll a 1, I get to narrate a negative consequence, but if I hose them enough to affect future actions seriously then the game is over, and if I don't they don't give a damn.

There must be a middle ground somewhere, but to be honest I really can't see it. Am I doing something wrong? Am I thinking about this all the wrong way? Any help would be appreciated, as right now I just feel really down on the whole RPG business.

When asked about the future of the suffrage movement at some point, I understand Susan B. Anthony said (if I may paraphrase), "failure is impossible."  For gaming, I've always taken that to mean, whatever the players set the minds to (whether they know they have or not) will eventually come to pass.  That "eventually" appears to be a fundamental change from how you are used to running role-playing games.

The second part has to do with something I call 'the myth of reality.'  This is the idea that things in the game world that the players don't know about have some kind of 'place' or 'existence' or 'identity.'  I've found subscribing to this myth causes one of two things to occur: 1) exactly what is happening to you or 2) it's an excuse for gamemaster to 'punish' their players.  (The funny thing is I was just thinking about this, this weekend.)

Lastly, is something we got to calling the 'chasm problem' a few months back talking to Christoffer (Pale Fire).  This is the idea that when the players come to a chasm, the gamemaster thinks they only have one choice, 'turn,' and the players choose the other, 'jump.'  The dice come out and the game invariably doesn't survive.  A lot that discussion (and the whole 'El Dorado' kick) lead to me coining the idea of Symbolic-Language Gamemastering - you'll have to look it up - as a way that both players and gamemasters could 'do their thing' without undercutting each other.

First of all, you've got to shake off this 'pass or fail' mentality.  Ms. Anthony wouldn't hear of it.  Since what you are running is 'going somewhere' (the players don't know they've set their minds to that 'place'), failure is not an option.  The fundamental change in thinking is that you aren't placing roadblocks in play, but Complications.  Never, and I mean ever, use any kind of situation where you haven't thought of at least one out if the resolution goes kablooey (this means it's likely that the players will think of five others you haven't).  Better yet, learn to think in something other than absolutes (no more chasms).

Y'see, there's probably a reason for having the players interrogate so-and-so or whatever, that's fine.  Thinking that 'that is the only way' is the mistake for two reasons.  1) by letting yourself believe that so-and-so is an actual McGuffin that the players must see before the game moves on suffers from the idea that he exists, 'the myth of reality;' he doesn't, sure he's trope for what you're running, but that doesn't mean he has to exist or that play has to go see him.  He's just a Complication that keeps the players from reaching 'the end¹' prematurely.  And that's 2) this McGuffin really is nothing more than another complication, play will reach 'the end¹' no matter what.  In fact, 'the end¹' is the main reason that you can't do either of these and why you feel let down playing this way.

Now all three of the things I've listed come together in exactly the kind of problem you're having.  It isn't a matter of finding a 'middle ground;' it's a matter of leaving the ground entirely.  See, the flip side of the problem you've been having is also, "If they fail, then nothing happens and it's over," is "If they succeed too much, everything is circumvented and it's over."

This is how you need to start looking at it; you've got this 'end¹,' right?  More often than not what that means is you feel that things need to 'go a certain way.'  The problem is this 'way' can't rise up from the background (as in 'the players need to collect widget A, talk to person B, and go to location C'), it's a pattern or Sequence that follows from cliché based upon the source material.  If necessary, I can go into how to orchestrate specific examples of these Sequences, but for now I'll stay abstract.

Without the Complications, the characters would go from the 'start' to the 'end¹' in 'one move' (failure is impossible).  So you arrange a number of Complications.  Dungeons & Dragons has conditioned most of the hobby to think that these Complications occur on a map that the gamemaster follows, but breaks down when the players 'go the wrong way.' ('the myth of reality')  So what you need to do is think in terms of 'how Complicated' you want the game to be (this is a sliding scale and changes very frequently during play).  With that in mind you use what you know about the game and the background to create Complications on the fly so that it attends a 'master Complication' according to what everyone expects out of the game.  They range from minor ("You're low on rations.") to major ("You're low on hit points.") but must most definitely not be game-lethal (Chasm problem).

Early Complications should come from what everyone thinks their characters are.  Middle Complications should come from the climax pulling itself together.  And final Complications must pull together the potential endings¹ into something like a menu.  If you cannot attach the beginning of these Sequences to the characters themselves, you run the risk of the players feeling uninvolved (which can be managed if you know that it must be).  The real trick to not railroading a game in any way (a little is always fine if no one notices) is to let the players' responses to the early Complications dictate what parts are used in the middle Complications and figuring out how those 'pieces' could make a number of potential endings¹ and highlighting those pieces (so the players' choices can 'assemble the puzzle').  The final Complications are there only because you have and 'ending¹.'  If you tie all the 'favorite parts' the players have from the middle Complications into an ending¹ (not the ending¹), you'll have what it sounds like you desire.

What you cannot forget is that you are not 'herding' the players around.  Don't set up 'chasms' to make them go in a certain direction; keep putting Complications in their self-chosen path.  'What the players don't know' is an amorphous nothing; if you haven't told them previously, then there really is nothing at all beyond that door.  When they open it, the result should not be predetermined, but flow from a number of sources and mix together.  Some of these sources are 1) what you'd expect in terms of the background (you don't get to the back of castle and find a bathroom), 2) what you need to have happen in terms of 'master Sequence' (if they've got the McGuffin you needed them to get, it's an exit from the scene; otherwise it's a foyer full of McGuffins), 3) what the point in the Sequence 'requires' (if it's early in the game, this Complication is probably an empty foyer; in the middle a treasure room; at the end¹, an 'arrowing gauntlet of archers before the exit).  The important thing to remember is that all Complications should be something that has some way of being dealt with (no 'bottomless chasms'), just varying difficulties.

The three most important things to remember are if the players deal 'too quickly' with a Complication or don't 'get it' from something in the scene, ya gotta turn it over right away; if they miss it, give it to them again, right away - a different way.  Do not fall in love with a scene or NPC you've created, even if they have seen it; you'll get inflexible and that way lies madness.  And finally, 'keep 'em coming;' no matter what, when on Complications is dealt with, do another, don't stop.  Nothing founders like an uncomplicated game.

The heart of this whole way of thinking is that 'nothing is real until the players hear it.'  Likewise, 'if you have an ending¹' stick to it, but don't drive to it.  And 'no [thing] is so important that you can't cover it with 'a sheet' and use it again.'  If the character's don't get the information from the source you thought of, think of another.  Every game is based upon a wealth of tropes you can find alternatives in.  Did they fail to interrogate someone for the information you want them to have?  Let other NPCs show up who think they did get the information that they didn't; it'll come out for sure eventually (ya just gotta keep trying different things, not fudging).  If the players need to 'get somewhere' just move the place; no 'location' is so important that the same Complication can't happen in a similar place (if you have to, imagine why the NPCs went where the characters are going because the original place was 'busy').

What you need to do is start thinking of things as Complications as opposed to opposition.  Opposition requires certain NPCs, places, and times to occur; Complications only need to be where the players 'are going.'  What you've run before, what the players choose to do, and what you can expect from games run in your system should be the only source of detail (who did what to whom and why the players are involved), you need only concentrate on 'how difficult' it ought to be and choose details from these.

I hope this, if not informs your gaming, stimulates you to think a little differently.  It's grown so long I don't want to give examples, but would be happy to if you have specific questions.  I can't tell you how much I appreciate the chance to give you all of this advice, it's the part of my work that I am working on right now and I need practice writing it to deliver the message I'm looking for.  Thanks!

Fang Langford

p. s. Before I go, let me sketch out a few of the ways a Complication can be dealt with.  You can create it, change it, put it off for later, or dispose of it.  Bringing up a Complication that hasn't been used or introducing one that relates to something that has gone before is how you create one.  Changing them can be as simple as upping the import, to as Complicated as passing them off to someone else's responsibility, converting the whole problem.  Putting them off means anything that makes it so that you don't have to do anything with them right now (temporarily eluding your pursuers and such).  Disposing of a Complication is simply doing whatever satisfies it so you'll never have to worry about it again (resurrecting dead Complications is the same as creating them anew).

¹ An 'end' doesn't mean something as specific as 'the heroes kill all the bad guys and get the treasure,' it means things like, 'the hero will face off with the villain' or 'the BIG SECRET will come out' or even 'something big goes kerblooey!'  The more specific the 'end,' the less suited it is to role-playing gaming (and not writing), in my opinion.  If you can make the end more 'open' (like 'it ends like every Dukes of Hazard episode' or 'the criminal receives legal or poetic justice.'), you'll find yourself in a much more tenable situation.

You know, I'm getting a strong Deja Vu feeling here. Haven't we been over this with you already, Hyphz?

Mike

I think Mike stole some of my thunder, though I think I may have something useful to say here.

First problem is modules themselves. This is not meant as being critical but did you read the Three Bills adventure? there certianly are notes on what happens if you 'fail.' and I do not see any reason why you need to fudge anything.  As long as they were given every oppurtunity to make the right decisions, sometimes the dice just fail you.  Unwelcome consequences can be (should be) as exciting and fun as unwelcome ones.

the real problem though is modules.  for the most part they tend to be very point A to point B.  Some basically put you on the Train and drive you along the railroad.  It is difficult to get a true sense of the game play when really your choices are limited.  Essentially a gun is leveled at the Player's head: "Succeed or no XP"

This ties into the second point.  I have no issue per se with the Traditional defeat it or no XP model.  If thats how a game wants to run then ok, we can play by the rules. It IS a bit limiting though.  That is why so many people wonder whether Experience for Failure should be a part of a reward system.  Ideally, a player should be rewarded for playing his character, whatever that exactly means, and it should not be tied to success or failure.  The honor is in the attempt and 'failure' can teach us a great deal.

So fudging rolls for the players so that they follow the plot may not be the best idea.  Simply my two Lunars.

Sean
ADGBoss

Quote from: Mike HolmesYou know, I'm getting a strong Deja Vu feeling here.

You're probably thinking of this thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4994) and its precursors.

As far as I'm concerned, we could have this discussion every week and it wouldn't be too often. (Since Fang's been doing the heavy lifting here, he might feel differently, of course.) This is important stuff. The issues surrounding "The Myth of Reality" is where the Forge meets the Knights of the Dinner Table. For every true frustrated Narrativist out there, I suspect there are two (if not ten, or a hundred) groups who have no problem with GM authoring of the story, but constantly struggle with the friction of pre-planned hopes against the happenstance of play.

There's little I can add to Fang's essay, which appears to me to be getting clearer and more convincing with every iteration. But I can toss in the point that I usually toss in, which is that what Fang is asking hyphz to do is not easy. It seems to come more naturally to some than to others, but it requires practice in any case. It requires the gamemaster to adopt an alternative "system" of decision-making that is completely unsupported by the mechanics of most popular game systems, and which, as ADGBoss pointed out, is completely contrary to the examples of game preparation provided by modules.

- Walt

To add a little more, I believe there is also a prevailing set of feelings that make 'failure' anathema.  Of course none of us want to fail and many of us being Americans, we never want to quit (or BRitish and having stiff upper lips) etc... Here are some of the items that facotr in (I apologise if they have been enumerated with better grammar by someone before me.)

Failure = Game over.  The idea that if you fail the game is pretty much done. Sauron gets the ring, Yavin 4 blows up, my Sorcerer fails to bind that big demon he wanted. Ok we're done time to go to Dunkin Donuts. Modules and one shots, can have a tendancy to support this because there is no going back.

tied in with the above is lineage of war gaming. Now I love war games and have no issues with RPGs being the bastard children of such. However, in most competetive games, if you do not reach the victory conditions, well again game over. Defeated by the big boss? Toss in another quarter (or three).

We talk about realism (well ok maybe not here as but in gaming 'realism' is one of those words) and yet no one wants to role play time in jail, working for the Dark overlord, living alone after our lost love is well lost. Its a Clint Eastwood world where he always lives on, not a John Wayne world where sometimes the Duke bites it.

Which is not saying people have to accept failure as much as it is saying the have to play THROUGH failure.  Case in point above, in The Cowboys John Wayne's character dies. Well ok the Cook and the boys could have had anice funeral and roll the credits. Instead they get revenge and eventually get the herd through.  

Of course its all about discussion between GM and Player which may be the single most important thing I have learned in my time here. Talk between GM and Player can alleviate both sides need for 'success' in traditional terms.

Sean
ADGBoss

For those of you who saw my little rant down in Theory, here's a twist on it that may help you Hyphz:

Gamers, think about what gameplay experience you want, and what can deliver it

This, of course, is basically the same message delivered in GNS, but different words.  If I'm understanding you right, you want a superhero experience with M&M.  That means heros vs. villians, escalating threat, big showdown with (bomb timer running out/fortress falling apart/deathtrap filling room with water, etc.).  

The key problem with M&M, and really any game like it, is that while it does a great job recreating superheroes in terms of lists of powers and skills, it does very little in terms of giving advice to recreate that "superhero" pacing, or feeling.  In other words, like many other games, the gamers are expected to "just know" what that gameplay experience is supposed to be like.  The GM is rated "good or bad" by the players based on how well he or she can make the expected gameplay experience happen.

All of this really occurred to me when I sat down and made a couple of characters for M&M and said, "But what do I do now?  How do I enmesh these characters in a conflict, in a universe?  What is the point of play?"  At that point, I realized that all the "cool stuff" I needed was absent.  

Coming back to your personal experience, you're realizing that the M&M rules alone do not constitute enough to give you that superhero experience.  No matter what superhero comic you read, all of them face adversity and conflict, from poor abused Daredevil all the way up to nigh invincible Superman, or even Dr. Manhattan from Watchmen.  And as you experienced, simply setting up a higher DC or raising an enemy's hp/damage save does not constitute a good "conflict".

If I find myself fudging, that means the rules aren't supporting the type of play that I want, and that means problems.

On note of the UA game, I have to agree that the pass/fail mentality makes games get "stuck".  If there's a linear, "this is how it has to be" whether a single plot or a flowchart of scenes, again, you'll have points where the players do not know "what they're supposed to do" next.  This is the great dysfunction of illusionist play..."I've got this story, but I can't tell you, and if you act out of line from it, I'll be forced to fudge/cheat/railroad you to get you back in it..."  Its not much different than a person in a relationship who is mad at you and won't tell you why.

As far as what you're saying with bringing the game to an end, that's part of the assumptions of gameplay that need to go.  Character death and "simulating what would happen" generally need to get tossed out for the sake of a fun game, and also are the places where GMs fudge the most.  If something would happen that would leave the PCs stranded in space, and end the adventure, then either it doesn't happen, or somehow they find another way to get to where they were going.

Like everyone is saying, proper failure/complication/difficulty is "Aw, jeez, not this TOO!" not "Well, that's it pardner!".  

All of the above comes back to the differences between Sim and Nar issues. For the Sim game, things happen a certain way because they "make sense" in terms of the plausibility of the setting.  The villians get wiped out by munchkin hero because his powers and skills and stats would take them out.  For the Nar game, things happen because "they are interesting/fun and fit the expected conflict/story experience".  The munchkin hero does well, BUT THEN the villians pull out their secret weapon!

Failure means, "Not this time, or not this way" but never "never".

Chris

To make a short note on Bill in Three Persons and linearity, the adventure provides an ending that is responsive to "success" or "failure" in all three parts of the scenerio.  There are no "fail and the story ends" points in it.  There are "fail" and the characters don't learn thing X, points, but they don't stop the adventure in its tracks.

(As an aside, Hyphz, there are better 'getting to know the system one-offs' for the game: Jailbreak from the collection "One Shots" is oft-vaunted)

Walt may be right about the style of running not being easy, but I don't feel there's that much to be lost trying it out: try it, if it doesn't work start looking for plan B.

Just to gloss something Fang wrote...

Quote from: the something that I wanted to gloss that FangAnd 'no [thing] is so important that you can't cover it with 'a sheet' and use it again.' If the character's don't get the information from the source you thought of, think of another.

For this to work, the players must be invested in finding the thing.  They don't need to have originated the thing, but they do need to want it.  Putting something the players are indifferent to in their path, no matter what, will feel like railroading.

Hey Ian,

You're right of course and it doesn't go without saying, but I don't want to waste a lot of space, so how about a flip-seeming retort?

Quote from: Ian Charvill

Quote from: Something I wanted to gloss over that FangAnd 'no [thing] is so important that you can't cover it with 'a sheet' and use it again.' If the character's don't get the information from the source you thought of, think of another.

For this to work, the players must be invested in finding the thing.  They don't need to have originated the thing, but they do need to want it.  Putting something the players are indifferent to in their path, no matter what, will feel like railroading.

Id est: use better sheets!

Fang Langford

p. s. The [thing] has to have been 'skipped' the first time around, by the way.

Hi all,

Walt suggested that what Fang suggests is not easy.  I'm not so sure about that.  (This might be a new thread, by the way, but I'll tack it on here for now.)

One thing I've noticed over time is that people give other people a lot of credit for being "that kind of person" or a person with "a knack" for that kind of thing.  But the truth is, from what I can tell, having learned a bunch of disciplines, is that the thing that seperate one person who can do one thing and another who can't is that the first is doing it, and the second isn't.  (You can get better with practice... but the first step in practice is to *do.*)

I think Walt is closer to the difficulty of the matter when he refers to the issue of "alternative system of decision making" which is required by this style of playing.  Most games don't support it, and most folks don't even know about it.  

I'd offer, ultimately, that what's stake is not the GM's temperament (again, if you do it, you're doing it), but his or her dependence on tools or haibts that run completely contrary to what he or she actually wants to happen.

So: When Fang rightly suggests that one has to give up the Myth of the World, has to start trading Opposition in for Complication, he really means it.  The GM who wants to stop getting caught up on these issues needs to turn away from the old kind of action and start the new kind of action.

After all, we expect players to think on the fly, making up decisions and new bits of detail on the spot.  Why not the GM?  Because he's responsible for the whole game world?  No.  As Fang points out, he's responsible for the scene at hand.  To let the players open that next door and be guided to know what's behind it by Fang's suggested list of "sources" is different than how we're used to running games.  But not nescesarily more difficult. In fact, since the one we're used to using often leads to frustration, I'd suggest the old way (for certain desired results of play) are *more* difficult.

To give up the rules that frustrated us, the pre-printed scenarios that tie our shoelaces, the habits of GMing that only run counter to what we want our of play may not be easy -- but that doesn't mean that the new alternative is hard.  It's becaue giving up our habits is difficult. That's a completely different issue than the new methods being hard.

Like a debtor who knows that as long as he's got access to one more cash advance so doesn't need to really change his life and change his income habits, the GM who keeps trusting tools that don't force him to behave differently will not change.

I'd offer that's what's at stake here.  Change.  Not the new work itself.

Christopher

OK, while I agree with many of the poster's points, I want to point out drawbacks of the "failure=complication" model.  I have experienced this both as a GM and as a player.  What I experienced as a player is often a feeling that I was just jumping through hoops: i.e. regardless of what I did, I'd end up at the same ending point simply by a different path.  Sometimes I would just metaphorically grit my teeth and proceed by the most blunt means possible, simply accepting that my PC will take some lumps but will make it through in the end.  

An important alternative is simply not having a pre-defined plot.  If you don't have an established end you are working to, then failures can be seen as opening up new story possibilities rather than closing old ones.  There are two approaches to this:

• Prepare setting elements: i.e. locations, NPCs, groups.  As long as there is conflict among the characters and groups, there is interesting material to play out.  You improvise what happens in response to the PCs actions.  (Simulationist - Exploration of Setting/Situation)
  
• Prepare story elements: i.e. you have a Theme or Premise pre-defined, and then improvise setting material and events in response to what the players do with this.  (Narrativist)
  [/list:u]

I think a lot of this presupposes that Hyphz wants to change his style. The Adversity equals failure that I laid out was intentionally slanted towards the style that he seemed to be trying for (Illusionism).

There are certianly other approaches, but they all require him to alter his style further. IMO.

Mike

I read quite a  bit about this elsewhere on the Green Ronin boards. My understanding on reading that is:

A) A newbie GM (Hyphz) allows a player to use the rules to make a PC
B) Said player appearently knew the rules better than Hyphz
C) Hyphz didn't make an "executive decision" that is override certian things that were dubious in the character to begin with (and some that IIRC were outright rules violations)


Then Hyphz complained on the games' boards about the game not running well, and was provided with advice that ran from excellant to dubious on dealing with the player character/player. (Much of it dubious, but there was some really good suggestions as well.)


Hyphz I've run superhero games for many years, there by far my favorite  style of gaming and have written one superhero game.

Which has /absolutly/ no play balance in its design.

Why?

Because flat out no mechanical system will ever accurately allow superheroes in all their variability and remain balanced. Many give you points, checks, limits "no more than PL in stacking effects" such as M&M but the sad truth is that won't ever work.  That produces the /illusion/ of balance--but it only stays that way based on how a GM (and players) make use of those rules. The same thing could (and I've seen!) occur in Hero, in Marvel Superheros Advanced Set, in Blood of Heroes, and Villians and Vigilantes--among many others.


Superheroes specifically is in my mind always going to be one of the "high" trust style games--that means you and your players /have/ to be on the same page with regards to scale of the game, the scope of the game, and the tone of the game.

The M&M adventure is aimed specifically at playing fairly Heroic (non-lethal!) style supers--and your player---not his PC--but the player didn't fit the feel of the game. He didn't approach that adventure in the way he was expected. (Hence why so many games have GM's to adbjucate these situations).


The adventure wasn't themed for the player--no pre-packaged adventure will fit every given player, and you being new to the game, and new to GMing (right?) lacked the knowledge to adapt to the players decisions and styles.


I don't wish to be harsh here, but the reason supers are high trust is because they ask for far more leeway with what characters are capable of than most games--many games you say "I wish to move the moon" and the play groups will laugh. You say it in a supers game and might really have a PC capable of doing just that--moving the moon, right now.

This is where the trust and player contract come in--you have to share that trust with your players that they won't abuse the system.

But your player did.

It has nothing at all to do with the system, or RPG's and everything to do with what the player wanted.


He got what he wanted, at the expense of you getting what you wanted out of the game. Now this is a flaw in many games--the expect you, the GM to simply "deal with the player"---and a lot of the advice you were given is based on that.


I think its time to change that personally. Now your player may not be one who will ever understand, but my suggestion is to sit him down, talk to him, and explain to him "what you want out of X game." and then ask "What do you want out of X game."  finding out what they want out of the game may help you choose games, and create adventures more suited to those players. But without asking, how do you know? M&M is a great game that gives a lot of good advice--but this one not a lot do:

Not everyone is suited to playing every game, and not every game suited to every play style. Find out what your group wants, as a group. If this one player wants something different than everyone else, he may not ever be happy playing any game you run, and by default will destroy your fun, and the fun of other players because A) he can or b) he's bored or C) Both.

But /find out/ what they want first and foremost.



It's like a misprinted page in a comic---you read the Punisher offing everyine around him then flip the page and see Archie and Jughead--while extreme, this is how different some players can be from each other and still otherwise be players in the same game.

(Keeping to the questions asked as opposed to analyzing the questioner...I'm still trying to figure out how to explain this beast.)

Hey John,

You and Christopher K. pretty much underscore the toughest part about explaining the 'No Myth' gamemastering style.  Your post provides a few cool insights, if you don't mind....

Quote from: John KimOK, while I agree with many of the poster's points, I want to point out drawbacks of the "failure=complication" model.  I have experienced this both as a GM and as a player.  What I experienced as a player is often a feeling that I was just jumping through hoops: i.e. regardless of what I did, I'd end up at the same ending point simply by a different path.  Sometimes I would just metaphorically grit my teeth and proceed by the most blunt means possible, simply accepting that my PC will take some lumps but will make it through in the end.

Yep, that pretty much describes trying to do 'No Myth' with a plot in mind.  No matter what, the players eventually find themselves right where the gamemaster wants them to be.

Which is why you can't really run 'No Myth' style with a plot.[/list:u]Hmm...this has always been a tough nut to explain.  I tried to with that whole 'Symbolic-Language Gamemastering' thread, but it just went over everybody's heads.  I had a little bit more luck suggesting that the u-boat that seizes the Ark from Indiana Jones (

Raider of the Lost Ark) was introduced this way went a little bit better.  (Sorry, guys, you'll have to do the searches yourselves.)

Y'see it works like this; as a gamemaster, you don't know who's going to be there at the end, just 'how big' it'll be.  With Indie, you have to guess some a' them will be nazi's, but you can't even plan to have Ravencroft; just hope his 'schedule is open.'  I use Raiders as a classic example because it goes against type.  By the time the protagonists get the Ark on the boat, they've pretty much won, right?  Time for a major Complication.  You know it's gotta be big; I mean really beeg, big.  It has to be a factor of magnitude, head and shoulders above the 'sneak the Ark past a whole camp of Nazis' and 'beat' the truck chase, big.  Heck, if I were the gamemaster, I woulda thunk they'd face off at the dig site and it'd be 'shows over.'  The players surprise by sneaking the Ark out, okay; what next?

See this is where 'No Myth' separates from traditional.  In a traditional game, that's it, game over and the good guys win.  All the maps have been used; you have to guess that the 'loose ends' will be fodder for the next game.  Not so with 'No Myth,' you know ya wants it BEEG in the end and that truck chase just ain't it.  So you recycle the whole Complication, Nazis with Ravencroft in tow show up and board the vessel.  Time for the show down right?  Nope, the players hide their Personae; try again.  Okay, next notch up, you invent a hidden sub base, big explosions and such, grand finale, right?  Nope, more sneakiness, okay you let the players pick 'a spot;' you get the face off for the Ark with the rocket powered grenade launcher (probably be all kinds of supernatural fireworks blowing up the Ark right?).  Indie backs down, what next?  You tie 'em up and open the Ark; doesn't that deport...depreten...deprotag...whatever, don't that make the characters meaningless?  Naw, keep focusing on what they do while the ceremony takes place ("Marian, don't open your eyes!"), using the ole' pillar of salt axiom is as good as summoning angels yerself.

The point is, you didn't know nothing 'bout no hidden-island-sub-base, but it suits the Background (World War II), reestablishes the villains (overwhelming odds is stock and trade with 'serials'), and leads to the all-important climax no matter how many 'tries' you have to give the players.  All you did was take 'what went before,' what 'fits,' and player choice and keep upping the ante.  You aren't making anyone jump through hoops, 'cuz you didn't know how it was gonna go.  (Each reaction to Complication is in the players hands; they decided to sneak the Ark past the plane, they decided to go to any lengths to 'beat' the truck, they put it on a boat.  Not you; no hoops.)

If you, as a player, really think that I, as the gamemaster, had the whole sub-base-temple experience planned from the start, I'm a hell of a lot better at fooling you than I thought.

Quote from: John KimAn important alternative is simply not having a pre-defined plot.  If you don't have an established end you are working to, then failures can be seen as opening up new story possibilities rather than closing old ones.  There are two approaches to this:

• Prepare setting elements: i.e. locations, NPCs, groups.  As long as there is conflict among the characters and groups, there is interesting material to play out.  You improvise what happens in response to the PCs actions.  (Simulationist - Exploration of Setting/Situation)
  
• Prepare story elements: i.e. you have a Theme or Premise pre-defined, and then improvise setting material and events in response to what the players do with this.  (Narrativist)[/list:u]
  

Nope, once again yer reachin' back into the 'traditional gaming' bag o' tricks.  Setting elements should be as familiar as the genre, no need to prepare; not places, people, or things, it should all pretty much flow out of what everyone expects.  Flying wings, deuce-and-a-half trucks, desert roads, nazi u-boats, hidden bases, all of these things are absolutely no surprise coming from Indiana Jones' world.  I'd go so far as to speculate that every single thing you prepare ahead will feel like a hoop.

I should say that your suggestion of Narrativist preparation sounds exactly like what I'd want to avoid.  Aren't the players supposed to be "authoring Theme based on Premise?"  If you prefabricate, it's just more hoops, right?  I'm tellin' ya; the heart of 'No Myth' is notsetting up any of these details.  You take whatever the players through at you (whether they let themselves win or not), add a little 'kick' based on 'what they don't know,' and hit it back at them, with English.

I dunno about the whole "opening/closing" thing, I always think of a failure as a divergence from 'an easy victory.'  I guess that's pretty much what I'm preachin' agin, 'victory conditions.'  Y'see, this here's gaming, not novel writin' and not wargamin'.  Nobody wins!  It ain't the ends that matter, only the means (however you justify it).  It isn't about 'where you go,' but 'how you get there.'  So the players decide their goin' to Dublin.  Do they take the high road or the low road?  Doesn't matter, what does is that you're gonna make it anything but easy.  Do you have preplanned opposition?  No, that'd be another "hoop."

If they take the low road, then whatever you have to choose from will have to make sense coming from the low road and the vice is versa.  Ya ain't expecting either, but ya know something about both; outa player choice comes what they face, you just pull it outa the bag they picked.  (Ya might haveta feel around a bit in the bag afore ya pick somethin', but they don't care and can't tell.)  Your strength as a gamemaster is presenting it with that smile that says, "I planned this all along," even though that's a complete lie.

What 'No Myth' ain't is a way ta deal with 'failures;' it's a way to deal with reactions, with outcomes, with whatever the hell they throw at you.  Ya build on what already happened (and what 'usually happens in this game') pulling junk outa whatever the players choose, you only pick 'how big' that junk is, not what.

Any better?

Fang Langford

p. s.  Walt and Christopher are both right.  It is harder, until you let it master you.  It's a completely different way of looking at gamemastering (and Mike's right, it might not be Hyphz cupa tea).  Unless and until you can let go of the idea that stuff 'exists' before the players encounter it (which is required if you prepare something ahead of time), you ain't gonna get it.  That said, there is a lot of 'prep' you can do; absorb the source material, drink it in, until you sweat whatever it is.  When you get that, drumming up specifics that meet the requirements of the players actions can be hard; once you do, you ought to have all that you need to 'take' everythin' they can throw atcha.  They'll go 'we do this' and you just 'see' what goes next based on your 'feel' for the material; not only that, but you'll be able to 'wow them' every step of the way by dumping them deep into 'it.'

Good luck!

Hi there,

A bit of terms/reference clarification ...

What Fang is describing is very much what I'd call Narrativist GMing, or one of the techniques in that category.

What John called Narrativist (quoted by Fang) is emphatically not in that category.

Best,
Ron

NOTE:  In retrospect, I shouldn't have put in the labels "Simulationist" and "Narrativist" on my points.  I've had a number of clashes of definitions over this (especially since the terms here have a different meaning than the ones I am more used to).  I would prefer to talk more about the styles and then let others decide on labels.  

Quote from: Le Joueur

Quote from: John KimAn important alternative is simply not having a pre-defined plot.  If you don't have an established end you are working to, then failures can be seen as opening up new story possibilities rather than closing old ones.  There are two approaches to this:

• Prepare setting elements: i.e. locations, NPCs, groups.  As long as there is conflict among the characters and groups, there is interesting material to play out.  You improvise what happens in response to the PCs actions.  (Simulationist - Exploration of Setting/Situation)
  
• Prepare story elements: i.e. you have a Theme or Premise pre-defined, and then improvise setting material and events in response to what the players do with this.  (Narrativist)[/list:u]
  

Nope, once again yer reachin' back into the 'traditional gaming' bag o' tricks.  Setting elements should be as familiar as the genre, no need to prepare; not places, people, or things, it should all pretty much flow out of what everyone expects.  Flying wings, deuce-and-a-half trucks, desert roads, nazi u-boats, hidden bases, all of these things are absolutely no surprise coming from Indiana Jones' world.  I'd go so far as to speculate that every single thing you prepare ahead will feel like a hoop.

Well, no it doesn't.  I've had a lot of experience with this.  The main reason why it feels like a hoop is exactly because it is a hoop.  Whether prepared ahead of time or improvised on the spot, the GM has put it in for the specific purpose of being a Complication for preventing the PCs from getting what they want.  One alternative, at least, is simply not trying to pre-determine the end-point.  Instead, you simply have a situation which could go in any number of directions.  Whatever the PCs do, you simply follow what would happen.  

I suspect that you simply have never played in a game which works this way.  Far from being a "traditional bag of tricks", this is a fairly rare style as far as I have seen.  Nearly all GMs as well as modules will prepare an intended plot.  This is simply because it's not obvious how to keep things interesting without any intended plot.  The answer I have usually tried for is to define a limited space of interest, which nevertheless has complexity of relationships and differing values.  For example, in my Worlds-In-Collision game, the PCs started out allying with one group and then later turned against them.  I didn't design the group as either enemies or allies of the PCs -- I just made them as a group with their own agenda, and what happened arose spontaneously out of what the PCs decided about that.

(more later, I think)

Quote from: Ron EdwardsWhat Fang is describing is very much what I'd call Narrativist GMing, or one of the techniques in that category.

What John called Narrativist (quoted by Fang) is emphatically not in that category.

Sorry, Ron.  In retrospect, I shouldn't have put the labels there, since the GNS terms are something I have frequently had problems with in the past.

Quote from: Ron EdwardsA bit of terms/reference clarification ...

What Fang is describing is very much what I'd call Narrativist GMing, or one of the techniques in that category.

Buzz! I'm sorry, that's not the correct answer.

(I was expecting someone to chime in with this one.)

One crucial point: 'No Myth' neither requires nor conflicts with addressing an Edwardian Premise.  I developed this originally strictly from a Simulationist style of play.  Remember, what you choose from is

• What has gone before
  
• The actions of the characters (perhaps cognizant of the player's desires)
  
• What you can expect from the source material (Fang's infamous Genre Expectations)[/list:u]Do you see any GNS priorities implied?  Me neither.
  
  I use 'No Myth' for any kind of GNS mode, they merely inform 'what is important to play' in #2.  While some might speculate that following the 'tension spiral' ala Raiders of the Lost Ark might qualify as Dramatism (whatever the heck that it), it counts as Simulationism: Exploration of Color (the cliffhangers) and possibly Situation (Ark, Ark, who has the Ark), if I am not mistaken.  There's no Edwardian Premise (meaty, engaging, moral question answered through play) anywhere to be seen.
  
  I can even use this in Gamism to orchestrate the Challenge better for the social perks of relativistic play.  (The 'step on up' section from the upcoming Gamism essay will explain that better than I could.)  I think 'the old definition' of Gamism might be clouding how this works; since the stakes are actually social and not necessarily circumstantial, there's no need to subscribe to the 'Myth of Reality' that the opposition is actually static or continuous.  What's more important is that the opposition satisfies the social requirements (and that means it's perfectly capable of changing to suit Gamist meta-game priorities on the fly).
  
  Also, I must caution against this kind of in-brief synecdoche; certainly it could be used for Narrativism.  It might be a strong tool for Narrativist-supporting play, but I think it a little blind to come down with a pronouncement so simplistically.  You don't really provide much of a discussion why this couldn't or doesn't support the meta-game priorities of either Gamism or Simulationism either generally or in specific.
  
  I accept your beliefs regarding 'No Myth' gamemastering, I just don't agree with them.
  
  Fang Langford

Hey John,

Either we're not quite communicating, or we're gonna have to agree to disagree.

Quote from: John Kim

Quote from: Le JoueurNope, once again yer reachin' back into the 'traditional gaming' bag o' tricks.  Setting elements should be as familiar as the genre, no need to prepare; not places, people, or things, it should all pretty much flow out of what everyone expects.  Flying wings, deuce-and-a-half trucks, desert roads, nazi u-boats, hidden bases, all of these things are absolutely no surprise coming from Indiana Jones' world.  I'd go so far as to speculate that every single thing you prepare ahead will feel like a hoop.

Well, no it doesn't.  I've had a lot of experience with this.  The main reason why it feels like a hoop is exactly because it is a hoop.  Whether prepared ahead of time or improvised on the spot, the GM has put it in for the specific purpose of being a Complication for preventing the PCs from getting what they want.

That's not at all what's up with 'No Myth.'  A 'No Myth' Complication is not something there to "prevent" anything, that'd be an 'impediment.'  It would also require orientation upon 'what the characters want.'  A Complication is a change in direction or more accurately the stimulus which might change the game's direction.  It is irrespective or 'what the characters want.'  In fact, I see no problem with a Complication that puts the characters closer to 'what they want;' all that matters is that it Complicates things (as in, leaves more to deal with).

This is one reason I like the Indiana Jones example.  Obviously Indie and company want to get the Ark safely home; do the players?  No, they want that raucous conclusion; does the Complication, impede that?  No, but it does pretty much blow the characters' plans out of the water.  Is it a "hoop?"  Depends on how quickly you redefine what that means in this discussion; is it a "hoop" when it takes the players where they want to go despite the characters' wishes?

Quote from: John KimOne alternative, at least, is simply not trying to pre-determine the end-point.  Instead, you simply have a situation which could go in any number of directions.  Whatever the PCs do, you simply follow what would happen.

Not to be terse, but how many times have I said 'no predetermined ending?'  A Complication exactly creates a situation "which could go in any number of directions;" you've got it exactly.  It changes "directions," not impedes play.

Quote from: John KimNearly all GMs as well as modules will prepare an intended plot.  This is simply because it's not obvious how to keep things interesting without any intended plot.

So?  At one point no one used electrical lighting, that's no reason to say we should espouse the virtues of it.  Go plotless, go plotless!  Shout it from the hills!  Use 'No Myth' to "keep things interesting."

As far as making it "obvious," I'm working as hard as I can (and you can see how poorly I'm doing).  Your ideals seem to match my poorly-worded descriptions.

Fang Langford

Quote from: Le Joueur

Quote from: John KimThe main reason why it feels like a hoop is exactly because it is a hoop.  Whether prepared ahead of time or improvised on the spot, the GM has put it in for the specific purpose of being a Complication for preventing the PCs from getting what they want.

That's not at all what's up with 'No Myth.'  A 'No Myth' Complication is not something there to "prevent" anything, that'd be an 'impediment.'  It would also require orientation upon 'what the characters want.'  A Complication is a change in direction or more accurately the stimulus which might change the game's direction.  

OK, we are talking about different things here.  In the above quote, I was talking about my experiences in games of feeling that I was jumping through hoops.  For those games, I do feel that a primary reason for feeling this way was because the GM was conceiving of the twists as hoops to jump through.  (Sorry, I shouldn't have used "Complication" to refer to the hoops.)  

I haven't played in one of your games and haven't heard any details (I don't think), so I don't know exactly what your "No Myth" games are like.  I'd like to hear more about it, by all means.  For example, do you prepare any GM-specific prior to the game session?  

Conversely, though, I was also talking about a third sort of game.  Unfortunately, due to terminology clash I don't have a good name for it yet.  There is no predetermined plot, and it is pure myth-of-reality.   The GM prepares background and simply plays out what he thinks would happen.  This is distinct from traditional module structure because the GM doesn't have a particular adventure or plot in mind.  However, it is certainly also different from your "No Myth" model.

Thanks for all the replies here folks - I'm sorry if I'm covering old ground.  I did wish to raise one big question about the 'No Myth' style, but I couldn't really express it in words on the previous thread, so I'll have another go at it here.

Just to address some other replies here: I don't really want to discuss the breakdown of the M&M session here, as the thread on Green Ronin has done that perfectly well and I don't think it's too relevant here.  Secondly, I did know about the "consequences of failure" in Bill In Three Persons, but they didn't apply - I wasn't talking about overall failure.  As an example, in the second subscenario, the players killed Bill, thus ensuring he would never reach the crossroads and succeeding at the subscenario as far as the adventure (and the Comte) were concerned.  The problem was that, if they afterwards failed their roll to get information from Don, that could easily have been basically it - back to the crossroads - and the players would know that they'd appeared outside an apartment, gone in, and blown a guy away.  Where's the interest or the "cool weirdness" in that?

The big question I've had about "No Myth" GMing is basically to do with how it can be kept flowing.  I mean, as far as I can see, you have to desperately avoid the situation where the players wind up saying "ok, we've exhausted all our leads; where else in this city is there for us to go?"  Not only do you then have to make up an entire city on the spot (bit tricky, that), but when they decide where to go you're left either arranging that their choice advances the story no matter where it was (feels like a railroad, though it may not be intended that way) or telling them that nothing happens there (in which case you get to play a guessing game with the list of locations).  So there always have to be clues or leads or something - the players have to know, by the time they leave Bill's, that their next destination is going to be Don's, or Bill's local pub, or the police station to turn Don in, or the hospital where Bill might have been treated for those scars, or or or....  Any of those is fine.  But, then the problem is: if there are clues and leads, they either have to be blatant, or the players can miss them.  And if they miss them, you get the "where else in this city?" question.  So how do you resolve this situation by always making sure there's a chain to the next step?

I mean, yes, the business of interrogating the captured villain in M&M could have been done better, now I think of it: if they can't get the info from him, just have one of the *other* villains try to break him out of jail, fail due to the PCs, and fly off casually explaining their entire evil plan as he goes (heck, it's a trope).  But I've only just thought of that, a long while after the moment was past.  I'm not sure how to practise this. ;)

Hyphz-

I think you've exactly hit it.
Nevermind the characters, you're sensing the players getting frustrated and tired.  They're wracking their brains, can't come up with anything viable.

And the key is right there: you're sensing how the players are feeling.

My take on all the great advice from Fang and Christopher is to run the game with an emphasis on everyone enjoying themselves, versus an emphasis on the characters not seeing cracks in reality.  
Because never mind the characters, if the players aren't having a great time, it just doesn't matter.

So pace the game, rather than construct a reality.


As the players interest wanes (which you can feel), throw them a bone!
They investigate 4 likely locations, they're getting frustrated, have that last one be the payoff.  
That's it.

Suddenly it's the players who are making up the city - throwing out ideas of likely places to go.  You build on these, throwing complications in (Argh.  No info here.  What can we do next?) until it starts to get stale.  Then the characters find what they want, the game moves on a notch, and the players have a new type of worry to think about.

Listen to your gut, not your brain.

-Matt

Quote from: GarbanzoHyphz-

I think you've exactly hit it.
Nevermind the characters, you're sensing the players getting frustrated and tired.  They're wracking their brains, can't come up with anything viable.

I think you've misunderstood me.  The "what else is there in this city?" was a hypothetical consequence I could see arising from me trying to run in the No Myth fashion, not something that actually happened.

Quote
As the players interest wanes (which you can feel), throw them a bone!
They investigate 4 likely locations, they're getting frustrated, have that last one be the payoff.  

Again, that's not the issue.  The locations list was a list of examples.  

The issue is this: suppose they go to the one starting location, can't get the information from the guy there, but work out he's bad and kill him.  Now they need to know where to go next.  But, they fail all their Search checks to find stuff in the place they're in now.  With no clue, they say "where else is there to go?"  And I freeze, because I can't make up every location in a city on the fly.

Quote from: hyphz

The issue is this: suppose they go to the one starting location, can't get the information from the guy there, but work out he's bad and kill him.  Now they need to know where to go next.  But, they fail all their Search checks to find stuff in the place they're in now.  With no clue, they say "where else is there to go?"  And I freeze, because I can't make up every location in a city on the fly.

Ah well here is where the Players need to get off their big fat butts and think. I do not need to be harsh but if you search a place and find no clues then you have to move on. Where? Well use your brain. In general if the rolls go against the players, I tend to let THEM come up with another solution and reward them for that.

So in the above, they Kill Bill or whoever but find no evidence of what they need to stop. Ok. Let them make the next move.  Maybe they try and find clues at a different location. If so and they were obviously playing well and into their characters, then reward them with success.  If they say "We goto the 7-11 and wait" well its their choice and they fail.

Perhaps alot of what has been said maybe could be said like this:
Excitement / Game Enjoyment do NOT = Success in Game.  Meaning that the amount of enjoyment you and the Players should get out of the game should not be 1 for 1 on how successful they were in the session / scenario.  Again, no one likes failure and if the Players have to punt ALL the time because of bad die rolls, then maybe that system is not properly rewarding their play. Or your effots.

The Three Bills mini-mod is one of the better mini-mods I have seen personally, but its still a case of getting on the A-Train from DC to NewYork.  You just cannot expect such a scenario to offer you as much freedom as you yourself would make.

Sean
ADGBoss

My comments:

1. "Balance" (after a fashion--and you can PM me if you wish to discuss that) *is* acheivable. Games can be made with rules which make them either harder to exploit or make the exploit more obvious. M&M fails badly in this regard (lots of cheap-shot powers, I understand--I'm not an M&M guru ... but I *do* like what they've done with it otherwise).

2. I think the problem with not having ways to embed your character in the world (what someone called the "cool stuff") exists only if the player in question wants it to. There are standard role-playing conventions (which along with some mature GM-player cooperation) address those problems. Doubly so for super hero games.

3. I'd also be interested in seeing examples the no-myth play. What if I'm running something where the genre isn't established? When the play is in genre, does it become simply a list of genre tropes (euphimism for cliches)? I've got a few listed samples of play around here: what genre were they?

As far as pre-defined situations: I find that they reward the player with logical outcomes of investigation or maneuver (strategy). They also allow complex plots without paradoxes (something my eyeball examination of no-myth would have problems with--I may be misunderstanding it).

4. I agree with John Kim--the failure as complication if taken to extreme becomes hoops. My interpertation of that is that after a few complications the attempt simply fails.

Here's my advice:

1. Examine the game. Discuss it. If necessary (for example) make the players characters with/for them. It's an extreme measure but it'll prevent you from being surprised.  Find some compromise in character-design philosophy. If you can't do that, consider allowing the character to exist so long as you're acutely aware of the character's powers. If that's no good: leave.

2. Construct scenarios in the usual way but:

a) be very careful about oganizing must-win/must-lose fights. They're usually unnecessary. Build the situation to omit them (a slightly different cant on the "no chasms" approach).

b) Use the concepts of backup antagonists, forces acting on the PC's, and the leverage of plot-hooks to keep things in motion. An investigation that revolves around one credible wittness who is a target for assassination (and is pinned down under cover when the PC's arrive) is a *very* fraglie situation. Avoid it. Build other avenues into the structure of situation.

If the PC's beat the villains, the villain's boss will come looking for them (as a very basic example).

c) Figure out what you really like. One of our members sat in a game (Exalted) where the GM, as he threw low-powered monsters at the party continously appologized for not challenging them. The players were having a great time. The GM seemed to be fine as well--but he felt he wasn't doing his job.

I find that low-powered oppostion is often more satisfying to all parties involved than nail-biting fights--especially those that are life and death (and that's just a generality).

Decide if you're hanging on to something that you can let go of. In another light, taking down three villains with one attack could just be a splash-page intro to the story (kinda like Spiderman comics where he annihilates some nobody before moving on to the rest of the story).

-Marco

QuoteBut, they fail all their Search checks to find stuff

This is the key sentence for me.  

Search rolls.  Blech.  Total nonsense and useless in ANY GMing style.  They are a pure holdover from the days of D&D where the extra good treasure was hidden behind secret doors or the like and you only got them if you remembered to search and got lucky enough to find it.  If you failed...no biggie, you just missed some prime loot, you'll have another shot at prime loot in the next dungeon.

But to use the same tactic to hide important plot information...ridiculous.  What author or screen play writer of a mystery rolls a random die to determine if the detective finds the clue and if he doesn't the book is over.  Nonsense.  If it is important for them to find...let them find it...the alternative is what...hmmm...not finding it?  How is that good.

The best way to run any pre written module is to completely disregard all calls for "make a search check to...find, notice, spot" anything.  If its important for them to find it...they find it.  Period.  Give the player some props for being clever enough to ask, or the player of the character with the big search skill for having the skill...whatever.  All of those modules are written with the assumption that the check is going to be passed or else you can't finish it anyway.  Its pointless.

Quote from: Valamir

QuoteBut, they fail all their Search checks to find stuff

This is the key sentence for me.  

Search rolls.  Blech.  Total nonsense and useless in ANY GMing style.  They are a pure holdover from the days of D&D where the extra good treasure was hidden behind secret doors or the like and you only got them if you remembered to search and got lucky enough to find it.  If you failed...no biggie, you just missed some prime loot, you'll have another shot at prime loot in the next dungeon.

But to use the same tactic to hide important plot information...ridiculous.  What author or screen play writer of a mystery rolls a random die to determine if the detective finds the clue and if he doesn't the book is over.  Nonsense.  If it is important for them to find...let them find it...the alternative is what...hmmm...not finding it?  How is that good.

But then we have the same problem as above.. no matter what the players do, the guy will be intimidated, because what he has to say is necessary to advance the plot.  And once the plot advance is given, the decision as to what to do next is very often a no-brainer.  So what you wind up doing is exactly what FELT like happened in our game - the players stop caring and just sit back while the story burns through to the next bit where they get to roll dice, usually a fight.

You should consider relying a bit more on karma than fortune.

There is no way for the guy to be intimidated by the players unless the players state they are trying to intimidate him.  They could state they are trying to befriend him, they could state they are trying to fast talk him and get him to slip up, they could approach the task in any number of ways.  Lets say they did approach the guy in an intimidating fashion.

Is the punisher an intimidating guy?  How is the NPC likely to respond to such intimidation?  But most important if this is the only way the module gives to provide the party with the information they need to continue you have a decision to make:  end the session, or find a way to get it to them.  That's your job as GM in this sort of a game.  IMO relying on the dice to decide is a huge cop out.  "The dice said you don't find out what you need to know...sucks to be you" is insufficient.  If you allow the dice to say this than you MUST have something else to fall back on.  If you don't have something else to fall back on then you CANNOT allow the dice to say this.  If you cannot allow the dice to say this, then you should roll them to begin with.  

Relying on the players to ask the right question to the right person or they don't get the clue is identical to this.  Its basically just a different form of randomization where players go through the game of playing 20 questions until the get the answer.  I submitt that if they enjoy playing 20 questions, they'd be playing 20 questions.

There are only 2 possibilities in a scenario like this.  The players uncover what they need to know, or the game ends.  That's it.  Period.  If ending the game is undesired than you have only one choice left.  Find away to convey the information to the players.  Period.  The dice aren't going to do this for you.  

On any thread where the subject of GM vs GMless comes up you'll find someone commenting that a GM is necessary because he is the holder and dispenser of the secrets.  Personally I think secrets in the game are not nearly as important as some people do and that some players have simply gotten trained into thinking this way.

Theres a host of discussions around here about ways to play that don't involve GM as dispenser of secrets...simply empower the players to drive the plot where they want and to hell with the GMs secrets.  Thats certainly one solution.

But if you're a fan of the GM as dispenser of secrets model of play...then you have to step up and actually do it.  If that's the way you're going to play then you have the responsibility to handle it or the game is going to crash.  No written module where the side bar says "make an alertness check to uncover the secret" is going to do this for you.  Your take away from text like that should be that alert characters and alert players get the secret and find a way to deliver it to them that is entertaining and interesting.  If you have no such characters and players than you again have a choice.  Don't run that module or adapt it.  Maybe your characters are more persistant than alert...so do that.

Whatever you decide, if this is the style of play you want, you HAVE to get that information into the hands of your players somehow...or else don't play this way.

Quote from: ValamirYou should consider relying a bit more on karma than fortune.

But then it's just my arbitary judgment of their roleplaying rather than a dice roll.  Oh, except I have to get them the information whatever they do or the session will end.

QuoteThere are only 2 possibilities in a scenario like this.  The players uncover what they need to know, or the game ends.  That's it.  Period.  If ending the game is undesired than you have only one choice left.  Find away to convey the information to the players.  Period.  The dice aren't going to do this for you.  

So has the whole "No Myth" idea just fallen out of the window now?  

Quote
Theres a host of discussions around here about ways to play that don't involve GM as dispenser of secrets...simply empower the players to drive the plot where they want and to hell with the GMs secrets.  Thats certainly one solution.

But is it? I don't see that it is.  The GM *has* to give the players something with which to make a reasoned next move.  Otherwise, it's the "where else is there in this city?" problem.

Hey Hyphz,

I was starting to worry that we'd hijacked your thread.  Glad to know you're interested.

Quote from: hyphzThanks for all the replies here folks - I'm sorry if I'm covering old ground.  I did wish to raise one big question about the 'No Myth' style, but I couldn't really express it in words on the previous thread, so I'll have another go at it here.

...The big question I've had about "No Myth" GMing is basically to do with how it can be kept flowing.  I mean, as far as I can see, you have to desperately avoid the situation where the players wind up saying "ok, we've exhausted all our leads; where else in this city is there for us to go?"

That might be the case in a Sherlock Holmes Genre Expectation, where all travel was as a result of finding a clue or something, but honestly, the only story I've seen lately that didn't just dump clues on the protagonist when he was stuck was, believe it or not, Beverly Hills Cop II.  Running 'Sherlock Holmes style' is exceptionally difficult (and I'd suggest only worthwhile when the player is willing to practically co-gamemaster).  The basis of "No Myth" style is just like all those movies where the good guy has used up all his clues and something simply 'falls in his lap' (usually with the retroactive back story that the investigation has attracted the interest of 'the powers that be').

Frankly this complaint is mostly a problem of pacing.  Don't give them enough time to even realize their leads are exhausted, hit 'em with something else.  I've yet to see the genre, in any sense of the word, that wasn't overflowing with potential tangential sideswipes just waiting to go.

Quote from: hyphzNot only do you then have to make up an entire city on the spot (bit tricky, that),

Let me stop you right there, yer just not getting it.  In "No Myth" style, there never, ever, is "an entire city."  There really is nothing more to make up than 'the next stage set.'  The way it works is that everyone 'just knows' that there's a city 'out there;' the 'shape' of that city exists completely in the subconscious expectations the group has formed the game on; these are the Genre Expectations for 'the city.'  At no point does it need to be any more spelled out than Superman's Metropolis or Spider-man's 'back streets of New York;' do you ever recognize the numerous backgrounds in the panels from one issue to the next?  Nope, they're just 'filler,' a bit of 'artistic noise' to carry the 'feeling' of city without the detail that would detract from the story.

Let's resume the question:

Quote from: hyphzNot only do you then have to make up an entire city on the spot (bit tricky, that), but when they decide where to go you're left either arranging that their choice advances the story no matter where it was (feels like a railroad, though it may not be intended that way) or telling them that nothing happens there (in which case you get to play a guessing game with the list of locations).  So there always have to be clues or leads or something

Hmm...this just isn't coming through.  How do I explain it...?

A railroad only exists to connect points on the map; the clues and leads are actually the tracks.  You aren't going to escape the sense of railroading so long as you provide a trail of clues; I can guarantee that.  Many players are so conditioned that they desperately try to find and follow these, knowing (by experience) that nothing else exists (true or not).  "No Myth" is as much a style to be learned by the gamemaster as it requires the above style to be 'unlearned' by the players.  These kinds of players, encountering "No Myth" for the first time will be confused because the gamemaster is no longer spoon-feeding them the next place to go, because there isn't any...yet.

I hate to point it out, but don't players expect that their "choice advances the story?"  "No matter what?"  Do you really have players who'd be happy when you go 'nope, you followed the wrong lead; this is a dead end.'  I doubt it; I expect they look to you for 'the right lead' so that the character's choice will advance the story, knowing full well that they, as players, don't really have a choice.  (Or more accurately, that they have Hobson's Choice; 'choose the horse by the door, or no choice.')

You aren't really providing clues and leads in "No Myth," you provide opportunities abundant.  The players are free to interpret anything as a clue.  Sounds like they'll quickly not find out whodunit, right?  Far from it.  Many times in "No Myth," you don't even know whodunit.  You toss all these chips on the table (people the players encounter that you've pretty much plucked out of a list of archetypes for the Genre Expectation) as play progresses, the characters the eliminate through investigation are crossed off your list of 'who could have done it' (with a few exceptions for plot twists).  If they take interest in a lead that 'short-circuits the game,' you shift gears and the principles take it on the lamb; use whatever Complication keeps the game flowing.  Whatever you do, you've got to shed the point A to point B mentality; point B only exists in the "Myth of Reality."

Ultimately, you simply have to give up the idea that there are always clues or leads (those are just tracks on the railroad; time to derail).  Back to Raiders of the Lost Ark, did Indiana and company follow clues to the final confrontation with Ravencroft and the Nazis?  Nope, all the clues had been used up, the treasure was safely in hand and the villains had gotten away; enter the final Complication, a u-boat comes outta nowhere and hijacks the plotline.  That's what I'm talking about; clues and leads don't get you there.

Quote from: hyphz...The players have to know, by the time they leave Bill's, that their next destination is going to be Don's, or Bill's local pub, or the police station to turn Don in, or the hospital where Bill might have been treated for those scars, or or or....  Any of those is fine.  But, then the problem is: if there are clues and leads, they either have to be blatant, or the players can miss them.  And if they miss them, you get the "where else in this city?" question.  So how do you resolve this situation by always making sure there's a chain to the next step?

"Put the chain down and step away from the car!"

I just can't seem to make this point.  That chain is what is binding your adventures; following it makes you force the game, which is what you complained about in the first place.  Forget the chain.  Sure, the players are canny enough to know some of the places you list (probably the local pub, police station, or the hospital), it doesn't matter which they choose, you make something up.  If they pick the pub, grab a previously seen non-player character who knows they're after Bill; his flight will attract their attention better than making them go around the bar for interrogation.  If they go to the police station, the cops could 'cop an attitude' and try to rough them up for what they know (doesn't take much for a dumb cop to let something slip).  If they go to the hospital, maybe Bill isn't there but one of Bill's victims is and ready to spill (I haven't read the scenario).  The point is that it doesn't matter where they go, give them what they want; if they want information about Bill, it'll be there someway, somehow.  Heck, if they go home, waddya know, they live next to Don!  If the sit pondering (doing nothing), then have someone else who's looking for what they want come in.  Take whatever they want and create a Complication.

Your task is to figure out what they want to do with what they get.  If the resolution of the current circumstance doesn't clearly suggest a new one, you hit them with something terrible archetypical for the genre.  You need to realize that there don't need to be leads.  If the players don't act, they get acted upon; it's as simple as that.  Sooner or later, what they choose to do will give you a clue to where the game is going.  Remember, in "No Myth" you don't know the ending or whodunit or even what's next; all you know is 1) what has already happened, 2) what everyone would expect from a game like this one, and 3) what the players want.

And that's all you need.

Quote from: hyphzI mean, yes, the business of interrogating the captured villain in M&M could have been done better, now I think of it: if they can't get the info from him, just have one of the *other* villains try to break him out of jail, fail due to the PCs, and fly off casually explaining their entire evil plan as he goes (heck, it's a trope).  But I've only just thought of that, a long while after the moment was past.  I'm not sure how to practice this. ;)

Here, you're getting what I'm saying.  This kind of improvisation comes more easily the more you've done it.  Until then suffuse yourself in the Genre Expectations and if that doesn't work, steal something you've seen or done before and just give it a new paint job.  If the players have the time to critique it based on previous experience, your pace needs to increase (fast enough and they'll never notice the 'steals').

Quote from: GarbanzoMy take on all the great advice from Fang and Christopher is to run the game with an emphasis on everyone enjoying themselves, versus an emphasis on the characters not seeing cracks in reality.

Because never mind the characters, if the players aren't having a great time, it just doesn't matter.

So pace the game, rather than construct a reality.

I couldn't have said it better myself.  Heck, I wish I could say it that well.  Someday.  Maybe.

Quote from: hyphzThe issue is this: suppose they go to the one starting location, can't get the information from the guy there, but work out he's bad and kill him. Now they need to know where to go next. But, they fail all their Search checks to find stuff in the place they're in now. With no clue, they say "where else is there to go?" And I freeze, because I can't make up every location in a city on the fly.

See this is classic railroading.  There is no place "to go next" unless you're railroading them.  'Killing dat guy' may seem like closure, but you've got to learn that even exit is an entrance into somewhere else.  Go back to #1, they killed the guy; that's done.  What are the reasonable repercussions?  How does that serve the overall game (like in terms of getting them to that final climactic confrontation)?  What parts of the Genre Expectations can you grab in purest archetype forms to give shape to these repercussions?

With no clue, use that "other villain" trick, 'cept this time he wants revenge or he wanted something the first had or he wanted to 'do da guy' or whatever, you've got the answer right in your hands.  Don't freeze, if you can't improvise something, just pick something you know that fits.  Do they need to go to a bar?  Describe the last one you were in.  Flying over the city?  Pick the neatest tall building you've ever seen.  There is no need to create new or unique information for anything.  If they can name the place they want to go (not proper names, although those can be quite inspiring), you must know what a 'generic [that]' looks like; that's all it takes.  This works for the lowliest phone booth to the grandest supervillain base.  If you've ever seen one use that, the more mistakes you make describing one you've seen, the more original it'll seem.

Quote from: MarcoWhat if I'm running something where the genre isn't established?

...As far as pre-defined situations: I find that they reward the player with logical outcomes of investigation or maneuver (strategy). They also allow complex plots without paradoxes (something my eyeball examination of no-myth would have problems with--I may be misunderstanding it).

If the Genre Expectations aren't established, set some.  Talk it out with the players; after all it's their expectations you'll be playing on.  Name some movies, books, or other media you have in common.  Otherwise make it up as you go; just use parts from things you know.  Having an 'open genre' means that the players will be more forgiving about potential non sequiturs.  (Remember to 'talk out' the Genre Expectations between sessions, just to stay on track.)

Admittedly "No Myth" is harder with investigation and strategy, but hardly impossible if you know your Genre Expectations.  See every good crime drama follows a pretty solid set of formulae.  As the investigation gets started, try to pick a few that interest you.  As play bounces back and forth between you and the players, you'll begin to see which 'fits better.'  Past that, they've given you the formula to follow, you just need to plug in the variables #1 (what has gone before) supplies.  If things go astray, it'll depend on how close to 'true crime' your Genre Expectations are; the closer the more willing all present will be to run into dead ends.  Otherwise feel free to dump clues right into their lap when necessary (read any of the source material, that's how it really works).

You aren't doing anything more than playing out what the players have given you.  The important thing to remember with "No Myth" is pacing; I've learned that once I've figured out which form to use and which variables go where, it needs to resolve very quickly.  Don't really know why.

Fang Langford

p. s. One more thing....

Quote from: Valamir

Quote from: hyphzBut, they fail all their Search checks to find stuff

This is the key sentence for me.  

Search rolls.  Blech.  Total nonsense and useless in ANY GMing style.

'Cept how Donjon uses them...or how I do.  If the players want to search, let them; don't make continuation contingent upon 'finding something.'  If they fail there roll, then simply make it that nothing was every there.  If they succeed, take that as a passport to the next Complication and go with it.  Don't hand them the answer simply because the dice like them, give 'em just more stuff to think about.  This is the heart of "No Myth" gamemastering; there can't be 'something to find' unless you subscribe to the 'Myth.'  It's okay if the players do (preferred I'd think), but you simply cannot.

Quote from: hyphz
But then it's just my arbitary judgement of their roleplaying rather than a dice roll.  

Correct.  The burden of the GM.  Better arbitrary judgement that takes into account the enjoyment of the participants than random judgement that doesn't.

QuoteOh, except I have to get them the information whatever they do or the session will end.

Correct.  Arbitrary judgement allows you to determine when and how to do this.  Random dice don't care if it ever happens, or how crappy your game becomes as a result.

QuoteSo has the whole "No Myth" idea just fallen out of the window now?

I'll let Fang discuss "No Myth"  That's his thing.  My comment was directed at that at all.  It was directed at the style of play that you were currently using related to published modules.  If you are going to play in that way those are the only 2 options.  The other options involve changing the way you play...which you may or may not be interested in doing.

Quote
But is it? I don't see that it is.  The GM *has* to give the players something with which to make a reasoned next move.  Otherwise, it's the "where else is there in this city?" problem.

See, right there you're bringing certain assumptions about the role of the GM into things.  I can assure you that there are many ways to play an enjoyable game that don't involve the GM *having* to do anything of the kind.  In fact in many cases it is the *players* giving the GM something so that the *GM* can make a reasoned next move.  

But that's a different topic altogether.  Let me summarize a bit more plainly.

You have before you 5 choices:

1) Give up gaming altogether
2) Continue to game but give up GMing
3) Continue to game and GM the way you have been even if that means the games suck.
4) Change the way you game and GM completely
5) Continue to game and GM the way you have been but get better at it.

Presumeably choices 1-3 are not desired.  That leaves you with basically 2 possibilities:

First, you may be stuck in a style of gaming that you're not enjoying; but its the way you've always gamed, its what you know, and you don't know how to break out of it.  That would place you in good company with many people here, and there are dozens of threads discussing this type of thing here.

Second, you like the style of game you play and aren't interested in toppling the apple cart and trying to reinvent what roleplaying means to you.  In which case, you don't need to learn a new way to play, you just need to hone your skills a bit more.

In this thread you've received a jumble of ideas...some assuming the first thing and advising how to change your mindset about gaming ("no myth" etc) and some (like Mike's initial post) assumeing the second and giving you advice that applies to how to do what your currently doing but make it work.

Perhaps you'd be best served by choosing which of these appeals to you more (or both) and starting seperate threads for them so the advice you get remains consistant.

Hi there,

I finally got a clue about how to discuss this.

Let's examine the two extremes, with an eye to the possibility that they are not the only options.

#1: The GM has secrets. Enjoyable play is generating (a) by the players lack of immediate access to the secrets, including some risk if they don't get them; and (b) by the players making decisions and perhaps rolls (i.e. uncertain-outcome) that get them access to the secrets in some satisfying way.

I maintain that if the GM is not skilled at distinguishing between (a) and (b), and if the players are unwilling to let the GM essentially set the pacing and content-per-unit-time of (b), then we'll run into serious problems. Not to mention that some people are simply disinclined to play at all if the GM has full input regarding "what's important" in the scenario, which is often the case in this mode of play.

Shall we use, perhaps, Call of Cthulhu play as an example? It's hard to find a touchstone since we don't play in one another's games. That's how I run CofC, anyway.

#2: There are no secrets. The GM has a slightly different role than the players, but "the scenario" is built mainly through improvisation by all parties. I'm talking not just about turning left or turning right, but about "what's going on" in the most basic back-story sense.

InSpectres is probably the most functional and fun game design I can think of that lends itself well to this mode of play.

Now for the big point: it's not an either-or issue, between #1 and #2. And there are many variables involved. Here are a couple of intermediary (or even off-the-spectrum) ways to break the #1/#2 dichotomy but still let the GM have secrets.

Possibility #1: the back-story, NPCs, and "what's afoot" may be very heavily GM-prepped. However, the player-characters' concerns and decisions determine, perhaps over time, the conflict(s) that will be of group interest. The GM has immense power in terms of NPC activity and so forth, including information that is not immediately available to the characters, but very little in terms of who is "against" whom, or what the ultimate themes produced through play will be.

The point is that finding out the secrets is not the point of play. The secrets exist as part of the GM's prep for running NPCs, and that's all. If the players find out any or all of the secrets, great. If the players do not discover the secrets, that is OK too - what happens is still important to them (or rather, to everyone), and that's what matters.

This is pretty much how Sorcerer is built to run, and as far as I can tell, it runs very poorly in any other mode unless various character creation or other prep options are seriously Drifted (as for con play).

Possibility #2: "what's afoot" is set in stone as the GM's prep, or secret if you will. However, the GM is not especially committed to keeping it secret, just to having its access be interesting rather than a big gimme. So no matter what the player-characters do, NPC relationships, physical locales, and even more are very shiftable during play. It's as if the GM can say, "They did this, so the gardener knows the next clue, not the chauffeur."

In this mode of play, the secret does belong to the GM and it isn't going to change its content. But how to get to it is very labile and may carry a lot of power as the players' chosen mode of attack and NPC-interaction will set a lot of the content of play.

This is pretty much how Castle Falkenstein is built to play, I think (judgment call based on play-experience, possibly limited, obviously). The setting is so interesting that the GM's secret takes on primary aesthetic interest for everyone.

I've presented these two approaches specifically because I think people mix them up, especially when the word "improvisation" is being used. In the first possibility, what's created through play (and technically improvised, although I don't think it's much like theater-improv) are the protagonist priorities. In the second, what's created through play are certain logistic elements of the setting and even features of the back-story (this is a bit more like improv in my mind, although kind of a back-room behind-a-curtain sort).

Best,
Ron

On the search thing, if you decide not to change your play style, use the classic Illusionist technique that I call the "shifting target number". It works like this:

[list=1]

• Call for the search roll.
  
  
• Scan the results looking for the highest.
  
  
• Is the high roll not pathetically low?
  
  [list=a]
• If it's not pathetically low, then he found "It". Depending on just how high or low the roll was, describe how difficult it was obtaining the information.
  
  [list=1]
• If the roll was low (not pathetically low), then it was pretty much out in the open, or the target of the intimidation is a pansy.
  
  
• If the roll was high, then the information was secreted well away, or the guy put up a real struggle in giving away the information.[/list:o]
  Note: Essentially you reward a high roll with an even more protagonizing description of the event than you would otherwise.
  
  
• If the roll was pathetically low, then the "failure equals adversity" effect comes into play. The player determines from a file that the info is in a safe. Now they have to figure out how to get the safe open. Something like that. [/list:o]
  
• If other players have very similar results to the successful high roller, then they get the same result as he does. Narrate it, like, "Bob you notice the file, and Janice, you notice Bob noticing the file."[/list:o]
  Works like a charm. Very much like Fang's technique, except that you're fooling the players into thinking that you do have a set target. If you have to, pretend to do some math on a calculator or paper to complete the illusion.
  
  Mike

Quote from: Le JoueurHey Hyphz,

I was starting to worry that we'd hijacked your thread.  Glad to know you're interested.

Yes, I am indeed.

And, I'm not trying to defend "my play style".  I'm trying to figure out how to deal with this new one.

Quote
That might be the case in a Sherlock Holmes Genre Expectation, where all travel was as a result of finding a clue or something, but honestly, the only story I've seen lately that didn't just dump clues on the protagonist when he was stuck was, believe it or not, Beverly Hills Cop II.  Running 'Sherlock Holmes style' is exceptionally difficult (and I'd suggest only worthwhile when the player is willing to practically co-gamemaster).  The basis of "No Myth" style is just like all those movies where the good guy has used up all his clues and something simply 'falls in his lap' (usually with the retroactive back story that the investigation has attracted the interest of 'the powers that be').

Yea, that made sense in the superhero game, but I couldn't see how to work it in UA.

Quote

Quote from: hyphzNot only do you then have to make up an entire city on the spot (bit tricky, that),

Let me stop you right there, yer just not getting it.  In "No Myth" style, there never, ever, is "an entire city."  There really is nothing more to make up than 'the next stage set.'

That's right, that's the way it *should* be in the style you're describing.  But that was my whole question: if one of the players runs dry on leads and says "where else is there to go in this city?" (not "where should we go now?" but "where is there to go?") then, well, you gotta answer that.  Probably with a list of places, and that list will then have to define the city if you're going to remain in any way consistent.  What if a player says "I go out of the house, turn left and walk two blocks down, what do I see?"  Now you've got to define part of the city and start working out a freaking *map* - because, for all you know, the players are going to sieze on that item of geography as a key point later on, so you have to remember it and stick by it in whatever else you improv.  It's exactly the fear of getting hit with one of these questions that scares me off the "No Myth" style.

QuoteA railroad only exists to connect points on the map; the clues and leads are actually the tracks.  You aren't going to escape the sense of railroading so long as you provide a trail of clues; I can guarantee that.  Many players are so conditioned that they desperately try to find and follow these, knowing (by experience) that nothing else exists (true or not).  "No Myth" is as much a style to be learned by the gamemaster as it requires the above style to be 'unlearned' by the players.  These kinds of players, encountering "No Myth" for the first time will be confused because the gamemaster is no longer spoon-feeding them the next place to go, because there isn't any...yet.

See, this could be part of my confusion.  You say that the players have to "unlearn" the idea that nothing else exists apart from the important places that are connected by the clues, yet you then say that there indeed *isn't* anything that exists except the important places that the characters decide to visit, and all that changes is how they're determined.

Quote
I hate to point it out, but don't players expect that their "choice advances the story?"  "No matter what?"  Do you really have players who'd be happy when you go 'nope, you followed the wrong lead; this is a dead end.'  I doubt it; I expect they look to you for 'the right lead' so that the character's choice will advance the story, knowing full well that they, as players, don't really have a choice.

Well, yes, but again, this could wind up with consistency problems as far as I can see.  I mean, if you provide an opportunity-rich setting in UA it'll mean that people from the occult underground are suddenly popping up everywhere the PC's go AND making themselves apparant, which is exactly what it's NOT supposed to be like based on the description of the setting.  ("Every unicorn you'll ever meet will tell you how rare they are.")

Quote
I just can't seem to make this point.  That chain is what is binding your adventures; following it makes you force the game, which is what you complained about in the first place.  Forget the chain.  Sure, the players are canny enough to know some of the places you list (probably the local pub, police station, or the hospital), it doesn't matter which they choose, you make something up.  

Yep, that's right - IF they choose one of those, I can make something up.  The problem is if they decide they haven't gotten enough information to make that sort of choice, and they decide to gather it... "I drive down Main Street drawing a diagram map of every business I see; and an artist's impression of their logos, as well!"  Essentially, the worry is that the players will make a choice which suddenly forces a whole bunch of stuff to exist - and be locked in for consistency purposes - so much that I can't make it up reasonably well.  

QuoteSee this is classic railroading.  There is no place "to go next" unless you're railroading them.  

No, that's not what I meant.  I mean, the players now have to decide where their characters are going to travel to, and they have to have some information to use to make that decision.  If they don't, they go get it and.. euch.

No Myth?

I'm quite curious about this--I've got some questions. I'm gonna start a thread in RPG theory.

-Marco

Hey Hyphz,

Glad I could shed some light on a potential style (not one I trying to force on anyone).  However, this thread is getting way too many quote-and-responds, so let me try to summarize.  (And by the way, thanks again for giving me a chance to try out yet another way of describing it.)

First a few disclaimers, I haven't played Unknown Armies (you'll have to pitch the Genre Expectations to me if you want any constructive input).  My only copy of InSpectres is the ancient freebie that I pulled together into a saddle-stitched book over a copier one day.  ("Make Booklet" - my hero!)

The problem I think is the kinds of questions you are supposing the players will be asking.  Given the players are comfortable not having the railroad tracks laid out before them (that'd by you going, "Go here, here, here, here, or here."), no one will ever ask 'where is there to go?'  They'll just say things like we go to the police station (every city has a police station) and et cetera; you are imagining that the players have absolutely no grasp on the Genre Expectations.  That's just not true.

If it really came down to "Where is there to go?"  You'd say, "Anywhere you like."  This is what needs to be unlearnt, the idea that the gamemaster holds all the possible options.  If it's a city, there should be fifty bazillion places you can think to go, like in any city you've lived in, that don't need to be spelled out in advance.  The trick is to think in terms of 'what would be at a Laundromat that fronts a numbers racket,' not to design one in advance.

More importantly, you've got to try not to give the players time to say aloud either "Where should we go?" or "Where is there to go?"  Learn to sense when they've run out of ideas; when that happens, hit 'em with an unexpected Complication.  Don't give them time to sit around with nothing to do.

And using archetypical locations won't create any sense of inconsistency because they're archetypes.  It wouldn't be archetypical if it were inconsistent.  For players who just go wandering around?  Hit 'em with a Complication; like I said, so Don's house happens to be there or there's a drive by.  (Why the heck are you characters playing Battleship anyway - "I go out of the house, turn left and walk two blocks down" - sheesh.  I have never see that happen.  Ask him where he thinks he's going; use that archetype.)  No player action should ever be let avoid the 'action;' is there a point to trying to be boring?

As far as remembering what you've created, if the players want to go back to somewhere they've been before, make it their job to remind you what happened.  (Remember #1?  You ain't supposed to be some historian, ya know; make them remember it, their memory is why their going there isn't it?)

So far I haven't been clear what the players need to unlearn.  You don't ever need them to think or know that the reality is a myth (I think that'd hurt the enjoyment of the game for some.)  The habit that needs to be unlearned is 'playing off the menu;' "Where is there to go?" is the players looking at the menu and being very uncreative or 'free.'  Needing a clue to 'find their way' from scene to scene is expecting you to lead them around by the nose, not creative, not free.  This is what they need to learn; "Where is there to go?" gets a "You tell me."  "What does this clue mean?" gets a "Where would you look for that?"  At first, it's a hard habit to unlearn, expecting the gamemaster to give you all your options, but once they do, their creativity will give you most of the input you need to improvise locations.

Once you've got players who think in terms of 'what to do' or 'where to go' based upon the Genre Expectations rather than a menu you provide, once they don't expect everything to provide a direction of where to go next, then they'll be ready to play in a "No Myth" game.  They'll respond to the Complications based upon how the want to rather than fishing for what you want.  This may sound confusing, but it makes them more susceptible to the "Myth of Reality."  They won't be thinking, "Where can my character go?" but "What do I want to do?"  The myth is something that it is dangerous for the gamemaster to believe in.

What then connects scenes?  Player initiative.  Sure they might get some pretty weird ideas of what to do, but since you are being guided by what 'seems right' for the game's Genre Expectations, you can't go wrong by combining the two (the weird direction the players have gone and the 'next Complication' the Genre Expects).

Evoking rarity amongst game elements is a ringer.  Many games say 'this is rare' or 'players should hardly never see this' and all I say is 'why list it then?'  Look at it this way; if there were all these 'hidden things,' wouldn't you expect them to chum around?  Sorta like a conspiracy?  After all, unless I'm guessing wrong, the player characters are 'rare beasts' too, right?  Have you ever read a story were the 'rare and mysterious' fails to show up?  I have to say that these games do a piss poor job of explaining how to make 'rare' seem 'cool,' 'cuz having them just not show up ain't cool.

Another thing, you seem really worried about things that just don't seem to happen.  Can you provide real, concrete examples of things like, "I drive down Main Street drawing a diagram map of every business I see; and an artist's impression of their logos, as well!"  It just doesn't happen and if it does, just say, "Okay, what do you do with it?"  I mean all I've seen this as was a player wasting their time.  If they want to do something this boring and tedious, just gloss over it.  Noting the details of a neighborhood is meaningless unless they do something with it; it is that action that counts, not some tired map of storefronts.

If the players try and "force a whole bunch of stuff to exist," don't let them.  (I mean what's the point; they aren't really 'going there' are they?)  Just breeze over it.  I mean, so what if they want a map, what's a map except a guide to places¹  Don't let the players sifting for details distract you from running the next Complication; if you can cloak the Complication in those details, do you really need to make the players figure it out when actually the characters are doing the figuring.  Just tell them what they want to know based upon your opinion of what the characters will glean from it.  (I mean, do I really have to invent a whole new alphabet, language, and grammar, so Indiana Jones can take a half an hour trying to figure out if something relevant is written on the tomb walls?  No, he just takes it in and you tell the player what Indie has figured out an hour later.)

Forgive me one quote:

Quote from: hyphzThe players now have to decide where their characters are going to travel to, and they have to have some information to use to make that decision.  If they don't, they go get it and...

They already have this information; I call it the Genre Expectations.  It has to do with anything one could reasonably expect to see, do, or find, in the narrowly defined genre given by the game.  Unless you are the sole creator of the game and somehow it manages to be not even remotely like anything the players have ever seen, not even in a 'this piece from here, that piece from there' way, then you don't need to be the source of that information.  They want to go to a bar?  Sheesh, who hasn't seen a bar, just make up a name.  They want to go to that villain's temple?  Describe it thus, "It's like the one in...you know with the...except this temple is all decked out with...."  The return and you want consistency, ask them what it looked like/was name/had in it; this just isn't your responsibility anymore (the other thing needed to unlearn: the gamemaster is not the source of all knowledge).

You absolutely must shake the idea that this information is your sole responsibility or that consistency is only your job.  If you don't 'let go' of the myth, not even for a second, I can't even begin to explain this.  Likewise all the worries you raise either boil down to two things: it ain't gonna happen or the players will forgive small mistakes.  Try it out, I think InSpectres has been cited as a game tailored for this.

Is this any clearer yet or should I go back to examples?

Fang Langford

¹ Okay a map can also be used to determine positional relationships, but outside of relevant relationships, it's all a waste.  Don't draw one.  If they want to plot something out, ask them what parts and then do the analysis their character's brains would; "You see that all the pins are in a straight line" is a hell of a lot better than designing a whole map with locations they've been to only and I mean only to reveal that fact.

{Edited to not the cross post with Fang.}

You're worried about nothing, Hyphz. Do you worry that your players in a "normal" game are going to walk away from the plot, and just start doing stuff at random? No? Then why would you worry about such illogical actions in another sort of game.

If a player asks you "where is there to go?" then indeed they are not ready for this sort of game. The appropriately Zen obfuscatory response to teach them th enew paradigm is, "I don't know, where is there to go? It's a city, think of some place to go in a city."

You are stuck in a very Setting first mindset. Of course Unicorns will tell you they're rare. Every time you meet them. Rarity in a game world has nothing to do with how often a character will encounter the rare thing. Certainly you have to keep things plausible. But that doesn't mean that the character is "just somebody" in the game world. They are protagonists. That means by definition that things happen to them that just don't happen to "just somebody".

So, in this play style, when the player says, "Well, I'll go check out one of those seedy dive bars where the criminals hang out." He should be pleased to find out that they guy he's looking for just happens to be there.

If you want a more Sim edge out of this, use Area Knowledge die rolls. Player says he's going to a dive that he makes up. He rolls. If he rolls well, then that dive is just like he described it with all the criminals in town there. If not, then he has to try again.

Are you starting to see it? Nothing exists at first. It's all created in play by the need of the plot.

Don't allow maps. "How do we get there?" should be answered by framing directly to the needed scene. "OK, you've driven to the seedy bar, and are currently looking about the room for your target. A big guy comes up and asks what 'your type' is doing in 'his' bar." Believe me, the player will forget about how far it was to the Bar.

Player says, "I drive down Main Street drawing a diagram map of every business I see; and an artist's impression of their logos, as well!"
GM response, "OK that takes about an hour. Make a note that you've got your copies. Now what do you do?" Do they get to see the map or logos? No. But they might get a bonus on a roll for having done this on a future roll.

Would you see all the logos it if it was a movie? No? Then why do the players need to see them? It's only important that the characters can see them.

This is all easy stuff to avoid or work around.

Mike

Just something...

The player is haggling for a horse.  If they succeed on the roll they get a cheap horse, if they fail they get an expensive horse.  Of course, they don't have to buy the horse at either price.

Is the GM railroading?  I mean, the player gets the horse both ways.

The "Punisher" tries to intimidate the paedophile: he succeeds - he gets the information.  He fails, the paedophile gives him the diary of his last victim.  Cue high rank Helplessness rolls.  The player gets the information.

Is the GM railroading?  I mean the player gets the information both ways.

Hi Ian,

Here are a couple of threads that you might find useful:
Illusionism: a new look and new approach (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4217)
So ... what is railroading (using illusionism terminology) (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4405)

Going by the concepts in these threads, it is quite likely that the GM you describe is not railroading, but plain old contributing, much as he or she might contribute any information.

There may be some illusionism involved (if the player is in doubt but the GM is not), but that is not the same thing as railroading.

Now, railroading (as we defined it in those threads) is at least possible in your example depending on the Social Contract, but the basic fact that the GM has provided the information "no matter what" is not, itself, railroading under all circumstances.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Le JoueurHey Hyphz,
The problem I think is the kinds of questions you are supposing the players will be asking.  Given the players are comfortable not having the railroad tracks laid out before them (that'd by you going, "Go here, here, here, here, or here."), no one will ever ask 'where is there to go?'  They'll just say things like we go to the police station (every city has a police station) and et cetera; you are imagining that the players have absolutely no grasp on the Genre Expectations.  That's just not true.

Well, that's alright.  But, how would the players get the idea to go to the police station, if no information suggesting that it might be a good idea has been presented?  Reasoning has to work on some basis, or it's just guessing.

Quote
So far I haven't been clear what the players need to unlearn.  You don't ever need them to think or know that the reality is a myth (I think that'd hurt the enjoyment of the game for some.)  

But I think that they do.  In an illusionist game, the PCs have to reasonably follow the existing plot and not wander off in random directions; in a "no myth" game the players have to avoid making moves which require huge amounts of world information to be spontaneously generated at once (like drawing that map).  

If I gave I response like Mike suggested ("ok, you have the map (but I'm notably not telling you what's on it), now what do you do?") that would be no less of a 'slightly in-character smackdown' than the classic responses to an illusionism violation ("nothing interesting happens there - why don't you go to where you know the action is?")

Regarding the rest of the text, the only other thing I can see is that I've had bad experiences trying to involve these players in this sort of thing in the past.  The sort of attitude I got was (this is a paraphrase of what one of them said; he's a D&D GM so he used that as an example) "if I fight a dragon I want to know that it was always there. There's no satisfaction in fighting it, if it just appeared because I wanted to fight a dragon."  (And before you say it, this player is NOT a pure gamist.. he's likewise given me complaints about computer games where he said "Well, my heroic story was: our hero went from one city to another, but was killed by a bunch of lizards on the way.  What's the point of that?")

Quote
Have you ever read a story were the 'rare and mysterious' fails to show up?  I have to say that these games do a piss poor job of explaining how to make 'rare' seem 'cool,' 'cuz having them just not show up ain't cool.

Yea.. that's actually something I really found missing from UA, actually.  Basically, the book's divided into three levels based on how much of the setting the players know, but although it has plenty of OOC explanation, it never suggests how the first bit is found IC.  In fact, I might go and post that on the UA forum now..

Quote
Another thing, you seem really worried about things that just don't seem to happen.  Can you provide real, concrete examples of things like, "I drive down Main Street drawing a diagram map of every business I see; and an artist's impression of their logos, as well!"  It just doesn't happen and if it does, just say, "Okay, what do you do with it?"

Well, the most popular question of that type I've had before is "How far is the <whatever> away from <whatever>?", expecting an answer in metres.

Another problem is that these players have been known to revolt when their preconceptions are challenged.  In two games I was hoping to run (Godlike and Exalted) I told the players I hoped they'd develop the story a bit themselves, but they (one particular player especially) continued making purely defensive characters who were obviously just designed to survive random stuff coming at them.  When I asked them not to do this, one of them (in both games) responded by making a character who couldn't survive any action at all, and announcing that the character was a politician - thus giving him no link to the rest of the group (and forcing me to come up with a political system).  Needless to say, both systems were abandoned.  UA, at least, tries to bar you from making a purely defensive character.

Hey Hyphz,

Can you help me out here?  I'm not making sense to you.  Perhaps if you tried to sum up what I am saying, in your own words; then I'll understand what I'm saying wrong.

Quote from: hyphzBut, how would the players get the idea to go to the police station...Reasoning has to work on some basis, or it's just guessing.

Um, 'cuz it's a crime?  Really, your worrying about phantoms.  It's supposed to be "just guessing."  That's the point!  The Complications are there to keep them guessing and wondering and interested.  Too much Complication, the flow is blocked and the game dull.  Too little and the game becomes too easy, yawn.  If the Complications don't 'fit' the 'par for the course,' the players lose interest (the Genre Expectations are what they expected after all).

Quote from: hyphz

Quote from: Le JoueurSo far I haven't been clear what the players need to unlearn.  You don't ever need them to think or know that the reality is a myth (I think that'd hurt the enjoyment of the game for some.)

But I think that they do.  In an illusionist game, the PCs have to reasonably follow the existing plot and not wander off in random directions; in a "no myth" game the players have to avoid making moves which require huge amounts of world information to be spontaneously generated at once (like drawing that map).

Absolutely not!  As I've tried to say, there is no decision that players can make, that forces huge amounts of anything to be improvised.

Quote from: hyphzIf I gave I response like Mike suggested ("ok, you have the map (but I'm notably not telling you what's on it), now what do you do?") that would be no less of a 'slightly in-character smackdown' than the classic responses to an illusionism violation ("nothing interesting happens there - why don't you go to where you know the action is?")

Y'know, I'm just not seeing that.  Yer talking that moon-man talk agin.  How is "What do you want to do" anything but empowering.  Exactly what is a player supposed to do staring at your newly made map?  I just don't get it.  To me, handing them a map shuts them up, asking them "what's next" gets them involved.  I don't get it.

The real question you should be asking (even if you plan on foisting a map on them) is "what for?"  I mean it; what the hell do they do with a map?  What could they do with it that wouldn't be more streamlined if you just did that instead?  Think about it; ask yourself, as a player, what are you going to do with a map?  Now, how can't you just do the very same thing without it?  The same goes for that drawing of store fronts; what's it for?  What do they do with it?

Quote from: hyphz"If I fight a dragon I want to know that it was always there. There's no satisfaction in fighting it, if it just appeared because I wanted to fight a dragon."

You're just not following.  It's not like "I wanna fight a dragon" and "You turn the corner and there one is."  Where's the Complication in that?  The game starts out, many sessions before when the player expresses an interest in pitting his character against a dragon (whether his character has this interest or not).  So you say, "where do you find one?"  They say, "I dunno."  And you offer, "Who would you ask?"  After that getting the location becomes the Complication.  Once they have the information, they say, "We go to the caves of Glondorak and seek the deadly Snarl."

Do you need a map to tell them that nothing happens along the way?  Do you need to know exactly how many leagues of untamed wilderness they won't remember later anyway?  I say no; these trackless wastes don't really exist anyway.  Why bother?  Just say, "After several days harrowing journey, you arrive at the cave entrance."  What difference does it make.  And so on all the way down the caverns to the lair of Snarl.

Would Snarl have existed before they asked in the map-making game?  No, you have to prepare it.  Does it exist in "No Myth" gamemastering?  Obviously not, the question is what value is added to the game to have a map?  Or more accurately a precise map?  Props are nice, but what's the point in killing yourself to make information that gets overlooked anyway?

The whole game is predicated on the idea that they pursue these grand quests.  Would there be a point to going all that way if there was no dragon?  Do the dragon's hit points matter before they get to it?  No.  Does having a map better ensure that the journey becomes more dangerous at every segment?  Not in my experience.  Does moderating the 'dangerousness' of each Complications?  Probably.

The point is, without a map, you don't need to fudge any results to get them where you need them.  That place isn't a 'place,' it's a amorphous Complication tailored to both the Genre Expectation and the characters' actions.  (That also comes up in the above example; it would be outside of the Genre Expectations for the dragon to "just appear."  There has to be 'the quest' which, abstractly, isn't anything other than a string of Complications faced by the characters as they pursue the conclusion.)

Quote from: hyphzThe most popular question of that type I've had before is "How far is the <whatever> away from <whatever>?", expecting an answer in metres.

And you respond, "Why?"  So's mine.  Of what use will you put such information?  If their planning travel time, why not ask in minutes instead of metres?  Moreover, if planning travel time, what exactly are they racing?  'Cuz if it ain't a race, how far or how long is meaningless.  If their trying to determine which is the shortest or fastest trip why not give that information instead.

Like I said, "Why?"

Quote from: hyphz...purely defensive characters who were obviously just designed to survive random stuff coming at them.

That's because in their experience so much "random stuff" has ruined their fun.  This is yet another habit that need be unlearned, pulling 'a turtle' is simply dysfunctional play.  Expect, and request, better.

Quote from: hyphzWhen I asked them not to do this, one of them (in both games) responded by making a character who couldn't survive any action at all, and announcing that the character was a politician - thus giving him no link to the rest of the group (and forcing me to come up with a political system).

See, this shows that "No Myth" gamemastering probably isn't for you.  If you are asking them to not do something, you are trying to exert some kind of control; I'm not surprised by the turtle behaviour.  "No Myth" gamemastering is about 'releasing control.'

The best tack I've found for the above situation is ask them if they want their character to be totally safe, if so tell them they get their wish and they must wait for the next game.  Then explain the Genre Expectations to them again and ask them how this character fits and what it would do in games like the one you are communally preparing.  If they want a politician character in a party of adventurers, make them an envoy; the adventurers take him somewhere, he negotiates.  No political system necessary, just a vague guess at international political stresses and you can fake it.  It's just the same with any other set up and if you cannot think of such a relationship, you don't have to; make them do it and call it a part of the Genre Expectations.

Survival has to stop being the issue!  Few Genre Expectations call for the death of any of the protagonists and those that do make it so enjoyable that it doesn't matter.  This is the flaw in using an old-fashioned rules system with "No Myth" gamemastering.  Death is not a Complication, it's the end of fun; get rid of it.  If you need that kind of 'win/lose' stakes, play a different game.

Fang Langford

Quote from: Le Joueur

Quote from: hyphzIn an illusionist game, the PCs have to reasonably follow the existing plot and not wander off in random directions; in a "no myth" game the players have to avoid making moves which require huge amounts of world information to be spontaneously generated at once (like drawing that map).

Absolutely not!  As I've tried to say, there is no decision that players can make, that forces huge amounts of anything to be improvised.

OK, what I think you are saying here is when the players start asking questions about the town, you don't answer their questions.  You have a couple of options: [1] gloss over it - i.e. saying "OK, your PCs learn what the town looks like" but not drawing a map for the players; or [2] distract them, i.e. don't answer their question but instead say "As you start looking around, a desparate looking man runs towards you..."

So the players aren't "forcing" you as GM to do anything by asking those questions, but you at least have to deny them an answer.  This means that the players do have to unlearn tendencies like asking for a map of the area.  (They will hopefully learn quickly by having their requests denied, but they do need to unlearn this.)    

Also, most of this depends highly on which genre is picked.  For example, my current game is in the genre of the historical Icelandic sagas.  For those, as you are reading it, it is really nice to have a map of Iceland and a family tree.  Many of the editions I have include such information with the main book.  It seems to me that part of your assumption is a genre which isn't concerned with details (like the typical superhero comic or action movie).

Quote from: John KimI think you are saying...when the players start asking questions about the town, you don't answer their questions.  You have a couple of options: [1] gloss over it - i.e. saying "OK, your PCs learn what the town looks like" but not drawing a map for the players; or [2] distract them, i.e. don't answer their question but instead say "As you start looking around, a desperate looking man runs towards you..."

Or most likely, [3] find out why – id est saying "You name it, you can probably find it; waddaya like?"

Quote from: John KimSo the players aren't "forcing" you as GM to do anything by asking those questions, but you at least have to deny them an answer.  This means that the players do have to unlearn tendencies like asking for a map of the area.  (They will hopefully learn quickly by having their requests denied, but they do need to unlearn this.)

Actually the players are forcing you to do stuff; that's mostly the point.  What the players need to unlearn is asking for information they aren't really going to use anyway.  For example, when I visit someone's house, pretty early on I'll ask where the bathroom is; I don't ask for a tour.  I might need the bathroom, but I hardly need to know where the walk-in master bedroom closet is.

I mean if it really comes down to it, cut to the chase; "Do you guys have anything you wanna do in town?"  If the answer is no; it's time to dig out some new Complication based on #1 or #2.  I hope that eventually they'll learn to say, "We find lodging and start combing the town for stories of dragons," or just "We find lodging, anything special about this town?"  Knowing every feature of town up front is a waste of time, asking for what you need, when you need it, isn't.  If the players want something out of the ordinary (like horseshoes after midnight), just let 'em, but be a tad difficult about it (Complicate it).  Why stop them?

Quote from: John KimAlso, most of this depends highly on which genre is picked.  For example, my current game is in the genre of the historical Icelandic sagas.  For those, as you are reading it, it is really nice to have a map of Iceland and a family tree.  Many of the editions I have include such information with the main book.  It seems to me that part of your assumption is a genre which isn't concerned with details (like the typical superhero comic or action movie).

Good point.  The map is not very likely the most accurate in the world (little more than rough positions) and the family tree probably doesn't have a full bio of each, so none of this is outside of the Genre Expectations.  That's what I'm talking about and all this is shared information.  What formerly were secrets held by the gamemaster are now unknowns resolved by working out the Complications in a game.  No secrets, no detailed maps, just the information that's relevant at the time it's needed.

Yep, that's "No Myth" gamemastering.  (And the secondary function of Genre Expectations is to provide guidance of how to fulfill new 'secrets' to reveal.)

Fang Langford

Something Hyphz said, and I think John seconded, really caught my attention.  Your players think they're stuck; you personally maybe can see lots of things they could do, but they can't think of anything.  So they ask things like, "Where can we go in this city?" or "Well, what is there to do now?"  What they're really saying is, "We don't know what we're supposed to do, so tell us."

Some folks here do not seem to have had this experience with players; others suggest that players like this are "not ready for" no-myth gaming.

This stuns me, frankly.  This is the #1 problem I have with players, no matter what I'm doing.  I find that a huge number of players (gasp!) love railroads.  They want it all clearly in front of them, so they can sort of semi-passively watch the pretty scenery and do fun shtick (color) things as they go.  The problem is that they ultimately find it somewhat dissatisfying, because they're really not putting anything into the game, and so they don't get much out.

So to my mind, the big issue is how to lead the players from their old habit -- "What do we do now?" -- into the new one -- "Okay, we're going to start making it up as we go along."  Now I realize that the latter case is not explicitly what Fang means, but in fact, few players will admit to the former, either.  Both are implicit, if you see what I mean.

I agree that there are some problems along the way here, lots of them, but I do not see that throwing complications at the players when they're stuck and frustrated is going to help.  Let's imagine the situation:

The PCs are standing around on the road, at the scene of a crime, and they're convinced (for some reason) that they shouldn't call the police.  They don't know what to do, and they think there's some Special Thing they should do, because that's what they're used to.  Yes, it's their Genre Expectation: railroaded game.  So you throw a complication: somebody pulls over and says, "You guys need help?"  Okay, they desperately cover up the body and get the guy to go away.  Now they start standing around again, because they don't know what they should do.  So now you have a cop pull up, wondering why there's all these guys standing around the roadside.  What happens now?  The players think -- though they may not say it -- "Okay, we failed, I have no idea what he wanted us to do but we didn't do it, this game sucks, I have no idea what's going on, now he's just going to punish us."  This then colors their interaction with the cop, and besides the whole dynamic is already sliding downhill.

Does this make sense?  If you say, "Well, you could..." the players will think, "Oh great, the Hint Hammer."  If you throw a complication, the players think, "Oh great, we failed."  It's a lose-lose situation.

Now admittedly I'm talking about a rather dysfunctional group here, but the whole point of analysis is to fix problems.  If you've got this group, and god knows I've seen a lot of them, I just don't think that throwing complications at them is going to work, because they're not in motion.  If they're doing something, you can complicate matters: Indy and the gang are heading home when the sub shows up.  But if they're just sitting around because they don't know what to do, having more Nazis break in isn't going to help matters.

Sorry, I'm rambling, but there seems to be this impression that the "Draw us a map" or "Where can we go?" thing is not actually going to happen.  It does.  Often.  So what then?

Quote from: Le Joueur

Quote from: John KimSo the players aren't "forcing" you as GM to do anything by asking those questions, but you at least have to deny them an answer.  This means that the players do have to unlearn tendencies like asking for a map of the area.  (They will hopefully learn quickly by having their requests denied, but they do need to unlearn this.)

Actually the players are forcing you to do stuff; that's mostly the point.  What the players need to unlearn is asking for information they aren't really going to use anyway.  For example, when I visit someone's house, pretty early on I'll ask where the bathroom is; I don't ask for a tour.

Well, OK.  The point is that the original poster was right in this sense:  the players have to unlearn their traditional way of doing things.  Neither of these are right or wrong, but you have to learn a new way around.  Personally, when I visit someone's house I will usually spend some time looking around at their stuff.  

Quote from: Le Joueur

Quote from: John KimAlso, most of this depends highly on which genre is picked.  For example, my current game is in the genre of the historical Icelandic sagas.  For those, as you are reading it, it is really nice to have a map of Iceland and a family tree.  Many of the editions I have include such information with the main book.  It seems to me that part of your assumption is a genre which isn't concerned with details (like the typical superhero comic or action movie).

Good point.  The map is not very likely the most accurate in the world (little more than rough positions) and the family tree probably doesn't have a full bio of each, so none of this is outside of the Genre Expectations. That's what I'm talking about and all this is shared information.  What formerly were secrets held by the gamemaster are now unknowns resolved by working out the Complications in a game.  No secrets, no detailed maps, just the information that's relevant at the time it's needed.

Yep, that's "No Myth" gamemastering.  (And the secondary function of Genre Expectations is to provide guidance of how to fulfill new 'secrets' to reveal.)

Hmmm.  Actually, the map in the book is usually quite accurate, and I try for the same with my game (I'm using USGS maps mostly).  By way of explanation: the sagas were originally written by and for Icelanders.  The stories take place in real places which the medieval reader would know.  A modern reader needs an accurate map to compensate for lack of context.  

So, I have run some games closer to "No Myth" I think, but really in my current game I am a stickler for detail.  For example, for the PCs' visit to Hvalrik, I searched online for historical maps of Boston circa 1700.  It's not a pure "open sim" -- we are using Whimsy Cards and other dramatic devices.  However, it is grounded in a social reality: class differences, culture clash, family politics, economic necessity, and so forth.  

This is one of the things that really distinguishes the Icelandic historical sagas from other forms.  The historical sagas are about real people and the real issues they faced.  They are sort of the 13th century equivalent of modern historical fiction: telling a dramatic story and not being purely factual, but also being careful to faithfully represent at least the spirit of their subject.

Quote from: Le JoueurHey Hyphz,

Can you help me out here?  I'm not making sense to you.  Perhaps if you tried to sum up what I am saying, in your own words; then I'll understand what I'm saying wrong.

You are making a fair amount of sense to me, and I think I get a handle on what you're saying, and it's probably me who can't explain himself too well.

Quote

QuoteBut I think that they do.  In an illusionist game, the PCs have to reasonably follow the existing plot and not wander off in random directions; in a "no myth" game the players have to avoid making moves which require huge amounts of world information to be spontaneously generated at once (like drawing that map).

Absolutely not!  As I've tried to say, there is no decision that players can make, that forces huge amounts of anything to be improvised.

But there IS:  they can decide to drive down Main Street drawing a map.  Now, you can try and stop them doing that (by what is effectively OOC pressure - asking "why?" or "what are you trying to achieve?"), or you can abstract the result ("ok, you have the map") but either way you are avoiding giving them the information that they apparantly wanted, and that their characters SHOULD by all rights have been able to get.  None of these, to me, counts as them "not making the decision".  The moment the words are out of the player's mouth that that's what he wants his PC to do, the decision is made, and it's just up to you whether you respect it or not.

To me, at least, saying that "there's no decision that players can make that forces huge amounts to be improvised" is like an illusionist saying "there's no decision that players can make that derails the plot".  The players can say they're doing stuff that derails it, but any decisions that might derail the plot will fail, or the GM will apply OOC pressure to get them back on track.  Which is really no different to how you seem to advocate responding to the city mapper.

Quote

Quote from: hyphzIf I gave I response like Mike suggested ("ok, you have the map (but I'm notably not telling you what's on it), now what do you do?") that would be no less of a 'slightly in-character smackdown' than the classic responses to an illusionism violation ("nothing interesting happens there - why don't you go to where you know the action is?")

Y'know, I'm just not seeing that.  Yer talking that moon-man talk agin.  How is "What do you want to do" anything but empowering.  Exactly what is a player supposed to do staring at your newly made map?  I just don't get it.  To me, handing them a map shuts them up, asking them "what's next" gets them involved.  I don't get it.

"I go draw a map."  "Ok, you have the map, what now?" Is clearly NOT empowering because you denied them the thing they probably wanted to achieve by drawing the map - that is, getting information about the city.  Now, of course in practise there is no predefined city and you are making it up as required, but the players might just be trying to gather information to find out what they might do next.

What is a player supposed to do staring at the newly made map?  They point somewhere and say "Hey, I want to check this place out."  Or "Hey, we could set up a garrison here."  Or "Hey, here's our escape route."  Or "Hey, this must be where they're hiding the bomb."  They might decide to go to Mervelo's Magic Store marked on the map, even though it would never have occured to them that one might exist before, and they wouldn't have dared suggest it because it would be too outlandish and/or plot-breaking.

Quote
The real question you should be asking (even if you plan on foisting a map on them) is "what for?"  I mean it; what the hell do they do with a map?  What could they do with it that wouldn't be more streamlined if you just did that instead?  Think about it; ask yourself, as a player, what are you going to do with a map?  Now, how can't you just do the very same thing without it?  The same goes for that drawing of store fronts; what's it for?  What do they do with it?

"Hey, look - if you look at that store's logo backwards through a red filter, it's Dr. Evil's insignia!"

Yea, the players *could* just make this up on the fly, but I doubt most players would dare to unless they were fully clued-in on the Narrativist style, because (if they made this up out of the blue) they're effectively forcing the GM to put something related to the villain in that store.  Of course there's nothing wrong with that, but the players may not feel comfortable doing it; I know more about "no myth" than the players and I know I wouldn't feel comfortable improving that as a player.  Certainly, any feeling of having "solved a puzzle" by spotting it would be eliminated if it was improvved.

(Of course, to be realistic this probably wouldn't work as anything BUT either a railroad or a player-improvved twist, but hey..)

Quote
You're just not following.  It's not like "I wanna fight a dragon" and "You turn the corner and there one is."  Where's the Complication in that?  The game starts out, many sessions before when the player expresses an interest in pitting his character against a dragon (whether his character has this interest or not).  So you say, "where do you find one?"  They say, "I dunno."  And you offer, "Who would you ask?"  After that getting the location becomes the Complication.  Once they have the information, they say, "We go to the caves of Glondorak and seek the deadly Snarl."

Right.  But the player still effectively knows that it was the fact he wanted to face a dragon, and tried to seek one out, that led to it being there.   It didn't have to be instantaneous at all.  I think the style you're describing requires a far greater level of player participation than you seem to acknowledge.  There is very little chance of switching to completely 'no myth' GMing unless the other players know exactly what you're doing.  (Certainly in the above example, where an OOC interest drives an IC action ("my character goes to find a dragon, because I want them to fight one"), most players I know who're 'traditionally' conditioned would just call that "bad roleplay"!)

Quote
The point is, without a map, you don't need to fudge any results to get them where you need them.

But you do.  Based on what you've said, you need to fudge like crazy as soon as the players ask for a map! ;)

Quote

Quote from: hyphzThe most popular question of that type I've had before is "How far is the <whatever> away from <whatever>?", expecting an answer in metres.

And you respond, "Why?"  So's mine.  Of what use will you put such information?  If their planning travel time, why not ask in minutes instead of metres?  Moreover, if planning travel time, what exactly are they racing?  'Cuz if it ain't a race, how far or how long is meaningless.  If their trying to determine which is the shortest or fastest trip why not give that information instead.

If they ask in minutes, that doesn't help me much either.  And usually it's "to see if I can shoot from here to there".

Quote
See, this shows that "No Myth" gamemastering probably isn't for you.  If you are asking them to not do something, you are trying to exert some kind of control; I'm not surprised by the turtle behaviour.  "No Myth" gamemastering is about 'releasing control.'

The best tack I've found for the above situation is ask them if they want their character to be totally safe, if so tell them they get their wish and they must wait for the next game.

How in the WORLD is this "not exerting control"?  You're saying "I don't like your character, so change it or you can't play in this game."  The fact you come up with an IC justification hardly matters.

EDIT: Past tense of "improv" is "improvved", not "improved" ;)

Quote from: clehrichThe PCs are standing around on the road, at the scene of a crime, and they're convinced (for some reason) that they shouldn't call the police.  They don't know what to do, and they think there's some Special Thing they should do, because that's what they're used to.  Yes, it's their Genre Expectation: railroaded game.  So you throw a complication: somebody pulls over and says, "You guys need help?"  Okay, they desperately cover up the body and get the guy to go away.  Now they start standing around again, because they don't know what they should do.  So now you have a cop pull up, wondering why there's all these guys standing around the roadside.  What happens now?  The players think -- though they may not say it -- "Okay, we failed, I have no idea what he wanted us to do but we didn't do it, this game sucks, I have no idea what's going on, now he's just going to punish us."  This then colors their interaction with the cop, and besides the whole dynamic is already sliding downhill.

Yea, exactly.  That sounds right.  If the players just aren't doing anything, then throwing in a complication that gives them a clear next move will look like a railroad.  And throwing in ones that don't give them a clear next move will either look like a penalty, *or* it'll look like "hey, the scenario is about defending this area" and you'll start getting KODT moments (In that Indy scenario.. "ANOTHER Nazi band attacks?  Cool!  We'll just wait here - we're weakening their army every time!")

Yea, it's partly the case that "players like railroads", but I think it goes deeper than that: "some players have desires that are paradoxical".  I mean, everyone here knows about the Impossible Thing from a GM's point of view, but what about the same thing from a PLAYER's point of view?  It's a LOT harder to tell them it's impossible, because part of their Impossible expectation is that it'll be delivered by somebody else (as opposed the GM, who expects it delevered by an RP system, or that they'll be able to deliver it to others).

There is no player I hate more than the Information Gatherer.  Most of us have probably played with these guys.  They will ask for every inane detail about everthing and store it all up just in case it might be useful later.  They are like setting detail packrats.  I find they come in two species.

First: the "by necessity" breed.  These players just know that the GM has hidden all sorts of important clues and hidden "easter egg" type surprises throughout the game world..."Hmmm, the restaurant was named Liu  Ming's, we're searching for a stolen Ming vase, and this guys last name is Gordon...just like Flash Gordon and Ming the Merciless...there must be a connection".  These people need to be broken out of this the same as the untrusting players in post about active players in Jack's thread.

Second: the "make the GM squirm" breed.  These players just keep asking for detail after detail after detail until they find something that the GM doesn't know the answer to.  Their response varies.  Some then get pissed off and think the GM is "cheating" and "making stuff up" others just get some twisted satisfaction of showing the GM up.  I've found the latter type to usually be crappy GMs whose sole talent is filling 10 notebooks with every single possible thing you could ever want to know about anything and believing this makes them a great GM.  They then test every GM they play with to see if they are equally "talented" in this regard.  I've found euthanasia to be the only proven method for dealing with this sort of player.

But they are out their Fang and they'll stare at you slack jawed and wonder why they're playing with such an unprepared GM if you try this No Myth style without having broken them in first.

God I hate these types of players.

Quote from: clehrichSomething Hyphz said, and I think John seconded, really caught my attention.  Your players think they're stuck; you personally maybe can see lots of things they could do, but they can't think of anything.  So they ask things like, "Where can we go in this city?" or "Well, what is there to do now?"  What they're really saying is, "We don't know what we're supposed to do, so tell us."

This stuns me, frankly.  This is the #1 problem I have with players, no matter what I'm doing.  I find that a huge number of players (gasp!) love railroads.  They want it all clearly in front of them, so they can sort of semi-passively watch the pretty scenery and do fun shtick (color) things as they go.  The problem is that they ultimately find it somewhat dissatisfying, because they're really not putting anything into the game, and so they don't get much out.

So to my mind, the big issue is how to lead the players from their old habit -- "What do we do now?" -- into the new one -- "Okay, we're going to start making it up as we go along."  Now I realize that the latter case is not explicitly what Fang means, but in fact, few players will admit to the former, either.  Both are implicit, if you see what I mean.

YAY!!!!

Thank you  thankyouthankyouthankyouthankyou!! This is, in fact, one of the biggest problems I've seen in any gaming group I've ever played in. This problem, to my mind, is one of the biggest problems this forum will face when it comes to breaking the player/GM division fostered by years of dysfunctional rules.

Most players do want to be lead, or rather, fall into this trap so easily because, after all, isn't it the job of "that guy" (the hapless GM) to move the world along? Just like coming up with ideas and rewriting the scripts isn't in the player's "job description," they just came here to play their characters, thankyouverymuch?

This is the division, and it's one that seems so damn easy to make. Brand new players have few problems with it, but semi-experienced and experienced players are going to have a significant challenge with that, as it's contrary to what they've learned. How do you get experienced roleplayers to leap that gorge? How do you teach the old dogs new tricks?

And let's not forget how some games encourage that rift, and some players/GMs seem to like it. I remember my fellow player Joe absolutely hating the mechanics for octaNe, because it made it too easy to derail the cool plots he made up. Jen (his girlfriend and fellow gamer) agreed, saying that there were some things she just didn't want to involve herself in when she roleplayed; it was her job to explore her character and the GM's job to set up everything else. She didn't want to add "thinking up what was going to happen next" to her job description.

These are both mature, intelligent people. I'll personally vouch for that. Now you see what we're up against.

I, however, view it as a dysfunctional behavior, and a deep-seated one at that. Why dump "everything else" into the poor GM's lap? Aren't you playing this game, too? Why not go exploring? If you're wrong, something will happen, if you're right something will happen. If your character dies, make up another one! But have the decency to add input and make it constructive and cool. By being proactive, you make everyone's lives easier.

GMs need to loosen up, too. You may have wonderful ideas. But if you're olayers are being proactive and telling you that they want things different from what you have set up, go with their flow, and tell them you'd like to try this thing next. If they're in the least fair, they'll work with you.

But how to set this up? Talking about it at the beginning (maybe with the aid of Universalis to smooth things up) would be ideal. Putting mechanics into our games (like something to the effect that, if a well-played character dies, some of his wisdom in the form of attribute boosts or advantages goes on to the player's next character) to encourage players to explore and add input would be a big help. Rules that encourage a respectful distance between player and character, so that players don't "take it personal" when the character dies would be a plus.

Hyphz, before you game with this crew again, sit them down and explain what you're trying to do. Get their feedback. Tell them that you need them to be proactive, right or wrong. Maybe even run "Bill in Three Persons" again, so that they can apply this new way of thinking to an old adventure and see how much more smoothly it runs when they're actually engaged in what's going on.

BTW, props to both Universalis and Donjon for being among the few games that explicitly engage player input as part of their mechanics. octaNe too, of course.

Quote from: hyphzBut there IS: they can decide to drive down Main Street drawing a map. Now, you can try and stop them doing that (by what is effectively OOC pressure - asking "why?" or "what are you trying to achieve?"), or you can abstract the result ("ok, you have the map") but either way you are avoiding giving them the information that they apparantly wanted, and that their characters SHOULD by all rights have been able to get. None of these, to me, counts as them "not making the decision". The moment the words are out of the player's mouth that that's what he wants his PC to do, the decision is made, and it's just up to you whether you respect it or not.

Hyphz, if one of your player-characters reads a newspaper in-game, does the player have the right to demand that you recite the full text of the entire newspaper, if that's his wish? Are you disrespecting that player's wish for the character to read the newspaper if you just summarize a few notable highlights, or if you ask the player what kind of information the character is looking for?

Wanting to drive down Main Street drawing a map is no different.

Yes, the player's rights to decide the character's choices must be respected. But in the end it's the character who has read the newspaper or drawn the map. Respecting that does not require giving the player a copy of the map or newspaper.

Reading the newspaper means that when the character sees a man on the street, he recognizes him as the brother of the murder suspect from a newspaper photo. Drawing the map means that if the character wants to use an all-night laundromat to set up a dead drop using a coin-op clothes dryer, he knows where one is. Implementing into play the fact that the character has made a map or has read a newspaper is easy and routine. In fact, most systems already have skills/backgrounds like "area knowledge" and systems for using them in play. I've never seen one that requires the knowledge to be written or drawn out in full detail.

Player: "I scan the map looking for the best ambush point." You: "There's a point where the mule's usual route goes along a secluded street with dead-end alleys on each side, on Winter Hill Street between 9th and 10th." Player: "I don't like that, I'd rather have a place with better escape routes if things go wrong." You: "Well, Winter Hill Street goes past a small park a few blocks farther down, with plenty of shrubs for cover, but there's usually two or three winos hanging out there." Player: "That shouldn't be a problem, we can be stealthy and go masked, just in case." Easy.

Quote"Hey, look - if you look at that store's logo backwards through a red filter, it's Dr. Evil's insignia!"

I don't understand this example at all. Who is narrating the quoted sentence, the GM or a player? If it was the GM who put the disguised insignia in the logo, and the GM narrating the characters noticing this, then there are plenty of other ways the GM could have introduced this in play without requiring a drawing of all the store fronts in the city to do it. If it was a player who decided this, then you're playing with a system that allows authoritative world-modifying Director Stance narration by the players, and they don't need a map to do this.

The only thing that would make the drawing necessary is if the GM wanted to present a clue-puzzle to the players by hiding the insignia in one of the store logos and giving them a chance to notice it. But if the GM had designed such a puzzle, he's more likely to want to just tell the players "here's a picture of the store fronts you see on the way to [wherever]" rather than hope that a player would make the odd request of asking what the stores look like.

A player request for a drawing of the store fronts is unlikely to be helpful to anyone in any way in any style of play. The only exception I can think of is some kind of odd semi-participationist mode where the player has reason to believe that such a drawing exists, and is important, but the GM for some reason won't show it to players unless a player-character specifically asks for it.

QuoteIf they ask in minutes, that doesn't help me much either. And usually it's "to see if I can shoot from here to there".

You're missing the point. Once you know why the distance or time is important (if it is), then it's easy to answer the question without using a map. Usually the reason, if there is one, is clear from the context of play, so you don't have to actually ask.

Player: "Joe's bleeding, how far is it to the hospital?"

A far distance, such that Joe's life is threatened by the possibility of not getting there in time, would be a complication. So your answer depends on whether or not you want to add a complication. And only on that, unless consistency constraints exist (e.g. the current location is known to be five minutes from a previously visited location which was two minutes from the hospital, so the hospital should not be more than seven minutes or less than three minutes away).

On the other hand: "The contact said to meet him at the city zoo entrance tomorrow. How far away is that?"

If the distance isn't really important, then it's even easier. You can just make up whatever feels right. In this case the players just want to know to help picture the scene; are they going a few blocks, or to the outskirts of town, or to a distant suburb? They want to know, but they don't really care. And no, that's not a contradiction. It's "help me visualize the transition to the scene," not "it really matters to me what the answer is."

But what if you make up an arbitrary answer that you think isn't important, but the players then proceed to find significance in it or make it important by their actions? The answer is: that's great!

Player: How far is it to the city zoo?
You: A few miles, it's out at the end of the Yellow Line near the western city limits.
Player: You don't say! That would put it in Big Rocco's territory. And he owes me a favor!
You: Ah, yeah, that's right.

On the other hand, when you're talking about shooting, I think you might be taking the "no maps" thing too literally. No map means no decisions about the state of the world being made in advance of when they need to be. Once you reach the point where you're in the tank in downtown Hellholistan trying to get the range on the sniper shooting from the Information Ministry, then go ahead and draw a tactical map if it's needed right now. Not creating maps in advance doesn't mean you're not allowed to create one and use it at need.

- Walt

{Goddamnit Walt! This edit is to note that he beat me to it again.}

This is a lot simpler than people are making it. I think some actual play would give everybody a better idea of how all this works. Play Universalis once, for example. Once you've done that, you can see exactly how a game's expectations can cause a player to play like you want. It would be absurd to ask for a map in Universalis. Who would you think would provide that map with no GM? You don't. Instead you just build the map as you need it (which was, interestingly, the entire inspiration for the game).

First, yes, players have to be disabused of the notion that they will have access or a need for all the sorts of information that they might have needed in other games. People who are protesting that players do ask for this kind of stuff are pointing out exactly why it's good to move to the "No Myth" style of play. Because they'll stop having these problems. The assumption seems to be that the players are just uncreative. But that's not the problem at all. The problem is that the players are used to thinking that their creativity is not empowered, and, in fact, quite dangerous. So no surprise in such a game they practice turtling and look to the GM for guidance. They expect it.

Take away that expectation, and replace it with the expectation that their creativity will be rewarded, and voila! No more turtling players.

Hyphz, you're sorta misreading my ideas. First, I tend to use a very Zen master sort of teaching methodology. I have no patience for people who are unwilling to learn. So I do tend to club people over their heads with their own ignorance, even if it's not their fault. So when I turn the tables on a player, it's not meant as a smackdown power wise. It's meant to teach.

More importantly, who says the player isn't empowered by getting a map he can't see? I tried to explain this already, but this is where the disconnnect occurs for you. You seem to think that the character and player are one and the same. That is, if the character has a map, that they player should also have one, or the player is not empowered.

In boffer LARP, you actually carry swords around as players if the character has one, and you actually use it. Do you do that in tabletop? That is, if the character has a sword, and the player does not, is the player any less empowered? Same with a map. So you say that the character has a map, but you don't give the player one. Does that mean that the player can't then have the character find his way around? No, he can do just fine. The map should add to his ability to use skills like navigation or area knowledge. Basically success at one action becomes a mechanical or even just situational bonus in play for the character (and hence the player). You never need the actual prop, unless that's somehow pertinent to the conflict of play. As in boffers in boffer larp.

So, yes, in some styles of play you need these props. The one you play in now requires maps. The one Fang describes requires none because all Conflict is on the character level. The player only directs the character, the player neither fights, nor does he interperet maps.

Take this further example. Player finds a little puzzle box. Now, if you have a puzzle box, you could give it to the player, and let him puzzle it out. Is it OK for you as the GM to just say to the player that the charcter has one, and must roll? Sure, who would argue that?

It's only because maps have become expected (that wargaming heritage again) that we're even having this discussion.

Set your group's expectations correctly, and the "No Myth" style is easy as pie to pull off.

Now, will this satisfy every player? No. I personally think that as long as expectations are truely agreedto that anyone can enjoy any game. But some curmudgeons will insist on certain elements for whatever reason. And that's their right. So for some small number this method isn't going to work.

But again, it's only because it's non-traditional that people are even here arguing that it's problematic. Get past that tradition and this becomes yet another cool way to play amongst all the others.

Mike

Okay,

We need to cool down (me especially).  We're talkin' right past each other with all the 'players do this' and 'players don't do that.'  There is one important point that I thought went without saying.

Dysfunction players play dysfunctionally.[/list:u]The reason this is so important is that there is nothing, absolutely no way, to design a game or develop a play or gamemaster style that will change this fact.  What I thought went without saying was that we aren't talking about these people.

I'm sorry Hyphz, if your players insist on playing dysfunctional, no style, mine included, will make play enjoyable for anyone else.  Ralph names two of the most prevalent of the kind you keep throwing up as examples, Cluemasters and Flaw-hounds.  The Cluemaster is convinced that buried somewhere in the voluminous campaign notes are pieces of information that, when fit together, form a picture of what is 'really' going on so they don't need to do it 'the hard way' (often claiming that they enjoy the feeling of 'solving the puzzle').  Flaw-hounds pit themselves against the gamemaster (and fun, often) trying to find a mistake in the background (for whatever reasons; to exploit, to get 'the edge,' or whatever).  Both of these types suffer from the idea that a gamemaster should, or even can, be a perfect simulation of a fictional reality.  Since this is obviously impossible, their play is automatically dysfunctional.  These types of players don't need to unlearn bad habits, they need to 'start over.'

If you have dysfunctional players who aren't willing to 'start over' drop them; no amount of flexibility on your part will result in anything more than a dysfunctional relationship.

Clehrich offers another type of player who can either be dysfunctional or not (basically told by whether they cause problems or have fun together - there is no other way to differentiate).  "Players who aren't doing anything" cause problems for any gamemaster, but the only proper cure is to say, "Why don't you do something?"  Dysfunctional, 'static players' return to this state again and again, not out of bad habit but for a number of other desperate reasons.  (Some say they're being defensive; I don't think it matters, all that matters is that they keep trying to remain static.)  Non-dysfunctional, 'static players' soon realize that if they don't act, nothing happens; it's their game.  (Or a rarer and harder to manage game is needed, something I've been calling the "rollercoaster;" the gamemaster takes them on a fun and exciting ride because it's all him - that's functional but not necessarily "No Myth" gamemastering.  I suspect that if 'fudging to get them where they have to be' bothers you, this will too.)

Now, I'm not going to get back into this circular quote and respond thing again because all you keep saying ultimately is, "But this won't work for dysfunctional players."  Or course it won't, because they're dysfunctional!  I may point out examples of dysfunctional play, but otherwise I will not try to cater to that kind of example when explaining "No Myth" gamemastering; there is no point to it.

Maps

Maps are a form of Prop.  A Prop is anything that makes some actions by the characters less difficult.  The actual information contained in the map only matters to the characters, all that can therefore matter to the players is that they can have their characters do certain things more easily (that's textbook empowerment).  Any other requirement is a result of dysfunctional play.  (When I say requirement, I mean it; if the gamemaster already has, or wants to make, a map, it is just another in a long list of wonderful gimmicks that can be used.  Players making a requirement of it is the evidence of dysfunction.)  This goes for drawings of storefronts, listings of businesses, or any similar Prop (see Ralph's dysfunctional players above).

You don't need them.

Here There Be Dragons

So, are your players active or reactive?

Doesn't matter.[/list:u]Active players will have things they want to do (slay dragons and find treasure for example).  They communicate this to you and you select Complications based upon that kind of 'narrowing' of the Genre Expectations.

Reactive players want things to happen.  These things match the content of the Genre Expectations too, except you pick.  You run a few 'blank Complications' past them until the see something they fancy (burned village(r)s and stolen treasures for example).  Once they do, you're off on exactly the same journey as before less the 'investigation.'

In fact, both of these function just as well without investigatory characters; all you need to know is what will hold the interest of the players.  If at least the players are interested, that's all that is needed.  Needing to 'feed players the clues' is a hallmark of dysfunctional, uninterested, or 'static' players.

Yes, it's true that the players should be aware that you are interested in their desires; shouldn't they be?  One argument often levied is that 'knowing that the players interest will make things happen for their characters' is bad.  I should say not; that is what anticipation is all about.  The only time knowing that player interest shapes the game is bad is for dysfunctional players.  (And yes, it is possible that 'once things get going' the players will forget, that's fine as long as they never believe that their interests are worthless.)

I'm Allergic to Fudge

A 'fudge' is when the rules, scenario, background, or other previously agreed upon 'thing' is altered covertly to make something else happen.  It primarily relates to die rolls in common usage.

If there are no maps, no concrete background, no scenario packet or module, then you can't fudge them.  It has been pointed out, quite rightly, that not many rules systems can support "No Myth" gamemastering; that's sad but true (I'm working on a solution, so help me).  For those games, yes, fudging die rolls is a necessity, but the purpose, meaning, and results are far different.

Before (per your complaint) you had to fudge rolls to get players 'where they needed to be.'  In "No Myth" gamemastering, you alter the 'place they needed to be' so that it passes for 'where they went anyway.'  That means no fudging of die rolls in that sense.  The 'place they needed to be' in "No Myth" gamemastering isn't defined by some prearranged scenario, it comes from shaping the gross movements of play towards a generalized form 'listed' in the Genre Expectations.  So too go the fudged die rolls.  The purpose is to make the game come out more like the players expect generally, not specifically.  This means that only extreme results must be edited, usually for the sake of loyalty to the Genre Expectations that the players helped choose in the first place.  (For example, protagonists aren't allowed to die in the Genre Expectations where they don't.  If players want character death, they must pick different Genre Expectations; either way, the fudging doesn't even need to be covert, the players know they are getting what they want.)  The result is that the game is satisfying because it doesn't breach player expectation.  (Keeping this kind of fudging covert supports people who don't want to focus on "it's just a game" and would rather focus on "What's going on.")

It Builds Character

When it comes to character creation, I prescribe that all games make this a shared practice whenever possible, not just "No Myth" gamemastering.  Nothing spoils the flow of a game more than many surprises (mind you a few 'plot twists' is healthy, but many turns the game into chaos).  I've yet to see one good reason that the group ought to avoid having their characters and game formed communally.  ('We can't get together' is a reason why it can't happen, not why it should be avoided.)

The major advantage is that no one gets that 'unpleasant surprise' during play (like "I made up a senator, will that be a problem now that we're deep in this dungeon?").  Does this mean players are allowed no secrecy at all?  Far from it, a few potent secrets can be a lot of fun, but saying that all character information should be top secret is plain dysfunctional.  Trying to gamemaster 'around' this kind of dysfunction is limited at best and foolhardy at worst.

In Scattershot we call these 'few potent secrets' by the name 'Mystiques' for a number of reasons.  In practice, a player simply says "this relates to one of my Persona's Mystiques" and the others respect his right to privacy (id est non-dysfunctional play).  Everything else is 'on the table;' like hold cards and face up cards, Mystiques are the 'hold cards' in your 'hand.'  Not even the gamemaster is allowed to know the content of a player's Mystique necessarily, but expects it to regularly impact play.  Player who have Mystiques that involve things not within their Proprietorship (the stuff they have say over in the game) will need to conspire with those that do (not necessarily the gamemaster).[/list:u]If everyone is working together on character/game creation (settling on Genre Expectations and so on together), then it becomes quickly apparent how the group dynamic is forming for the characters.  This makes the 'oddball' character more than just a problem for the gamemaster, but the players expectations as well.  Y'see, anyone at such a session could have suggested the senator was being transported to negotiations, not just the gamemaster.  Why?  Because it affects what they get to play too doesn't it?  Saying this is all a problem for the gamemaster (for however traditional it is) is dysfunctional.  (You're basically saying the gamemaster is hostage to making play fun no matter how hard the players try to wreck that, intentionally or unintentionally.)

So this means in "No Myth" gamemastering, the gamemaster isn't trying to control what the players create for their characters, he is trying to help them see the consequences of their actions (especially as a group).  Most importantly, the gamemaster is allowed to say, "I don't think I can run this."  In a dysfunctional group this alternative can be wielded in a passive-aggressive way, but again, no style works for a dysfunctional relationship.  The gamemaster is just as human as any other player, he cannot be expected to do everything; a gamemaster who knows his limits is good, one who can negotiate things to prevent 'going there' is better.

Out of Control

The most important issue overall in this thread seems to be one of control.  Most of the responses I've read from Hyphz seem to separate it into extremes; either the gamemaster is in total control or everything is out of control.  That's not how this works, "No Myth" gamemastering functions by 'whoever is speaking' is in control.  When the players talk, the gamemaster attempts to respond their desires (both immediate and prearranged) in game form.  'Absolute control' resides in no single person.  Each supplies and supports portions of play as they like, none are cut off, nor does any one dominate.

This is not rulership by committee, but by appointee.  If you have a commanding player(s) (and everyone likes it that way) his way is how the game goes; the gamemaster follows too.  If you don't have any, then the gamemaster 'gets his marching orders' from the group consensus (not the ongoing one, but the one set up in place of all the maps and scenarios at the beginning, often in the Genre Expectations).  Because a gamemaster 'does things for the good of the game' (like suggesting alternative characters), it should not be he who is in control, but the consensus of the group.  (Surely you can imagine a leader chosen by consensus doing what the consensus desires without constant polling.)

The whole premise of "No Myth" gamemastering is one of 'handing over (more) control' to the players (often without seeming like it).  If you can't get past that part, or can only imagine dysfunction responses to it, I can't help you.  Try something else.

Fang Langford

I've been following this discussion with considerable interest.  And largely, I agree with the comments made by clehrich, Spooky and Ralph.  But  I wanted to add a few comments myself.

First, Fang's method IS functional.  I know because I've used it myself.  But it won't work for every mentality and approach to gaming on the player's end.  I don't think Fang ever claimed that it did.

It won't work for player's who derive their pleasure from taking stock of their resources and THEN deciding what the best course of action is.  Your "Garison" example is perfect.  You have to ask what order did the desires come in?  Did the player want to try and figure out what to do based on the a priori resources at hand?  OR Did the player want to see if there was a good spot SPECIFICALLY to set up a Garrison.

The "No Myth" method will work for the SECOND player it won't work for the first player.  It won't work for the first player because you're cheating them out of exercising their tactical and analytical skills which is what is "fun" for them.  It WILL work for the second player because he already has all his imaginative energy invested in a particular idea.  So all you have to do is roll, say, the character's Tactics skills.  If they succeed then there's a good spot to set up a Garrison, make up the details from there.  If they fail then, nope, the city just isn't defensible that way.

You see, "No Myth" assumes the PLAYERS are driven active participants who know what cool things they want to try and see have happen.  These players don't ask, "What are our options?" but "Will this approach work?"  "No Myth" won't work for puzzle solvers, tacticians or what I call economic/political/cultural analysts.

The question you have to ask yourself is WHAT DO YOU ENJOY?  What do YOU want?

Jesse

For some people who are into exploration of setting, there needs to be an established setting for them to feel a genuine sense of exploration.

Fudging of the kind Fang is talking about - fudging the world - requires a metagame agenda; some people view a metagame agenda as undesirable in play.

Quote from: Ian CharvillFudging of the kind Fang is talking about - fudging the world - requires a metagame agenda; some people view a metagame agenda as undesirable in play.

Exactly.  I've met players whose primary source of fun is spending WHOLE sessions doing nothing but debating Setting politics, in Character, with their fellow PCs.  You can't do that if their ain't no Setting politics in place to debate.

Jesse

Quote from: Ian CharvillFor some people who are into exploration of setting, there needs to be an established setting for them to feel a genuine sense of exploration.

Fudging of the kind Fang is talking about - fudging the world - requires a metagame agenda; some people view a metagame agenda as undesirable in play.

This is a very illuminating and enjoyable thread - I just wanted to highlight and expand upon this point.  Here's how it seems to me: if the game is all about exploration of setting (that is, the most important goal of play is wandering around in an interesting and "consistent enough" - by whatever group standard applies - world), then yes, if the plot reaches a standstill of some kind, you aren't "allowed" to do things that violate that goal.  That's because the plot is not the primary point of play.  If it is, you make a choice to sacrifice a bit of that setting-emphasis in favor of the plot (which I'm using here as a possible stand in for Sim-Explore-Situation and/or full on Nar-Story, even though it's not really descriptive of either).

Bottom line - you can SOMETIMES have it both ways, but you can't ALWAYS have it both ways.  That's an important insight I think many here at the Forge have helped develop - there really are tradeoffs in these situations where you have to emphasize one side or the other.  If the players can see no way to move forward that flows naturally from what they've managed to pick-up about the setting, and they insist on entirely setting-derived play - there is no way for them to move forward.  You need to either accept that as a possible occurence, or you need to be willing to bring in SOMETHING that doesn't flow naturally from what they've managed to pick up about the setting.  That something can be director power for the players, an OOC comment from the GM, plausibilty-bending world events . . . many, many things.  But if you get to that situation, you'll need to apply some tool to get out - or again, just accept it as part of play.

Avoiding getting into that situation . . . can be done, but often usually involves a) using those same tools ongoingly (which is perhaps less obvious, and thus more acceptable to some), b) a group that knows each other and their closely-shared play style very, very well, or c) a good dose of luck.  And even then, there's no guarantee - just an increased likelyhood.

Gordon

Lot's of information I disagree with flying around here.

First, while this style of play is not particularly conducive to Gamism, Jesse, there's no reason why parts of play can't remain more Gamist. But, yes, as has been repeated about a jillion times not all players will like this style. Nobody, and I mean nobody has said that it would. So I wish people would stop pointing that out.

That said, I think that people are falling into the trap of assuming that if a player likes one sort of game, that he can't like others. Which I am vehemently against. I personally like all these proposed styles and their "opposites". So, while, yes, occasionally I like to explore what I percieve as a "stable" or "costant" predefined world, I also can enjoy this other form of play. One doesn't have to be narrow in what they choose to enjoy. As such, I think that most players can enjoy any style if given enough time, understanding and encouragement.

But, yes, there will be curmudgeons as I point out. Nobody said they had to play this way.

Also, what does it matter where the information comes from as to it's relative permenance? I think that people are confused that if things are created at need, that they, therefor, just dissapear after they leave the "screen". That's just not so. Once a person, place, thing, concept, whatever, is established, it remains in play as a permenant thing.

So if I establish that Blazonia is next to Talaria, and you establish that Talaria is an agricultural nation, then it's logical to say that a possible reason for Blazonia ro invade Talaria is so that they can take their abundant food products. I'm not seeing how the idea that some facts are made up on the spot means that they're any less important in play.

Indeed, even in the most well established setting, the players only know the details once they've been transmitted to them either via the text or the GM narration. What does it really matter where the information comes from as long as it makes sense? The facts will occur, and then they can be discussed (creating more facts possily).

To get back to the Gamism issue, once the facts have been established, then "normal" Gamism can commence. Even if the players are creating a lot of detail they can frame a playing filed, and conduct tactical challenges upon it. These have as much "realness" to them as any element added by a GM.

The only reason to object has to be aesthetic. And I understand better than most the idea that such metagame creation can void the SpecSimInt that some people demand. Again, this style is just not for them. Big deal.

I think that people here who haven't played this way really should before commenting further. I really think that they see this mode as radically different from how they're used to playing. But I'd bet that in play, they'll find that it's really not all that different from what they're familiar with. That "sometimes" that Gordon mentions where the two modes work the same is, actually, very large.

One thing I think people think is that what Fang suggested has to be like Universalis (which is radically different), in that the players make everything up. This just isn't so. The GM can still make everything up in this style. He just does it only as needed. Allowing the players to help is just an added benefit assuming that they want to do so. The players aren't forced to do such creation other than the most reasonable request.

Would you think that a player would object if his character opened up a closet, and you said, "You see normal closet stuff." Well, you are asking the player there to visualize the contents of the closet and therefore make them up. Would you object if then the player said, "I pull out a shirt." ? Unlikely. So you see all GMs do this all the time. In Fang's style, he's just asking the player to envision things on a little larger scale. We all know what's in a closet. If we all know what a "modern urban area" looks like, and I think we all do, then how is it any different to be asked to create the McDonalds yourself?

This is what Genre Expectations are.

Mike

Quote from: Mike HolmesThat said, I think that people are falling into the trap of assuming that if a player likes one sort of game, that he can't like others. Which I am vehemently against. I personally like all these proposed styles and their "opposites". So, while, yes, occasionally I like to explore what I percieve as a "stable" or "costant" predefined world, I also can enjoy this other form of play. One doesn't have to be narrow in what they choose to enjoy. As such, I think that most players can enjoy any style if given enough time, understanding and encouragement.

Me Too, on the enjoy many forms stuff.  But, I think it must also be said - it really works MUCH better if the participants are aware of what style a particular game is.

Quote from: Mike HolmesI think that people here who haven't played this way really should before commenting further. I really think that they see this mode as radically different from how they're used to playing. But I'd bet that in play, they'll find that it's really not all that different from what they're familiar with. That "sometimes" that Gordon mentions where the two modes work the same is, actually, very large.

I'll reinforce the "not all that different" in my experience (well, that should probably be not NECCESARILY all that different), but add that while the "sometimes" is very, very large, the "not always" is very, very problematic when it does come up.  That's what I see happening in hyphz's situation - he hit one of those very problematic spots, and is having trouble deciding which side of the fence to come down on - 'cause he, like most people, wants to have it both ways ALL the time.  But sometimes he can't - sometimes, he's gotta choose.

Which - as I think Mike is saying - does NOT mean you get "stuck" on one side of the fence.  There will still be plenty of opportunities to (e.g.) explore the situation even if you decide to prioritize the plot when you hit the rough spots.

Gordon

EDIT some minor typos, and to add - hypz, my advice is ask the players what they think the right resolution to a "stalled" plot is.  What kinds of things are acceptable?  What isn't?  One of my play groups recently stunned our GM when we told him that if we're just spinning our wheels, we think it's PERFECTLY OK for him to say "uh, guys? - you might just go to the castle and see what happens . . . "

I know this will further confuse things, but it needs to be pointed out.

You can have "No Myth" gamemastering with a map.[/list:u]Wait!  Before you get out the guillotine, remember what I said before; you don't

need a map.  That's very important.  If you already have a map, I don't see why that can't be a part of the Genre Expectations.  Say we want a game set in New York instead of Superman's Metropolis; go ahead and get a map.  The agreement (or the expectation) is that no one will use the map 'to pull a fast one' on anyone else, players and gamemasters included.

What I have been so insistent about is that a map cannot and should not be forced, especially not in "No Myth" gamemastering, but importantly not in non-dysfunctional play (boy, that sure is getting to be a mouthful).

Fang Langford

Quote from: Le JoueurThe reason this is so important is that there is nothing, absolutely no way, to design a game or develop a play or gamemaster style that will change this fact.  What I thought went without saying was that we aren't talking about these people.

I'm sorry Hyphz, if your players insist on playing dysfunctional, no style, mine included, will make play enjoyable for anyone else.

I agree with that.  But there's a side issue here.  Thing is, an awful lot of the stuff I've seen on The Forge is about identifying what the players want, whether that's using GNS or other things.  However, sometimes, what the players want is The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast.  In their perception, what they want is to be the main protagonists in a story that they lead, but for it to magically turn out that the exact story they happen to choose is the one the GM prepared.

The problem there is, it's very hard to show them that it's impossible.  For a GM, it's reasonably easy because they have experience trying to deliver it and failing.  For players, though, it's just "that game didn't work" or "that GM didn't do it very well".  

Also, the fact that they want that Impossible Thing doesn't necessarily mean they play dysfunctionally.  Very often, they play Illusionism quite well, but then gripe about it afterwards or feel disappointed.  But they resist trying the 'no myth' style because giving up the idea that there is an existant world in the GM's head is a lot harder than quietly looking the other way (with a muted sigh) when the railway tracks come into view.

The reason I say this is that I've seen a few times the suggestion that people who might try to "break" the 'no myth' style just don't like it, or aren't ready for it, or similar.  But some of them try just as hard to break Illusionism, given the chance.

Quote
Ralph names two of the most prevalent of the kind you keep throwing up as examples, Cluemasters and Flaw-hounds.  The Cluemaster is convinced that buried somewhere in the voluminous campaign notes are pieces of information that, when fit together, form a picture of what is 'really' going on so they don't need to do it 'the hard way' (often claiming that they enjoy the feeling of 'solving the puzzle').  

See, I agree with the fact they're trying to piece the clues together, but I don't agree that it's "so they don't have to do it the hard way".  What they WANT is that, IF they find the solution, then that will be what the GM always intended them to do (ie, solving the puzzle WAS "the hard way"); but, if they DON'T, then the GM would likewise have predicted that they wouldn't.  Of course, this is impossible, but that doesn't stop people expecting it, especially when they've been conditioned to by RPG books!

QuoteSince this is obviously impossible, their play is automatically dysfunctional.

In the case of the Flaw-Hound definately, in the case of the Cluemaster maybe.  But, simply having impossible expectations DOESN'T automatically make their play dysfunctional; the player may simply be disappointed at not getting their expectations but amend their play style to fit with the GM's.

Quote
"Players who aren't doing anything" cause problems for any gamemaster, but the only proper cure is to say, "Why don't you do something?"  

Remember that, once these players have worked out that their expectations are not going to be met (because they are impossible) they will start to try and adapt to the GM's campaign.  That means that they'll want the GM to tell them that there's a police station in the city (for example), not because they don't realise that a typical city would have a police station, but because they want to know that it's OK with the GM for them to go to the police station.  And I'm not sure that this can be called dysfunctional play, because although the RESULT may be dysfunctional, the players' actual intent is precisely to FUNCTION within the GM's desired parameters!  If they get that map, or a list of places in the city, they know that the GM is effectively saying "I'm OK for you to go to all these places."  As far as the players are concerned, they're making it EASIER for you by asking for that map.

Now, you've said that the only solution to the players you described as dysfunctional, was to 'start over'.  What exactly does that mean you (the GM) doing or asking them to do?

Quote from: Mike Holmes
This is a lot simpler than people are making it. I think some actual play would give everybody a better idea of how all this works. Play Universalis once, for example. Once you've done that, you can see exactly how a game's expectations can cause a player to play like you want. It would be absurd to ask for a map in Universalis.

Well, to be blunt, I'm not sure about playing Universalis because I can't understand the rulebook. ;)

Quote
Take away that expectation, and replace it with the expectation that their creativity will be rewarded, and voila! No more turtling players.

But I think jburneko nailed it on the head here.  Perhaps they don't want to play creativity.  Perhaps they want to play intelligent use of existing resources, or situational tactics, or similar.  If they want to do that, they have to have a concrete set of resources, or situation, to work from.

QuoteSo I do tend to club people over their heads with their own ignorance, even if it's not their fault. So when I turn the tables on a player, it's not meant as a smackdown power wise. It's meant to teach.

The only problem is telling THEM that ;) ;)

Quote
You seem to think that the character and player are one and the same. That is, if the character has a map, that they player should also have one, or the player is not empowered.

No.  *I* understand how a player can be empowered without getting the map.  However, I know that many *players* I've encountered would not feel empowered without getting it.  "How am I supposed to work out what my character does based on this map, if I don't know what's ON the map?"

QuoteThat is, if the character has a sword, and the player does not, is the player any less empowered?

Except that it's EXPECTED that combat will be somewhat abstracted, and also a sword isn't information.  You don't need a sword to describe your character doing a parry and riposte, but you DO need to know what a parry and riposte is.  

QuoteTake this further example. Player finds a little puzzle box. Now, if you have a puzzle box, you could give it to the player, and let him puzzle it out. Is it OK for you as the GM to just say to the player that the charcter has one, and must roll? Sure, who would argue that?

Fine, but many players would consider solving a puzzle by making an Intelligence roll to be overabstraction that's turning the entire game over to the dice.  "Gee, I might as well roll Intelligence to decide where I go next too, and roll Charisma to see what I decide to say to folks.  Heck, why don't you roll them and tell us what happens?"  Abstraction is seen as disempowering in the extreme, not empowering.

QuoteNow, you've said that the only solution to the players you described as dysfunctional, was to 'start over'. What exactly does that mean you (the GM) doing or asking them to do?

For starters, quit trying to guess where the GM wants them to go and just play.

Quote from: HyphzNow, you've said that the only solution to the players you described as dysfunctional, was to 'start over'. What exactly does that mean you (the GM) doing or asking them to do?

Quote from: ValamirFor starters, quit trying to guess where the GM wants them to go and just play.

No, stop a second.  Let's all step back and take deep breaths.  We're starting to slide into the whole "who's dysfunctional and who isn't" thing, and that's endless and pointless.

Hyphz asks, for me, the $64,000 question.  Let me rephrase:

Assume you have players who have never played a No Myth style, and are exceedingly wary of it (it's cheating, it's fudging, etc.), but who genuinely are somewhat dissatisfied with straight Illusionist games.  You, the GM, want to get them into this new style.  Your reason?  You think they will like it, and will get into it, once they really give it a try.  You want to make your game fun for everyone, and you think they will find it so.

The problem is getting them to give it a real try.

Now the question is this:

Apart from simply describing the style, which in my experience doesn't work because either (1) they think they're already doing this, but aren't, or (2) they think it sounds like cheating/fudging/etc., what can you do to draw them toward another style?

Fang, for someone who talks a lot about sliding and shifting among styles, you seem to be proposing rigid boundaries between styles.  I don't mean you're saying that No Myth is the right style, but I do see you saying that No Myth is radically distinct from others, and as such one can only do that or not do that; no slides can occur.

I don't buy it.  And I think that there has got to be a way to encourage Drift toward a No Myth style, allowing people to get their feet wet before diving in at the deep end.

I honestly don't think Hyphz is saying that No Myth can't work for his players.  The problem is, they don't like the sound of it.  If they actually experience it, they are likely to love it --- that, anyway, is Hyphz's hope.  So how do you get them to drift?

Chris, there are two easy solutions.

For one, I really don't think that Hyphz wants to try this at all. He sounds defensive and scared. In fact he seems to be fighting it tooth and nail making it much harder than it is (its a RPG for chrissake, not brain surgery). If that's the case, then he shouldn't use Fangs model. He should only use it if he is comfortable with it. As we've pointed out before, again and again, "No Myth" is just one option, and we've given advice on how to improve the Illusionist game as well.

There's really no amount of advice that we can give here that doesn't boil down to, "just do it". Given that this seems to work for everyone who genuinely tries it, I can't imagine what else to say.

Second, if there is a Magic Bullet to solving this problem, it's playing a game that doesn't allow for the players to play any other way than "No Myth". For example, SOAP, Donjon, or InSpectres (don't need to go as far as Universalis; are these other games also incomprehensible?). If they play a game like this, one of two things will occur. Either the players will suddenly "get it", or they'll make it abundantly clear that they'll never like this sort of thing.

Either way, problem solved. You then either have converts, or you know not to even attempt it.

Fang does say that going with this method whole hog is a radical change. But as his map post just above points out, it's not something that has to completely dominate play. One can transition back and forth.

But there is no method of "sliding" that I'm aware of that isn't going to take way more time than it's worth, IMO, in terms of trying to ascertain player aceptance. People talk about using such stealth methods, and I've never heard one actually work.

To speculate on what it would look like, you'd have to start expanding on the "closet" idea. That is, allow the players to make up what's in the closet, or at least see that you're winging the contents yourself. Then you'd move on to larger things like establishing the content of entire rooms this way (and what GM doesn't do this already). Then whole locations. Then NPCs. etc. Just work your way up. This would require probably several entire games to accomplish subtly. And then you'd still have no garuntee that it would work.

Which just to me argues for one hour-long session of SOAP. Much more efficient. Open communication seems to me to always be better for this than subtley. If not, then play Illusionist. That's what one form of Illusionism is, anyway; subtly doing the "No Myth" thing without telling the players that you're doing it.

I mean, if the players are that resistant, and you really, really want to change styles (and Illusionism is just no the way for you), the answer is simple. Get different players. (Cue statements about friends and these guys being the only players in all of London).

Mike

P.S. I've said this so often that if it comes up again, I'm almost certainly going to make it a standard rant.

Hey Clehrich,

A ray of sunshine...

Quote from: clehrichNo, stop a second.  Let's all step back and take deep breaths.  We're starting to slide into the whole "who's dysfunctional and who isn't" thing, and that's endless and pointless.

Very well put.  I was pondering, this morning, how to say something similar.  My point was going to be map-based and background-based play are sound, rational, and working styles.  So is "Rollercoasterism" (where everyone expects the gamemaster to take the game 'for a ride.').  The dysfunction isn't in any one style or any one player; it arises in 'style clash.'  If you have a No Myth gamemaster running "Rollercoasterism" players, you've got dysfunction regardless how valid.  This is where you see the dysfunctional reactions, "They force me to do [such and so]."  You can't force someone to do what they like (well, you know what I mean).  What one person expects can seem like force to another.

But no single person has to be wrong.

And if this is the real problem here, the only solution is...

     Don't
             Play
                     Their
                             Game....

Quote from: clehrichAssume you have players who have never played a No Myth style, and are exceedingly wary of it (it's cheating, it's fudging, etc.), but who genuinely are somewhat dissatisfied with straight Illusionist games.  You, the GM, want to get them into this new style.  Your reason?  You think they will like it, and will get into it, once they really give it a try.  You want to make your game fun for everyone, and you think they will find it so.

...I honestly don't think Hyphz is saying that No Myth can't work for his players.  The problem is, they don't like the sound of it.  If they actually experience it, they are likely to love it --- that, anyway, is Hyphz's hope.  So how do you get them to drift?

I'm not sure I've heard anything attributed to Hyphz's actual players, only theoretical ones.  I'll wait and see how he describes how he perceives their needs and desires.

Quote from: clehrichWhat can you do to draw them toward another style?

Fang, for someone who talks a lot about sliding and shifting among styles, you seem to be proposing rigid boundaries between styles.  I don't mean you're saying that No Myth is the right style, but I do see you saying that No Myth is radically distinct from others, and as such one can only do that or not do that; no slides can occur.

I don't buy it.  And I think that there has got to be a way to encourage Drift toward a No Myth style, allowing people to get their feet wet before diving in at the deep end.

Well, waddaya know.

Someone finally got to the part I'm working on.  Y'see, I been toilin' away on Scattershot for some time.  I gots Mechanix.  I gots Techniques.  I even found the centralized crux of how it works (pretty close to the No Myth stuff, a form of gaming founded upon recognizing, using, and emphasizing the Complications that occur in play to cement a consistent level of pacing and engagement).  Here is where I bin doing most of my 'cutting edge work,' mon.

A looong time ago, I coined the word Transition for a type of game that not only adapts to Drift, but had mechanics to support and make that happen.  At first a lot of people talked about it, then there was a phase of 'when I see it,' and then it kinda got forgotten.  Why?  My guess is the idea is just too far 'out there.'  But I never stopped working on it.

My methods are, as always, very slow.  My direction has been this; identify major styles first (the first part is what looks like "rigid boundaries" - like settling the terminology between what's a shark and what's a ray before you start using them), then permutations (looking for overlap), and finally figure out how to ratchet between them.  All the No Myth work here has been an attempt to clarify a valid, though different, style.  I'm not sure where I put it, but I posted that you could easily play No Myth with a map; that's a derivation of No Myth that edges towards "Plotless Background-based Play."  I've felt there was some confusion over in the thread about that; some seem to see little difference between a style focused entirely on the continuous thread of the player character's lives and one focused on the continuity of the background (here's a hint, each puts the other's priority at least second).

So once I get a handle on the No Myth style (and start seeing the rational permutations), I'll need to make a collection of the major style types of dealing with gaming (and their permutations), and from this I can make my first 'style map.'  With that I can see how the 'terrain' overlaps and maybe how to ratchet between parts.  What's been tripping me up here is the insistence that 'in between' forms are being touted as impossible.  Difficult, I could grant, but out of hand impossible, I think a little more thought and discussion is needed.

But that doesn't help much here, does it?

Okay, how to slide towards No Myth?  I'm not really sure (I mean, I know what a shark is, and what most definitely isn't a shark - potentially a ray - but I don't know what Hyphz has).  Here's what I can offer as ways to 'build out' from No Myth in order to perhaps reach the point of overlap.  How to reach this point 'from the other side' is not something I can comment about until I know what that is.[list=1]

• Maps
  
  
  I'm not entirely sure why this is such a big issue here, but....  Maps can be used in No Myth provided that they are community property and included, up front as a part of the Genre Expectations.  (If you move to another place where the map doesn't cover, that's when play takes a break; only Flaw-hounds
  need to press ahead at that point.  Only when the map, that part of the Genre Expectations, is prepared, can play resume.  This must be understood up front; only that way will the players be able to make an informed decision and not expect the impossible.)[/list:u]
  
• Plots
  
  
  There is some implication that the players
  want to follow a plot of some kind and yet remain oblivious to it.  While normally this amounts to Railroading, Illusionism, or Participationism, that's not the approach in No Myth.  To create a plot, you must first narrow the explicit Genre Expectations down to only two or three Sequences (never one).  Which then becomes a Mystique; this is important because there should be no secrecy that there is a plot of some kind, in fact there should be the open opportunity for players to speculate what it might be (pokerface-time Mr. Gamemaster).  Take this a step farther too; keep up a strong implication that there's a plot, but not like a club to hit them, flirt about it ("Wouldn't you like to know.")  As long as they still want to know what this 'secret plot' is, No Myth is firing on all cylinders.
  
  Exercising the plot will be markedly different than you're used to; you don't plan the who and the where, you plan the ups and downs.  You are watching how play is going to see, "Is it time for the introduction of the ultimate villain?" or "Do the character get to regroup at this point?"  Each Complication must be thought of in terms of how it impacts the order of ups and downs in the plot.  For an example of how to introduce and play out Complications (according to the comedy adventure movie Genre Expectation) see my weblog (http://www.scattershotgames.com/comments.php?id=P101_0_1_0_C).  (In which you can see that the gamemaster is piecing together the final conflict, place, time, and et cetera, as he goes.)
  
  The simplest advice I can give is take whatever scene you want next and mangle its details so it matches where the players are going.  As long as they have what you want for them at the end of it, it doesn't matter what it's geographic/temporal location is.[/list:u]
  
• Non-Player Characters
  
  
  Normally, No Myth non-player characters first appear as an 'archetype minus.'  That means depending on the circumstances characters find themselves in, if they need to talk to somebody, the Genre Expectations will supply who by archetype.  'Archetype minus' is a little trick where you toss in one detail with the archetype that seems contrary to what's expected.  The fighter with a glass jaw, the prostitute with a heart of gold, the idiot with a wise streak, these are all archetypes with a contrary detail (a 'minus').
  
  When players
  go back to a non-player character they've seen before or you have need for a similar archetype (and the previous one is available), you use a previous one.  In doing so, both the player characters build up 'history' with them and you get a chance to embellish them.  The more well received such a non-player character is by the group, the more likely you'll use them as a secondary character rather than a walk-on or an extra (any non-speaking role).
  
  What about characters like the Sheriff of Nottingham or Guy of Gisborne?  Once again these are features of the Genre Expectations.  In the Transitional No Myth game, you precreate these beings and tell the players, up front, about them.  If not before play, use these character's reputations early and frequently (or do an expository vignette introducing them without having them necessarily interact with the player characters).  The players ought to feel that 'everybody knows about them.'
  
  The important thing to remember is that all of these are 'expendable.'  If the players are able to satisfy, mollify, or kill any of these precreated non-player characters, surely those characters' friends et alii will step in to take their place.  (This is why the Emperor showed up to replace Darth Vader as the heavy for the last film, because Luke's player decided to attempt to 'turn' Vader; this would have been unthinkable if Vader was needed for the final confrontation - hence he was 'expended.')[/list:u]
  
• Famous Locations
  
  
  Same as non-player characters; make them only before session and remember that they're all 'expendable.'[/list:u]
  
  • Clues
    
    
    A lot of people are coming to the conclusion (apparently) that 'clue play' isn't possible in No Myth.  It not only is, but it is quite easy.  First thing is you have to 'come to terms' with the players over 'how much' there will be.  You don't want them wasting time when you've already given them the clues and you want them to keep looking when you have some left.  How you reach this accord?  I haven't figured that one out yet; I just know it is necessary.
    
    The second part is similar to non-player characters too.  You must wait to create any clues until you know what's next (that changes a lot in No Myth).  If it is a clue to 'the major Complication' (a few steps ahead), then remember to treat that as a position, not a person (it would be just 'the Czar' not 'Czar Nicholas' to allow for 'succession'); these clues may lead to the person, but if they're already dealt with, whomever 'picks up where they left off' will be the Complication.  Otherwise clues aren't specified in your head, just the information they detail.  This allows them to be 'mangled' the same way that scenes are.
    
    Once you have that in mind, you get ready to drop the clue.  First you must 'flirt with it;' "I dunno guys, this bedroom looks pretty suspicious."  The idea is that you tease them into thinking there is more to be found.  Since you haven't chosen what or where the clue is
    specifically, you can wait for them to start looking around (or blundering forward, which is as good a time to give them a clue as when they search).  While they're doing that, you're thinking about how a clue forthcoming would wind up where they are looking.  That's right, it isn't 'under the bed,' it's wherever they look.  It isn't 'the diary,' it might be 'the muddy boots,' 'the bus ticket,' 'the matchbook,' or whatever else you might find where they're looking with an ample amount of 'cluish detail' slathered over it.
    
    And you keep this up for only about the amount of time previously agreed upon.  If they dawdle, you can either invoke Out-of-Game social pressure ("How much longer are you guys gonna beat this dead horse?") or In-Game Complications ("You hear a noise down the hall."), just remind them of what was agreed upon.
    
    If they get all the clues but can't figure anything out, it's 'plot device time,' not 'fudge the dice time.'  Hit them with something completely unrelated to the clues that puts them in a place that suits both where you want them (remember to mangle that) and fits all the clues you gave them (even if it wasn't where you originally thought of; that's why vague clues are better).[/list:u]
    
  • Other 'Static' Elements
    
    
    By now you should have an idea how to 'leave the details for the last minute' and run based on a 'big picture' perspective.  How much is set up in advance, both specific and generally (the Genre Expectations), takes the place of 'static' elements (things that you would be overwhelmed to create on the fly).  The players know, up front, that if they want something not previously agreed upon,
    it is their actions that shut down play, not yours (you're only human, you need time to 'make things work' sometimes).[/list:u]
    
  • Plot Perspective
    
    
    The important thing to remember is that 'the plot' is the line to which everything is drawn.  This is not 'the plot I took from the book' but the abstracted version 'open' enough that you can mangle the next part to match where the players think they should go.  Don't get hung up on 'this is here, that is there, and these are back there;' focus on 'what Complication is next.'  It is more important in No Myth to hit the 'plot twist' at the appropriate time than it is to have that happen 'in the right place.'[/list:u][/list:o]The most important thing to remember is that where a "Plotless Background-based Game" has the gamemaster embellishing geographic locations already planned, No Myth has the gamemaster embellishing an 'order of Complications' with background and character details (kinda the reverse).  These differ based on what they hold as central, geography or pacing.  The techniques used to embellish either get really similar and that may be why there's so much confusion (and overlap).
    
    I hope this helps anyone who's interested in Transition (in that this is a prototype 'satellite' to 'full bore' No Myth gamemastering that can be a Drift stage between something else and No Myth).  I'm a bit tapped so I might be back far a day or two; sorry if that causes problems.
    
    Fang Langford

Quote from: Chris, paraphrased,How to make the transition?

A good question, Chris. Here's what worked for me. This is a recipe for transition by both the GM and the players.

The assumed starting point is that you're the GM, and you're running pre-planned plotted adventures or published modules, with some degree of illusionism. You're running a system no more rules-heavy than D20.

These are sequential steps, and play at every step should be at least as functional as when you started, so you can master each step before moving on.

Stage 1. Write Down Less

Go ahead and continue to plan your adventures as usual, in as much detail as you want, but do most of the planning in your head. Try to write down only a few critical notes, like NPC stats, names, brief outlines of key points. For the time being, keep using maps if you're used to. If you're using modules, do the same thing: read and learn the module thoroughly in advance, write down the briefest notes you can manage, and then don't use the module text during play.

If you're reading descriptive text to your players during play, you're going to have to stop that. If you are, God forbid, running modules without thoroughly learning them first, reading them "as you go," you're going to have to stop that.

The ability to describe scenes, surroundings, and situations from your imagination rather than from detailed notes is essential in all the following stages. However, everyone has weak points and your notes should be targeted to those weak points. For example, I have great difficulty remembering names or making them up on the fly, so a large part of my notes are the names of characters and places.

Running from minimal plans will force you (at first) and allow you (as you'll come to see it later) to fill in more details on the fly, while still, for the time being, sticking to your pre-planned plots.

Keep minimizing your notes until you can run a session with a few pages or a dozen index cards of key reminders.

Stage 2. Get Flexible.

Don't panic. I'm not going to tell you, "now ditch all your plans and run without them!" all in one step.

Instead, here's what you're going to do. You're going to transition from a fixed plan to a plan that can change.

To start out, keep making your plans in advance, same as before. Keep using your illusionist techniques and other GM oomph to keep your adventures on the plan, most of the time. But, be willing to change those plans when you most need to.

And, here's the tricky part, when you change your plans, make the change both thorough and limited. Thorough means don't keep anything that no longer fits. Limited means don't change things that you can keep intact.

To do this you must have the complete structure of your plan in your head. That's why step 1 was so important. All those detailed notes were like a house of brick, very hard to change on the fly without the whole thing crumbling. But in step 1 you did the Reverse Three Little Pigs Thing, and now your minimal notes and imagined plan are a house of straw. Easier to grab handfulls and move them around when you need to.

Here's an example of thorough/limited change. Suppose your planned adventure is Jack and the Beanstalk. But Jack, your player, doesn't agree to trade the cow for the magic beans.

Once upon a time, you'd have had to do something like the peddlar chases after Jack, knocks him on the head, steals the cow, and leaves him with the beans. Or he'd take the cow to market, and no one would be selling anything but beans. But once Jack has refused the first trade, any subsequent intrusion of beans into the story is going to be obvious railroading. So you have to change your plans.

Thorough change: the player has spoken on the beans thing. Forget the beans and everything that the beans imply.

But... the story is Jack and the frigging Beanstalk! Doesn't that mean you now have to change everything? Come up with an entirely different adventure, right now?

That's where Limited comes in. What role do the beans and the beanstalk actually have in the planned adventure? They provide a means of transportation to and from an alternate magical realm (in which dwells a giant, his wife, a magic harp, etc), and equally important, a means of breaking the link to prevent the giant from following Jack back to the real world (cutting down the beanstalk). If you come up with something else to substitute for that "role," you can keep the rest of your plan -- the castle, the giant, the treasures -- intact. So what else could you have besides a beanstalk?

- How about a talking fish, who in return for sparing its life transports Jack to a distant island across the sea, and when the giant tries to swim after Jack, rallies all his fish pals to create a big whirlpool that drowns the giant.

- Magic fool's gold, given to Jack by whoever he sells the cow to. When he brings the gold home, it melts into a magical pool of quicksilver that leads to and from the castle in the clouds. How can Jack then prevent the giant from coming back after him? Hmm, not sure. Maybe the players will come up with something I didn't think of.

- How about the cow itself is magic? Cows can jump over the moon, after all. Just when it's about to be sold, it tells Jack that if he spares it by not selling it, it will take him to a wondrous place where great treasure could be found.

And so forth. Some ideas will be easier to work into the planned adventure than others, and some will require different detail tweaks in other areas to fit in. But the point is that the whole plan didn't have to be changed, only a specific "slice" of it. (1) That's a thorough/limited change.

When you start this stage, you can set the bar for when a "plan change" is required pretty high, so that maybe only one or two plan changes per adventure actually occur. But as you get more accustomed to making plan changes, you can make more of them, thus becoming increasingly adaptive to your players' choices.

Here's where your lean mean running notes start proving their flexibility. The stat that was the beanstalk-toughness that was going to oppose Jack's axe can be used instead as the difficulty of sweeping the pool of quicksilver into the fireplace before the giant makes it through. An NPC that gets scrapped from one "slice" can still be useful in a different one.

The fallback plan for this stage: if you can't think of a plan change to adapt to a player's choice, then fall back on the current form of the plan you've already got. Just reach into your old illusionism bag of tricks instead.

When you've mastered this stage, you might be making enough "plan changes" that no part of your original plan (except perhaps the intro) actually gets used in its originally planned form. You'll always have a complete plan, but the entire plan will change, possibly several times over -- even though you only ever change a single "slice" at a time.

At which point you might be saying to yourself, why am I bothering to make complete plans for the entire adventure, when most of the plan changes before the players get there? Time for the next step.

A brief recap

Let's consider what the transition has looked like so far from the players' point of view. In step 1, they saw you making up more of the detail on the fly. Yeah, they can tell you're doing it. But the railroad tracks are still solidly, reassuringly in place. There's still a clue to be followed, a mysterious door to walk through, a patron to accept a mission from.

In step 2, that's still true, except that the players will start to discover that at certain points, such as when a player has a really good idea for a different way to approach something, the track has switches. If they've thought about the combinatorics of branching plots, they might wonder how it's possible that you've planned for so many different possible directions. Or they might assume that the branch points all just converge on the same place. (This is partly true and partly not. Yes, the "limited" principle of making changes means that the changed version still leads to other parts of the original plan. But there is no "sacred slice" that cannot be changed in your plan. The pool of quicksilver leads to the same castle the beanstalk would have. But the castle is just another slice; if the plan changes again, it might not contain a giant.) It's OK if they think that. The problem with choices that re-converge on planned plot points is the amount of GM-oomph that needs to be applied to make them do so. You're not actually doing that, so it's not causing problems for your players.

Stage 3. Break It Up

Now's when I'm going to tell you to stop giving the players connect-the-dot clues to the next step in the plan, right? And telling you, "here's the point where a miracle occurs and your players suddenly become "proactive," right?

Wrong. I'm going to tell you just the opposite. Instead of giving them one obvious link to "what's next," give them five. And not just five different versions of the same thing (five mysterious portals into the unknown, instead of one), but five paths that lead in completely different directions toward completely different courses of action. And not just once at the start of the adventure, but at every step along the way.

Jack's household is broke? Well, he could take his mother's cow to the market to sell it. Or he could go to the docks and sign on as a crewman for the bonus that the posters all over town are promising, and go to sea. Or he could accept the offer from the myserious old Maigian who's been stalking him recently, to help him perform some strange task in the desert. Or he could cast his late father's worn old fishing net into the Tigris and see what Allah provides. Or he could take his signet ring, a gift at his birth, out of its hidey-hole and show it to a dealer in antiquities and see what happens.

But of course, if you're providing clues leading in many different directions at every stage, then it's going to be a lot more difficult to have a complete beginning-to-end plan for the adventure. Actually, it's going to be completely impossible.

But you were ready to give up those cumbersome complete plans anyway. Instead, you're going to plan only a scene or two ahead (with even that plan being just as change-able as the plans you made in stage 2). The bulk of your preparation will be in creating a whole bunch of individual "slices" -- like characters, set pieces, ideas for villains' schemes, and interesting locations. All united by common genre expectations.

In stage 2, you had to learn to manipulate and rearrange and reuse those kind of elements in the process of making thorough/limited plan changes. You're still doing that now, you're just starting with separate disconnected "slices" instead of starting with a plan that you have to separate into slices later when you start making changes.

The hardest part of running in this phase is coming up with so many possible connections and clues. It's a pretty much constant effort to keep stuffing enticing possible courses of action into play. You have to be, yourself, very proactive in doing so. Except perhaps in the intro scenes, you can't wait until the players are at a loss for what to do next and then try to throw new leads at them. (Well, actually, you can, but it's harder.) Generally you want to feed in clues for what might come next while they're in the middle of doing what they're doing right now.

By practial necessity, most of the time you'll have only the vaguest idea of where a given clue-dot will actually lead to if the players choose it. But with a tool kit of plot slices at hand, and working within a solid framework of genre expectations, it's not too hard to work it out on the fly. You weren't expecting the player to choose the fishing option, so what should come up in the net? Hmm, well, it could be a person. How about that treasure-seeking crewman NPC you were thinking about for the sea story? Except, if he's being hauled up in a net it should be a mermaid instead of a guy. Have to change a few stats, but not most of them. And because it's a mermaid, the hidden-treasure subplot you were thinking about should be modified to take place under the sea instead of on an island... That's the way planned improv (or is it improvved planning?) works.

Your fallback plan for this stage, if you freeze up or get into what you think is an inescapable corner, is to say, "Okay, I'll have to cut this session short because I have to work out some things about the [person, place, or situation that the players have chosen to explore next]. Sorry, can't plan for everything." Have something else ready to play. Buy yourself some time. With the pressure off, you'll find a way because there's no such thing as an inescapable corner. This also has the benefit of proving to the players that they're no longer riding the rails.

Stage 4. Free At Last

It may occur to you, during stage 3, that if you can decide on the fly how to use genre-expectation slices to create the next scene to connect to a clue that you provided that a player chose, you can also decide on the fly how to use slices to create the next scene to connect to a course of action that a player chose, without your having provided the clue.

And you can.

It may occur to your players, during stage 3, that if there are five obvious ways to proceed and they all "work," then if they think of a sixth way to proceed, that will also "work."

And it will.

So, stage 4 consists of toning down the obviousness of the explicit clues, and rewarding player decisions that don't follow any explicit clue, until players see everything they explore in the game as a potential lead to a possible course of action.

That's when you get proactive players.

Meanwhile, you're doing even less anticipating of what the players might do, because their wider range of choices makes that no longer useful.

You may or may not want to stick with the pre-development of "slices" or plot-bits of any particular kind. The other choice is to use your genre awareness to invent what comes next completely on the fly. (There is a bit of a difference; use of slices usually does imply a bit of anticipating of possible later outcomes, like the possibility of "cutting down the beanstalk" in the Jack example.) Like I said, I have trouble with names and certain other aspects of NPCs on the fly, so I make them up in advance. Depending on the system or setting, it can pay to do the same with monsters, vehicles, or interior locations.

Stage 4 play is actually, I believe, easier than Stage 2 or Stage 3 play once everyone gets on that page.

At this point you've reached (or are very close to) the No-Myth play that Fang described. Note that the GM is still very much the exclusive author of the story, and the players are still playing in a fairly conventional way. The players are empowered in the sense of having unrailroaded decision-making freedom -- though perhaps not, technically, to control them as protagonists. To my knowledge, this is as close to The Impossible Thing as you can get. (And, in my opinion, it's pretty darn triple-blade close.)

You can stop there, or drift farther into Narrativism by adopting mechanics that cede some authorial power to the players. (Note that no changes in the formal mechanics of the game system were needed to get this far, but System Matters A Lot More if you want to go any father.) Your experience with story improvisation should stand you in good stead as a potential "bass player" in Narr games.

----------

This isn't the only way to make the transition. (Roads to Rome is kinda like Stage 2, but different. Intuitive Continuity is kinda like Stage 3, but different. RetCon Illusionism is kinda between Stages 2 and 3, but different.) Nor is it the only worthwhile destination for such a transition

It's possible to play, functionally and indefinitely, in Stage 2. (Call that Adaptive Illusionism, or perhaps Default Illusionism.) I'm not sure if that's true for Stage 3, which I think drifts pretty powerfully toward Stage 4. Even Stage 1 has benefits; illusionism works better when the details are more flexible and the GM is relying more on imagination.

----------

(1) The actual nature of such "slices" is a fascination of mine. Note that the "slice" in the Jack in the Beanstalk example is not just a "scene" or a "chapter" or the result of any other traditional way of dividing up a story into separate, chronologically contiguous segments. In fact, a "slice" is usually not chronologically contiguous within the story that contains it.

Like Fang, though less publically, I'm working on systematizing some of these techniques, based on "slices" in a way analogous to Scattershot's "complications." And I'm not sure if what I'm developing will emerge (if at all) as an actual system, or as a new kind of play aid for use with other systems.

- Walt

Walt, with this post you've now officially joined Fang on my list of people who give far better GM advice than Robin's Laws.

LOTS of GM advice will advocate finding other ways to get the beans into Jack's possession so the story can continue.  Your "Thorough but Limited" advice sets all that on its ear.  The example was perfectly illuminating.  

Good stuff.  I bow to your superior GM-fu ;-)

hyphz,

I think what's needed here is real, concrete info about what your players think is the "right" (or a good) way to solve the kinds of problems your initial post talked about.  If it's an Impossible-like Thing situation, what's THEIR solution?  They just banged their heads up against it (a "dead-end" in UA, a story-breaking charcater in M&M, whatever) - they don't need the theory, or even to agree that they're trying to do something Impossible.  They just ran into an unpleasant bit of game play, and are almost CERTAIN to have opinions about it.

Get them to talk about those opinions, and then you can figure out ways to apply some of the various possible solutions people have mentioned here.  It seems to me like you understand the theory and issues involved, but *I* sure don't have a good grip on what your players think at the most basic level, so it seems to me possible you'd get some value from checking into that are more deeply.

Gordon

Quote from: Mike Holmes
For one, I really don't think that Hyphz wants to try this at all. He sounds defensive and scared. In fact he seems to be fighting it tooth and nail making it much harder than it is (its a RPG for chrissake, not brain surgery).

I'm sorry if I sound defensive and scared.  It's not because I'm trying to resist what you're saying.. it's just because, well, to be blunt, I'm shy, and GMing always makes me a bit nervous.  That doesn't mean I don't enjoy it, any more than (insert anything which is a bit scary but you like here).  But having a plan is one of the things that greatly reduces the nerves.

QuoteSecond, if there is a Magic Bullet to solving this problem, it's playing a game that doesn't allow for the players to play any other way than "No Myth". For example, SOAP, Donjon, or InSpectres (don't need to go as far as Universalis; are these other games also incomprehensible?).

Yes, I've tried those, but they go too far.  The "even the GM doesn't know what's in the dungeon/even the GM doesn't know the mystery" aspect of Donjon/InSpectres puts them off.  At least in the No Myth style that Fang seems to be describing, it isn't directly pushed onto the players to make up the plot; they just have the option of doing so.

And Universalis isn't incomprehensible because it's No Myth.  I find Universalis incomprehensible because it uses so many forward references and terms with unclear scope.

Quote
I mean, if the players are that resistant, and you really, really want to change styles (and Illusionism is just no the way for you), the answer is simple. Get different players. (Cue statements about friends and these guys being the only players in all of London).

I don't mind Illusionism as long as it works, and in both those cases it felt like it didn't.

Hyphz

The only way you're going to extend your comfort zone is by stepping beyond it, but you only need to step a little way at a time.  Walt's given you a hell of a good step-by-step, all you need to do is to decide where your comfort zone is in Walt's scheme and prep for one step beyond.

I suspect that until you are prepared to step outside your comfort zone that your going to continue having sessions go poorly.

You yourself have identified the problem and you're too interested in the solution to pretend that you don't at least want to give it a spin.

Quote from: hyphzYes, I've tried those, but they go too far.  The "even the GM doesn't know what's in the dungeon/even the GM doesn't know the mystery" aspect of Donjon/InSpectres puts them off.  At least in the No Myth style that Fang seems to be describing, it isn't directly pushed onto the players to make up the plot; they just have the option of doing so.

You don't have to go as far as letting players "make up the plot" to incorporate most of Fang's suggestions.

For example, let's say the character are search for an item.  You script out an adventure where they get the job from a local contact, then go interview Joe, the person it was stolen from.  During that interview, they're supposed to pick up that Joe was probably a part of the theft and you expect them to rough him up.  You intend to deliver a clue that leads them to a bar, where some of the patrons are also involved in the theft and will try to do away with the PCs in a dramatic bar fight.  After the fight, they'll find the item in the back.

So... let's say the PCs don't pick up the fact that Joe was a part of it.  Uh oh, time to fudge the numbers, right?  Wrong.  Think about your plan - the characters were supposed to go to a bar and have a fight.  Without the clue they wont go to the bar, but what's to say people won't come to the players (wherever they are) and start the fight anyway?  Those people may leave a connection to the bar.

By doing this, you're still firmly in charge of the plot - only the scenery and dialogue changed.  In addition, you haven't just handed anything to the players.  Why?  Well, if they have to fight twice now (once to get the clue they missed and again at the bar), they're not exactly being rewarded for sitting around waiting for the plot to come to them.

This is just a very simple example with a very simple plot, but it may be more your speed.  It's more my speed too - games like Donjon are kind of fun, but make me feel very out of my element.  I'm happier mixing and matching features of various styles.

Great example Justin!  The Complication (a fight) remains the same, but the Detail (a bar and its patrons) are changed to protect the innocent.  Right in line with what I've been describing.

And Walt, man, that was beautiful.  It very much scripts how to travel from a specific style to No Myth via sustainable 'nodes' (that don't need to be abandoned if desired).  I couldn't have explained it that well.  I hope your interpretation bears some similarities to Hyphz style; I couldn't make that guess.  It's a symphony of Transition.

What I'm hoping for is some feedback on both your post and mine about 'in between' Transitional 'nodes.'  How about it Hyphz?

Fang Langford

Well, about transitional modes, I was trying to think of an example of such a thing.. now, I'm not sure if this actually *counts* as an example, but if it doesn't, the fact that it doesn't will be useful to learn..

Feng Shui.  I submit that this is a 'No Myth' game as far as fights are concerned.  After all, the players are invited to make up cool things they do, and to suggest things might exist in the location even if the GM hasn't stated that they do.  You don't need a map, but you can use one if you like.

Now, these same players have played Feng Shui very well before (of course, it helps that many of them are HK movie fans) and had no problem with this aspect of combat. The reason for this is that, I think, the famous Feng Shui rule that "if there's an easy way and a hard way, doing it the hard way is no harder on the dice than doing it the easy way" actually goes both ways; it also reassures the players that "anything you can do by 'no mything', you could have achieved without it (easy way), so it's not cheating to use it."

Now, the players have balked before at InSpectres and Donjon because there, they *have* to make up the running plot as they go.  (If you roll a 6, you *have* to narrate.)  In FS, the GM is still in charge of the plot, but the details of the scenes within it (which, if you follow FS's advice, is the majority of the game anyway) is in their control in a limited fashion.

What Fang and others seems to be suggesting is a similar thing; where the players don't make up anything other than their character's actions (and possibly the odd side fact to facilitate them) but that these actions create the game world by their implications.

Now, I can understand this to some extent.  And I think that the players would, in actual honesty, not have too much trouble thinking to go to the police station or to visit similar places to that.  What gets difficult is when they have to make a leap of reasoning.. like 'working out where the killer is hiding now', or 'working out what's really going on here'.  This last one is especially essential in UA, and UA actually has setting rules that try to facilitate it (such as, Stonehenge might not have been mystical when it was built, but it is now because so many people think it is.. basically, whatever your players think has mojo, probably actually does).  

Now, the problem here is: how do you deal with this?  They can't actually solve it as a puzzle because under 'no myth' there is no real solution.  Simply not having this kind of thing in the game is quite a loss IMHO.  And it is possible that the players will work *something* out from the things you've thrown at them so far in the 'no myth', and you can then arrange that it's right - but there's likewise the possibility that they will just say it's all too hard and begin to idle.  

And that's part of my worry.  I mean, for the UA thing I've been planning, I have a basic theme, a kicker beginning and a planned end (that can be moved around and altered if necessary) but I have no idea what to put in the middle, and under 'no myth' I would have no idea of how to do it without surrendering the basic theme - and without that, the PCs aren't liable to achieve anything because they don't yet know where to look for weird stuff.

Quote from: hyphzNow, the players have balked before at InSpectres and Donjon because there, they *have* to make up the running plot as they go.  (If you roll a 6, you *have* to narrate.)

I think people see it as unusual=scary when in reality, it's not scary at all. Whenever someone rolls the dice, they have in mind at least ONE possible beneficial outcome (the dice do what they want) and at least ONE possible negative outcome (the dice fail them and the GM tells them what happens).* So when they roll a 4, 5 or 6 in InSpectres, it's not "okay, now make up the plot on the fly" -- not at all. Rather it's, "Okay, tell me what you wanted to happen and that's what happens." Ideally, the player will use this narrative power to do cool things but if he says, "Um, I hit?" well, that's what he wanted to have happen. Easy.

- J

* IMO, if the player doesn't have two possible outcomes in mind, then he or she shouldn't even bother rolling the dice or trying to do that thing...

Just a very brief note on Walt's brilliant post.  It occurred to me while reading it that what he's describing has an endpoint analyzed in detail some time ago: bricolage, as described in Chapter 1 of Claude Levi-Strauss's The Savage Mind.

I'm not going to go into all the details now; I'll work it up as an essay, and see whether it makes any sense then.  But the point is that Levi-Strauss thinks the bricoleur, or the myth-maker, essentially has a stock of odd bits in his mental warehouse.  As the story, characters, audience, and everything else going on (read: every possible concern in the RPG) move along, various "holes" show up.  As in, "What comes next has got to have X and Y characteristics; beyond that it doesn't matter a damn.  Well this weird thing in my warehouse has X and Y characteristics, although it sure as hell doesn't seem like it's going to fit easily otherwise.  Oh well -- so long as it fits, we'll see where it leads us."

The trick is that these X and Y characteristics, the things required, are in RPGs related to Genre, Character History, Social Contract, all of Fang's various structures (up or down, etc.), and whatnot.  Thus when the guy goes fishing with a net, the magic mer-person bit from a totally different story (as imagined initially) fits perfectly.  Who knew there was going to be a magic mer-person in this story?  Nobody, but it was the best "fit" for the "hole" that opened up when the guy dipped his net.  Quick change of sex to add a little va-va-voom to the story, and away we go!

I love it -- RPG advice, pushed toward the limits of intelligence and perception, starts to turn out to be how mythology really alway worked in the first place, from a Structuralist point of view.  Ha!

I should add here that I also thought Walt's post was fantastic.

The only things is that it assumes I'm running a regular game, which I'm not, and, well... basically, I just don't know if I can make things up on the fly.  I mean, I've had way too many experiences when I spend ages - sometimes months - trying to think of an idea for a scenario, and then I run it by somebody and they immediately suggest something much better in ten seconds.  Even if I get a general adventure idea, I can generally never think of an in-between at all, and things have faded in the meantime.  Like, those UA characters were made in the middle of last year.  The players, quite literally, couldn't remember their characters because it was so long ago.  They've also had unused TROS characters sitting around for about a year now after every scenario I could think of fell into the "lazy and cheating" mold and even then, again, I had no idea how to fill it out.  I couldn't even develop a Star Wars scenario and a freakin' 16-year-old can do that.  (And then I see module authors who get published in spite of writing bs like narcoleptic military security guards, and wonder how bad I must be..)

I know there's not a lot of point posting this and it seems horribly like a whine, because it's not exactly like anyone can tell me how to be creative, but I guess it's just to explain the other reason why I might have seemed defensive.  Yea, there's the "practice" deal, but how am I really supposed to practice?  Have the players sit down and, as soon as they move into something that needs 'no myth', have them wait a few hours while I think of something?  Doesn't seem likely to me.

I'm kinda sad I missing the development of this thread...and my head is sort of spinning from sitting down and reading the whole thing.  Forgive me if I repeat something that has already been said.

Quote from: hyphzYea, there's the "practice" deal, but how am I really supposed to practice?  Have the players sit down and, as soon as they move into something that needs 'no myth', have them wait a few hours while I think of something?  Doesn't seem likely to me.

You could training-wheel yourself into with some improv-assist tools.

Make sure the PCs are constructed with a common goal, compatible priorities, and something linking them together.  I'm not actually a big fan of forcing this at character creation (ye ole party format)...but, dealing with it during play can be the most difficult thing to do as GM.  Save yourself the pain, suffering, and hours of game play devoted to getting the group to work together and just start with a cohesive party.  If you're having trouble in other areas, I'd worry about them first and deal with this pain in the ass later.

Flowchart - Start with one event and just sit down and answer 'what if the players did blah?' questions.  Do don't need to use it during play, but with some thought put into it beforehand improvving should be easier.  Plus, then you don't need to think of a senario - you just need a single starting event (blowing something up is always good).  It'll allow you to break the thought process down into easy to manage chunks and create all those nice slices Walt was talking about.

Name/Feature list - List of unassigned names for the setting and another list of noticable features for npcs.  When you need a random npc just look down and get 'Uh...the cop's name is Bob...he...talks with a lisp'.

Motivations list - List of motives for major npcs/organizations in the setting.  Should be real easy to decide what Jimmy does if you know he wants the Holy Grail desperately.

These ain't 'No Myth' tools, but they might help you improv and ease into it (should you desire that).

Hyphz,

You're saying two things that worry me here.

First, you say you have trouble coming up with scenarios, in response to Walt's suggestions for Transitioning from scenarios to No Myth.  Before, the problem seemed to be that you were using a pre-printed scenario.  The goal here is to run without a scenario.  That's the whole point.  You don't need a scenario: all you need is some small-scale ideas that seem more or less to fit right now.  You don't know where it's really going any more than they do.  If you want a scenario, then presumably No Myth isn't going to work for you.  But I thought this all started because your players were working hard to break determined scenarios, leading to the idea that maybe you should avoid them for this bunch.

Second, you say you don't have time to practice.  I think Walt means that you have to GM with some regularity.  Furthermore, you have to be willing to suck occasionally, and then try to learn from your mistakes.

Look, it's a game.  The players want a good time, you want a good time, so everybody has the same goal, right?  So get them involved in making it a good game.  Can't think of something intelligent for an NPC?  Tell a player whose character is standing on the sideline, "Hey, um, Dave?  This guy's a cop, a donut-eating fat slob type, okay?  So play him."  And then wing it from there.  Don't know what's next, when the gang have done something you didn't expect?  Well, there are lots of tricks and techniques, but if under-pressure creativity isn't your bag, ask yourself what kind of scene the players seem to like, preferably one you haven't had 10 seconds ago, and do it.  So if they like combat scenes, maybe those guards weren't so narcoleptic as they seemed?  So now it all turns into a whacking great firefight, everybody's having a good time, and who the hell cares what you'd planned?

See, this is what Fang means about fictions: the guards aren't narcoleptic until you say so.  If it turns out it was a ruse, because you decide a firefight would be fun around now, who's to say you didn't plan this all in advance?  Does it matter?

You want my #1 suggestion?  Say the following to your players, a little while (say, a few days) before your next session:

"Okay, guys.  Here's the thing.  I'm not real happy with my GMing right now, I don't know about you.  So I'm gonna try a few things that might help.  Thing is, they're things I haven't done before, or not much, so I'm not really all that comfortable with them yet, so things may be a little rocky for a bit, okay?  Kind of bear with me, but please try to think about what is and isn't working as we go along, and then tell me after the game -- especially, I sometimes have trouble seeing when you guys are having a good time, because I get kinda caught up in my thing and miss your thing.  So if a scene went really great from your point of view, could you tell me afterwards?  'Cause sometimes I think a scene sucked and you loved it, so I get pissed that it didn't work, and you get pissed because you don't get more scenes like that, and so on and so forth.  And you know what?  If we set up a new scene and you think it would be cooler with some little tweak around the side?  You could say so, actually, and that'll help me get the hang of what make you tick, and generally provide a cool game for you.  But anyway you gotta cut me a little slack, because I'm in pretty new territory for me.  Whaddya say?"

I think you're putting way too much emotion and ego on the line (I have this habit too), and so sometimes you genuinely do not see when the players are having a great time, so when they're thinking, "Wow, Hyphz rocks!" you're thinking, "Oh god, here we go again, why can't it ever work?"  Now I'm not saying they're thrilled all the time, but if they hate the game why are they in it after all this time?  I'm betting you do some things they love, and if you can figure out what those are, and recognize when they're happy players, you'll start aiming more for a specific goal, and besides, start realizing what you do well.

Here's another suggestion: don't rehash old ground alone.  I call this the Death Spiral.  What you want is for the players to pay attention, at a meta-level, to how the game is going, and kind of mentally tick off things that go well.  Then, after the game, you can go over it with them.  I'm betting they will say, "Oh, I thought it was so cool when..." about things that surprise the hell out of you.

I ran a quite long campaign some years ago where I did some of what you're doing, mentally I mean.  I look back on this game with considerable ambivalence.  I remember OOC "intense discussions" (read: arguments) about whether things were going well; I remember scenes that seemed stupid and pointless; I remember feeling like I was pulling teeth to get them to see the "obvious" clues I'd dropped; etc.  You know what?  When you talk to them now, the players in that game all say, unanimously, "Sure, it had a few problems, but that was a great game.  Why do you think it went on almost two years?  And when are you moving to the city I live in so you can run more of the same?"

The moral of the story?  Goddamn I wish I'd been paying attention to the good things, so I could have as positive sorts of feelings as they do!  Apparently I did pretty well, but I spent much of the time feeling like the campaign was on the verge of total breakdown.

Anyway, hope that helps.

Quote from: clehrich
First, you say you have trouble coming up with scenarios, in response to Walt's suggestions for Transitioning from scenarios to No Myth.  Before, the problem seemed to be that you were using a pre-printed scenario.  The goal here is to run without a scenario.  That's the whole point.  You don't need a scenario: all you need is some small-scale ideas that seem more or less to fit right now.  You don't know where it's really going any more than they do.  If you want a scenario, then presumably No Myth isn't going to work for you.  But I thought this all started because your players were working hard to break determined scenarios, leading to the idea that maybe you should avoid them for this bunch.

Well, no - not quite - but I don't actually like the idea of determined scenarios that much anyway.  The reason it's a problem, though, is that Walt descibed transitioning from determined scenarios to 'no myth' - and that's pretty tough to do if I haven't even reached the determined scenarios stage! (At least, not determined as in determined by me)

The second thing is that I'm not sure about having "no scenario".  As I say, the Unknown Armies game is the most promising venue for testing this, as it has a number of things that facilitate it quite well, but it has a big problem too: a good part of it is in the PCs *discovering* information about the setting.  Now, I have to give them some poking to get them to discover it, because if I don't, they won't know where to go looking to find it - because they don't know about it yet!  Yes, it can "just happen to be" wherever they go, but that runs the risk of making it seem a bit tired and over-normal..

Quote
Second, you say you don't have time to practice.  I think Walt means that you have to GM with some regularity.  Furthermore, you have to be willing to suck occasionally, and then try to learn from your mistakes.

Well, GMing regularly is tricky - not just because of my freezeups regarding preparation (which will still apply at the early stages of the transition) but also because we already have a regular 1/week D&D3E session (with one of the others as GM) and many of the people don't want to game more than 1 night/week.  The D&D3E session is all scenarios, btw.. how enjoyable I find it really depends on my mood, and although I like it enough to do it, it's not something I look forward to very much

Quote
Look, it's a game.  The players want a good time, you want a good time, so everybody has the same goal, right?  So get them involved in making it a good game.  

Well, that's one of the other things that got me in the sessions on Monday.. the guy who GM's the D&D3E campaign, who is normally a good voice of reason when it comes to the others' nutty PCs and who has helped me with my GMing quite a lot, was the guy who made Homer Simpson in the supers game - out of theme, out of place, with no motivation, incapable of doing anything effective, and existing only so that he could make jokes about eating donuts wherever he went.  Of all the people involved he was the one who I least expected to do something like that.  I thought he had some cunning plan up his sleeve, but it seems not...

QuoteSo if they like combat scenes, maybe those guards weren't so narcoleptic as they seemed?  So now it all turns into a whacking great firefight, everybody's having a good time, and who the hell cares what you'd planned?

Well, that's something I might have to look at.  I might need to address that, because these players like combat, but combat in UA is not entered lightly as it's very deadly... might have to try and tone it down a bit, at least until the PCs know enough about the background to buff themselves mystically ;)

Quote
I think you're putting way too much emotion and ego on the line (I have this habit too), and so sometimes you genuinely do not see when the players are having a great time, so when they're thinking, "Wow, Hyphz rocks!" you're thinking, "Oh god, here we go again, why can't it ever work?"  Now I'm not saying they're thrilled all the time, but if they hate the game why are they in it after all this time?  

Umm.... they're not.  We've played a bunch of one-shots, not an ongoing campaign, and it's been getting harder to get them involved in them, not easier.

Hyphz,

What do you think of starting a new thread with a focused or specific point that's emerged out of this one? Your choice, but I think it might be time. Also, it's possible that we've moved to "intellectual digestion" stage, in which case more discussion at this time (however interesting or valid the points) is actually obscuring your initial goals in beginning the thread.

Here are some things to consider as well.

#1 - I think that Unknown Armies play is far more pre-set than most people seem to realize, based on Forge posts. The one-shots are essentially 91% completed stories; they seem coherent and "we made story" in play, but that's because the key decisions are incorporated into the character descriptions and all we've got left is One Last Revelation and the Big Blow-Out. I consider all the published scenarios for this game to be Illusionist, albeit using different techniques.

#2 - You wrote, regarding the weekly D&D game that you're in,

Quotealthough I like it enough to do it, it's not something I look forward to very much

This is a warning sign to me. I strongly suggest analogizing role-playing to sex, and considering whether this group represents a "relationship" that you are happy with in the first play. I am not talking about whether you are friends with them or not; I'm talking about whether you think you should be role-playing with them or not.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Ron Edwards
What do you think of starting a new thread with a focused or specific point that's emerged out of this one? Your choice, but I think it might be time.

That might be a good idea.  I think it might also be worth waiting until I have more real evidence and the knowledge myself to select appropriate specifics.  I think I do agree, though, that this one probably ought to wind up soon before it gets too theoretical.

I will, however, ask one more question that's important to me at this point: you stated that you think all the UA one-shot scenarios are Illusionist.  Do you think that the UA setting, in general and without scenarios, is a good testing ground for 'no myth' play?

[Edited because x-posted with Ron & Hyphz]

Quote from: HyphzWell, [sudden combat scene]'s something I might have to look at.  I might need to address that, because these players like combat, but combat in UA is not entered lightly as it's very deadly... might have to try and tone it down a bit, at least until the PCs know enough about the background to buff themselves mystically ;)

Hyphz, it's a one-shot, right?  Who cares if they get hurt?  In a UA game, this whole "buff themselves mystically" ain't going to happen in a one-shot.  Don't bother: make it intense, brutal, scary.  Think Call of Cthulhu, but the monsters are basically humans.

In reference to UA for relatively open-ended play, here's a suggestion for you.  Open-ended, typically UA, etc.

1. They're some sort of group, I don't know, maybe PI's or something.  They go investigate somebody.  That somebody gets the drop on them, wastes them pretty bad, drugs them, smacks them unconscious, uses a sleepy-spell on them, whatever.

2. They wake up.  They're chained to the walls of some kind of basement dungeon.  The guy they're supposed to be investigating is here, wearing a robe.  He's got a lot of black candles.  And some knives....

3. Torture them.  Maim them.  Rape them, if the group can take it.  Describe all this in detail.  Play with their minds: try to get them to beg, where they say, "Oh god, please don't cut me there, it's not me you want, it's Fred over there, he knows."  Boy, isn't Fred going to be happy about this?  Watch "Closetland" for inspiration: mental cruelty is what UA is all about.  At any rate, have them watching some sicko using their blood to paint pentagrams on the floor.  A demon arrives, makes a really nasty remark about how this dude doesn't have the Goblet, and then eats him alive.  Slowly.  With lots of description.  Now you've got them chained, bleeding, surrounded by stinking gobbets of flesh, with pentagrams painted on the floor.  How are they going to get loose?  

4. When they do get loose, and just then the cops show up (who alerted them anyway?), exactly how are they going to explain this?

5. The guy in the next cell of the jail is a dipsomancer "sleeping it off."  He wants something.  Let them figure out what -- you have no idea.  Presumably something about the Goblet you mentioned before, but if they don't bite, make them figure out what's cool.  Just keep implying that this guy knows something, and wants something, and can help, and force them to make him an offer.  So they all cut a deal.

What happens now?  The dipso gets them out on bail -- but it's not clear how -- and the gang now have to go do whatever they promised.  Unfortunately, they're still seriously injured, they're having nightmares about torture and demons, weird-ass shit is happening whenever they look, they have no weapons unless they can convince somebody to sell them some black-market because they're out on bail, and they really have no idea what's going on.

For the endgame, think CoC: one guy survives, seriously traumatized.  The final scene involves the same demon, and knives, and hooks, and giblets.  The dipsomancer gets what he wants, and doesn't give a shit that these guys are lunchables.  That one guy, if he knows what's good for him, moves to Wyoming and lives alone for the rest of his life as an accountant, because he really really doesn't ever ever want to encounter any of this ever ever again.

Does it make sense?  No, not really.  Does it seem like there are big secrets?  Yes.  Do the players ever figure out any of them?  Yes, maybe one or two, but not much.  Is it sick and violent enough for any not-very-sane individual?  Oh yes.

If you're running one-shots of UA, why are you being so nice to them?  This isn't a nice world.  Kill, maim, torture, rape, brutalize.  Ever seen "Marathon Man"?  If somebody gets caught, strap him to a dentist's chair and have some obviously not-quite-human dentist drill him for a bit, panting, "Where is the Goblet?" or whatever.  Let the other guys try to rescue him.  Do they succeed?  I dunno, what time is it?  If it's early, yes, but not without a lot of trouble.  If it's late, then no.  The dentist gets the secret of the Goblet from the character, because he dowses with a drilled, bloody tooth, and starts summoning the demon.  The gang arrives in time to see the demon appearing in the mist.  The PC in the chair ought to be screaming at this point, because the chair is inside the circle.

Wacky hijinks ensue.  If you can engineer it, have the guy in the chair be the only one to survive the scene.  Boy, the cops are going to love this.  And this guy is sure as hell never going to the dentist again.

QuoteWell, no - not quite - but I don't actually like the idea of determined scenarios that much anyway.  The reason it's a problem, though, is that Walt descibed transitioning from determined scenarios to 'no myth' - and that's pretty tough to do if I haven't even reached the determined scenarios stage! (At least, not determined as in determined by me)

If you feel this way about determined scenarios, then maybe you should scrap 'em entirely.  Don't bother with transitions: leap straight into the madness, but tell them you're doing this.  They don't like it?  Well, it's a one-shot.  Surely they can hack it for one session?

QuoteThe second thing is that I'm not sure about having "no scenario".  As I say, the Unknown Armies game is the most promising venue for testing this, as it has a number of things that facilitate it quite well, but it has a big problem too: a good part of it is in the PCs *discovering* information about the setting.  Now, I have to give them some poking to get them to discover it, because if I don't, they won't know where to go looking to find it - because they don't know about it yet!  Yes, it can "just happen to be" wherever they go, but that runs the risk of making it seem a bit tired and over-normal..

With a UA one-shot, how much are they really going to discover anyway?  The big discovery is that the universe just ain't all that normal, and that whatever abnormalities you'd hoped for are actually a lot sicker and uglier than you'd really hoped.

QuoteWell, that's one of the other things that got me in the sessions on Monday.. the guy who GM's the D&D3E campaign, who is normally a good voice of reason when it comes to the others' nutty PCs and who has helped me with my GMing quite a lot, was the guy who made Homer Simpson in the supers game - out of theme, out of place, with no motivation, incapable of doing anything effective, and existing only so that he could make jokes about eating donuts wherever he went.  Of all the people involved he was the one who I least expected to do something like that.  I thought he had some cunning plan up his sleeve, but it seems not...

This is the guy who helps you with your GMing? Ugh.  You might want to stop listening to him so much.  Any GM who cares this little about other people's games is not somebody who ought to be teaching people.

Quote

Quote from: II think you're putting way too much emotion and ego on the line (I have this habit too), and so sometimes you genuinely do not see when the players are having a great time, so when they're thinking, "Wow, Hyphz rocks!" you're thinking, "Oh god, here we go again, why can't it ever work?"  Now I'm not saying they're thrilled all the time, but if they hate the game why are they in it after all this time?  

Umm.... they're not.  We've played a bunch of one-shots, not an ongoing campaign, and it's been getting harder to get them involved in them, not easier.

Not the point, Hyphz.  The point is this: focus on what works.  What doesn't work, you try to avoid in future.  That's all.

Oh, and another thing about Unknown Armies.  One-shots ought to work great, because you don't have to be nice to them.  Your goal is this: they have nightmares.  Think "Seven" and "Silence of the Lambs" with magic.  The basic point is that in order to do magic, you have to be sick and warped and basically a loony-tune.  For a one-shot, this is the only secret[/b].  Everything else can be made up on the fly, because it doesn't really have to make sense.  The secret of the universe, the One True Secret, is that no reasonable person has anything to do with magic, and that being involved with magic is prima facie proof that someone is a raving psycho.

'Course, if you're running a whole campaign of UA, the trick is to convince them that while some people go seriously wacko when they get involved with magic, it doesn't have to be that way, and since it takes power to stop powerful people, the PCs maybe ought to get some magical power, and don't worry, I'm sure they won't turn into sick wackos, no really, 'cause they can handle it, man.  Get me?  And if someone dies in the line of duty, he dies.  Just make it sufficiently horrible and evil that everybody feels vaguely dirty just being in the game.

Hi there,

H'm, given the cross-posting, it's going to be hard to close this thread. So let me state it here: we're done here. Anyone want to continue? Focus on one specific point and start a new thread, whether in Actual Play or RPG Theory based on the content.

To be a good example, I'll continue with the Unknown Armies issue in a new thread.

Best,
Ron

I've only a few things to add to the fine commentary provided.  One way you could think of straight No Myth gamemastering is like running InSpectres or Donjon, but telling the players that it's just regular (or Illusionist) gaming.  Most certainly they are 'making it up' as much as in those games, but you are 'making it look' like they aren't.  (Well, actually you're 'herding' play towards a satisfying conclusion, but not an specific ending.)

Secondly, you seem totally riveted to both the problems inherent to puzzle-solving and one-shot play.  Neither should create any special difficulty in No Myth gamemastering; you could even us a clock to run this way.

Here's the plan: a four hour game;


Hour 1, you do some really spook and mysterious things and don't tell them what the problem is (just keep them interested) - take notes on what they think are clues;

Hour 2, start with a confrontation with a mysterious 'big baddie' and get them to 'try and figure it out' using the clues

they think they have;

Hour 3, work each Complication resulting from tracking down each clue together with the others so derived (give each clue-to-Complication only 10 minutes);

Hour 4, quickly merge all the Complications into one major Complication and attach that to the mysterious 'big baddie' (extra points if you could make it look like he - or his influence - was sneaking around the background throughout the middle of the game - late hour 2, early hour 3), build this up to the big 'faceoff' and leave enough time for the game system to 'run a combat.'[/list:u]
It ends however it ends.  And you can do this by the clock.  Ya gots yer puzzle and yer one-shot, all in jus' four hours, can't be beat.[/list:u]Third, the trick I use to run No Myth gamemastering even on my worst days is, "If all else fails run an action scene."  If things happen to fast for the players to think about and you stress the kind of action that the players like; they won't notice any mistakes you make.

Lastly, don't be afraid to suck!  You're trying something new and for heaven's sake you're only human!  Fear not being bad.  Make sure they know how hard you are trying and if they have a shred of decency, they'll forgive any failure.  They're your friends, right?  (You aren't being graded on this are you?)

Fang Langford

(p. s. And Ron's right.  Let's address your concerns and situation separately from the No Myth gamemastering stuff in a new thread.  What's the deal?)

p. p. s. Whoops, cross posted with Ron.  (Shouldn't leave those browser windows open so long.)

Hello,

Closed! Stop! No one post again to this thread! Good-bye! Have a nice day!

Best,
Ron