"Evaluative DM’ing" - comments on this approach, please

[Auke]

Hi all,

I'd appreciate comments on my approach (which I call "evaluative DM'ing" 'coz it sounds kool) to running a frpg.

The essay is 1200 words, so I don't know if that's considered too long for this forum (newbie, u c). The full essay is on my homepage at http://www.psychohistorian.org/dnd/evaluativedm.html; in the conclusion I wrote:

To summarize, a character's actions (and in-actions) and the consequent outcomes define who they are and how, usually over a period of time, they change. It is these changes that are noticed and evaluated by the DM, operationalized along pertinent dimensions to reflect the growth (along existing lines, and of new facets) of the character and the character's influence on the "outside world".

The player's task is to weave narrative, and the DM's is to evaluate, calculate the odds, and describe the outcome.

The characters act in a world that follows laws and rules, most eloquently expressed in numbers, which judge their actions and determine the results. Yet C'Mir, Ulmo, Lenceus and Froin are tall tales, and not collections of statistics. They live as stories of adventure, excitement and peanut butter in the minds of the DM and players alike.

Looking forward to the collective wisdom's comments,

Regards,
Auke
---
http://www.psychohistorian.org
http://psychohistorian.wordpress.com/

[JMendes]

Hey, Auke, :)

Read your essay. Interesting stuff. Doesn't quite look new, but that's not really as problem. Truths can and should be rewritten as many times as needed.

There is one major drawback in this style of play, however. So major, in fact, it could become a game killer.

DM Fatigue.

I'm serious. There is nothing quite as hard and as tiring as having to make a bazillion little tiny minor easy decisions per second, and trying to maintain at least a very faint semblance of consistency and fairness.

You posted this in the Actual Play forum, so my question becomes:

Have you tried this? If so, tell us about it. If not, go try it, then come back and tell us about it.

(I mean that last one seriously, and not in a 'grow up, show up' snide remark kind of way.)

Cheers,
J.

[Auke]

Hi J,.

I agree that DM fatigue could be a problem; some have more fatigue points than others :)

Yes, I've used this way of DMing for a long time, and find it manageable. Having said that, I'm noticing more and more as I read about other (particularly American) gaming groups, that I favour smaller parties - max 4 players. I can well imagine that it would be most taxing to run larger groups.

Of course, in the same way that XPs aren't awared moment-by-moment, I don't assign ratings a bazillion times per second either :)  A slight pause in the game, during coffee break, right after the session, during journal write-up, these all present good opportunities to review "in-the-field" decisions. Making short-hand notes on the player's gamecards (I use index cards to keep track of the PCs) is another handy memory-aide.

I tried this approach back when out of a desire to keep the statistical/simulation aspect of the game in place [and in the hands of the DM], while encouraging the players to be less involved with game mechanics [less numbers, more story] (bearing in mind that I/we come from a D&D background).

Do you perhaps have any points to online articles etc. that discuss a similar approach?

Regards,
Auke

[TonyLB]

Why use the word "Evaluate"?  Why not "Judge" or "Choose"?  As in "The player does something, and the DM chooses how the game world will respond to that, and furthermore chooses how the character is developing based on his actions"?

[Auke]

Why use the word "Evaluate"?� Why not "Judge" or "Choose"?

"Judge" and "choose" are good, but "evaluate" literally means to "put a number to" something. While the players are free to be as "informal/subjective" (i.e. not burdened by game mechanics) as they like, the DM is doing the number-crunching behind the scenes.

Some players may know exactly where they are going with a character, and as such play true to whatever inner script they have for that character. Other players are more "intuitive/reactionary" and dislike being pidgeon-holed into pre-determined categories. Yet, everyone ends up emphasising certain traits during play (consciously in the former, subconsciously in the latter case), and when the traits/skills manifest because of their actions, the DM will (hopefully!) notice this and make the necessary adjustments. Of course, the PC's mental behaviour (thoughts, dreams etc) are not overtly acted out - reading the player's adventure journal, or a casual chat over coffee, often gives the player a chance to explain why the PC did something.

"The player does something, and the DM chooses how the game world will respond to that, and furthermore chooses how the character is developing based on his actions"?

In that sense, the DM doesn't choose (i.e. forcing) how the character develops; the DM reacts to what the player does.

(In another sense, "choose how the world responds" could be interpreted as "arbitrary" or ad hoc, which isn't, I suppose, what you mean.)

Regards,
Auke

[TonyLB]

Um, actually "arbitrary" is pretty much exactly what I mean.  Not that that's a bad thing.  It's an inevitable thing.

The game world is a fiction.  The act of evaluating what the game world "would" do is, in fact, the GM choosing what he wants the game world to do.

So long as you're clear on that, I suppose you can use whatever word you want.  But using a word like "evaluate" makes me worry very seriously about whether the issue is clear in your mind.  Make sense?

[Auke]

The game world is a fiction. The act of evaluating what the game world "would" do is, in fact, the GM choosing what he wants the game world to do.  ...

So long as you're clear on that, I suppose you can use whatever word you want.� But using a word like "evaluate" makes me worry very seriously about whether the issue is clear in your mind.� Make sense?

Tony,

There's a great deal of cloudy issues in my mind, don't you worry :) 

I agree the game world is of course a fiction, but even a fictional world has rules. Perhaps if the rules are too poorly stated, then the world will indeed be just an extension of the DM's will, whim & fancy.

I think the more accurately the world is modelled, the more surprised the DM will be with just what the heck his world just went and did! Which is exactly the kick I get out of my players - just what the heck did they go and do now!

Regards,
Auke

[MatrixGamer]

Auke

I have a question. How familiar are you with the terminology of GNS theory (Gamist, Simulationist, and Narrativist)?

These terms are about what a person wants to get out of a game. On this forum they are called "creative agendas". When people value different agendas more than others they can talk past one another very easily.

I can not tell what your preferences are (it would be rude for me to even try). What I can say is that when I hear the word Evaluate as opposed to Judge or Choose, it sounds like you want to be objective/scientific in your approach. If the goal is to be true to the game world then it could be more simulationist.

What I've noticed is that simulationist views and narrativist views can clash real fast. It is good to understand this terminology to get the most out of this forum.

BTW we all pursue all of these agendas at different times we just tend favor one over others. I for instance am probably more simulationist because of my liking of historical wargames (where the goal is to recreate a recognizable pattern of action that fits the period rather than play to win or play to have a gripping story happen while the game is played.)

Good first posting!

Chris Engle
Hamster Press = Engle Matrix Games

[JMendes]

Hey, Auke, :)

S'a cool thing you're trying to do here, and I think you're on the right track. But...

I don't assign ratings a bazillion times per second either :)

Of course you do. :)

the dm listens carefully to what the player says the character does, and evaluates the outcome the "old-fashioned" way - with a probabilistic-determining action (a.k.a. a dice roll)

So you see, every time a player wants to have his character do something, you have to make a decision right then and there as to whether one of the character's dimensions already covers it, how you will describe a new dimension if necessary, and at which rating you will start it.

My experience with these types of phenomena is mostly tied to HeroQuest. We did a weekend outing a few months back and we played through it, and let me tell you, the GM came out of each session with his brain steaming. I'm talking about a fairly clever guy, with a solid RPGing and GMing experience, for whom every hour of play was as taxing as a full four-hour session of traditional play.

Why? Because every time a roll was called for, all of us players were like, 'can we use this trait? what about this one? this one? this one? oh, wait a minute, last time you let me use this one, why not now? oh, I see. well, what about now? now? now?'

Now, bear in mind, you might think that most of the time, it's obvious what's applicable and what's not. You'd be right. That nagging I just described, I was just talking about the times when it wasn't obvious. And though a final decision is still fairly easy to reach, there really are a gazillion of them. And this is after the players do the initial filtering.

In Evaluative DMing, there is virtually no way for the players to do pre-filtering. That means a DM judgement call will be required every single time a PC attempts something. Every time. No kidding. And even though the right decision might be self-apparent 90% of the time, it still has to be taken, eating up just one more calorie of brain activity.

Sure, in traditional GMing, you have default judgements. That? Oh, roll Climb. That? Yeah, Move Silent. But you see, default judgement is not the same as making a judgement call and going with the self-apparent choice. (This is IMHO, of course, and there are many reasons why I hold this opinion, which I can discuss if you like.)

So, to summarize my thoughts on Evaluative DMing. I'd want to play it, but I wouldn't want to do it!

Lastly:

Do you perhaps have any points to online articles etc. that discuss a similar approach?

Alas, no. Wish I had, though, and I'd certainly like to read some myself. So, if you find anything, do tell! :)

Cheers,
J.

[Auke]

Chris,


> How familiar are you with the terminology of GNS theory (Gamist, Simulationist, and Narrativist)?
> It is good to understand this terminology to get the most out of this forum.

Now I know what to Google for - thanks :)   Or better, can you recommend a particular, definitive resource?



> When people value different agendas more than others they can talk past one another very easily.

As is probably the cause of all human misunderstandings - fundamental differences in assumptions.



> I can not tell what your preferences are

From what I gather from your post, I'm a hard-core Simulationist. Certainly, my world is simulated (modelled) along scientific lines (as far as possible).

I think what I was suggesting in my essay is some kind of synthesis between Sim. and Narr. The players operate as Narrators; the DM converts their actions into a format amenable to simulation, determines the outcome, and translates back into narrative. (I run NPCs both ways; sometimes they are really just big forces that move through the world as cause-and-effect modules; other NPCs I attend to more personally and think about them differently)


Thanks for your helpful input,
Regards,
Auke

[Auke]

In Evaluative DMing, there is virtually no way for the players to do pre-filtering. That means a DM judgement call will be required every single time a PC attempts something. ...
Sure, in traditional GMing, you have default judgements. That? Oh, roll Climb. That? Yeah, Move Silent. But you see, default judgement is not the same as making a judgement call and going with the self-apparent choice. (This is IMHO, of course, and there are many reasons why I hold this opinion, which I can discuss if you like.)

J.,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply & example from HeroQuest;  I wish I knew more game systems so I could understand fully what you mean!

I'm not entirely sure I follow why "default judgements" are easier to do than 'customized judgements'.

I'd like to take you up on your offer - it would be great if you could explain why you hold the opinion expressed above about default judgement vs. self-apparent choice.

Regards,
Auke

[MatrixGamer]

Auke

What I've found most useful in learning the GNS terms is to go to the first posts on the Actual Play, RPG Theory, and GNS discussion forums. Start with the Actual play one. People were grappling with the terms then and wrote many threats that explained them. Some of the terms have be refined (and maybe redefined) since them but the jist is all there in the first ffity posts. They give examples of play as well.

A term you're likely to hear soon will be "Conflict resolution" versus "Task resolution". What you're describing is task resolution. The players state what they want to have happen, the GM picks a skill (or whatever), the player rolls and it happens or not. Scenes are made up of a series of resolved tasks. In conflict resolution, the GM or players set up a scene and describe what is at stake (For instance: I go into the club and see Mr. Big. "GRRR I hate that dude. He killed everyone in my family. Can I face the shame of allowing him to live? Or will I whip out again to live? I want him to cry like a baby!") The player's role playing in the first half of the scene is rewarded by the GM with dice that will help them "win" the conflict. The player then rolls their "Pool" of dice (you'll see "The Pool" by James West referred to a lot in early threads - google it to get his free rules) and if they win their roll they then narrate how the scene come out in their favor. If they fail the GM narrates how they fail. So the dice roll is in the middle of the scene and the key events of the scene (the actual combat for instance) is made up  by the player or GM after the roll. The neat thing is that is doesn't matter if you win or lose, something cool will happen either way. (For instance my character might end up crying like a baby and get noticed and gain pity from the beautiful girlfriend of Mr. Big.)

As to J's description of GM burnout - boy have I been there. When the GM has to make a ton of decisions it causes friction in the brain. There is an idea on this forum about "Points of contact" which touches on this. Every time a player or GM has to do something (ask a question, make a decision, roll a die, whatever) it is a point of contact. Games are like machines - the more moving parts the more friction/heat which burns the person doing the most work (the GM).

When I'm game mastering a game where I run all the NPC, and have to evaluate (in a rigorous way) the effects of players actions on themselves and the world, I'm working real hard. When players start pestering me for even more information - smoke starts coming out of my ears. It's not pretty... That's why I developed Engle Matrix Games where players make arguments for what they want to have happen next in the game and the GM just decides how good their success roll is. They make up events and I make up strength numbers - easy!

Chris Engle
Hamster Press = Engle Matrix Games

[TonyLB]

I agree the game world is of course a fiction, but even a fictional world has rules. Perhaps if the rules are too poorly stated, then the world will indeed be just an extension of the DM's will, whim & fancy.

I think the more accurately the world is modelled, the more surprised the DM will be with just what the heck his world just went and did! Which is exactly the kick I get out of my players - just what the heck did they go and do now!

The world didn't just go and do anything.  The DM, guided by his model of the world just went and did something.

Yes, maybe he surprised himself.  I surprise myself all the time.  But it's not the game world.  The game world cannot act.  The DM acts, using the game world as a tool.  Right?

I don't mean to be nitpicky.  I've actually seen failure to understand this distinction ruin people's enjoyment of games ... often!  There are two sides to this coin:  the player who says "Well, I know that what I've just had the character do makes the game less fun for all of us, including me, but I can't change that!  It's just what the character would do!" and the GM who says "Well, I know that what I've just had the game-world do makes the game less fun for all of us, including me, but I can't change that!  It's just what would happen in the game-world!"

When players (DM or otherwise) blind themselves to the choices they are making (and therefore the power they have in making those choices) it seldom leads to happy places.

[Auke]

The world didn't just go and do anything. The DM, guided by his model of the world just went and did something.
Yes, maybe he surprised himself.� I surprise myself all the time.� But it's not the game world.� The game world cannot act.� The DM acts, using the game world as a tool.� Right?

Tony,

I'm not sure I entirely agree with you :)   Yes, the model [of the game world] is a tool and as such doesn't physically act, in the same way that a d20 doesn't actually hit you for a critical. But a model [of the game world] certainly can deliver outcomes that cannot be obviously foreseen by the DM. (if you're familiar with Conways 'Life' game, you'll agree that although the rules are simple, when they work together, they cause surprising (unpredictable?) results, such as gliders).

I agree, however, that frpg's are about having a great game - it's about the people who play it. But a game works because there is striving and challenge, and overcoming of obstacles. If the game world throws a curve-ball, then rather than ignore it, roll with it. It's up to the DM (and the players too) to find a creative "out", a deus ex machina if it comes down to that.

So your point is well made and taken - we should enjoy the game, even if there are temporary setbacks and frustrations along the way.

Best regards,
Auke

[Callan S.]

The way I'd put it, is that the model of the game world wont, for instance, tell the GM when to

scene frame

. Or other game enhancing techniques.

But since he's the one who acts, not the game world, he's the one who didn't scene frame. He can't turn around and say "That's just what would happen...even if it makes a bad game". Only he can use game enhancing techniques, so he's responsible when they are or aren't used.

It's kind of like owning a dog. If the dog starts doing something bad, you can't say "Well, that's what the dog will do". Your in charge of it's leash.