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

[MatrixGamer]

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)

Auke

This makes sense based on the dictionary definitions of narration and simulation...unfortunately narrativist and simulationist have meaning other than the dictionary ones. I had the same problem when I first posted on the forum.

Narration is a technique of role playing - it isn't specific to any one creative agenda. I can narrate a scene to maximize my victory, narrate to see how the simulation works (like the life game), or narrate to create the most dramatic tension during play by addressing a pressing human conflict. From the outside they might even look alike but the inner intention differs.

Tony and Callan are expressing views that are consistent with the narrativist creative agenda. They want to GM to be active with the rules. Saying "That is what would happen in the world" is the GM being passive. Since this can wreck a story, and the dramatic tension that goes with it, if goes against what a narrativist leaning player wants. A simulationist player on the other hand might revel in their failure because it is what would happen in life.

Life, real life I mean, doesn't create stories. I might see a story when I look back on it, but today my actions are not making a story. Right now I'm at work, I'll see some clients and do paper work, I'll order some printing supplies, go out to eat tonight with my wife, and do some printing work when I get home. A game might simulate this but it would be a boring game. Simuationist games focus on more interesting topics but with the same "let it unfold, no forced story" approach.

A lot of narrativist leaning members at the forge express anger at this style of play. I've seen people say it wasted their time or even "injured them" by blinding them to types of game they like more. Don't take this talk personally. Only a few people use this forum to develop simulation(ist) games. It is good to have diversity of views and who knows you might find the narrativist focused games interesting as well.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press = Engle Matrix Games 

[JMendes]

Hi, :)

J., <...> explain why you hold the opinion expressed above about default judgement vs. self-apparent choice

Alrighty, I'll try. Two main reasons, and please bear in mind that this is all IMHO and IMHE:

A) Default judgement (almost) always exists and (almost) everyone knows what it is. If the GM is tired and doesn't feel like deciding, he can just hand-wave things into the default judgement and people won't be all looking at each other in a what-now-like stance. In the rare cases where the default judgement doesn't exist, the GM will pick up on the what-now thing fairly quickly, and then, he can engage decision mode. Conversely, the self-apparent choice is more often nonexistent, and even though it's still highly likely that it does exist, it might not be that self-apparent to everyone at the table. GMs who go into hand-wave mode with self-apparent choices will quickly find their game stalling and their players frustrated.

B) Default judgement is (almost) always consistent. Very rarely will the GM find the default judgement going against itself. This means that the GM knows that, if he can't reach a decision, he can disengage decision mode and use the default judgement, without (much) fear of breaking the game world. (This is strongly related to A above but isn't exactly the same thing.) The self-apparent choice, however, must still be analysed for consistency, which is rather easy early in the game, but becomes progressively and inescapably harder as the game continues. This, by the way, piles on top of accumulated fatigue, which also grows as the game progresses.

The gist of it is that default judgement is simply a different brain mode than self-apparent choice. Think of it like tightrope walking. The self-apparent choice is like the balance bar, which guides your game, keeping it in place and helping you not to fall. The default judgement, however, is like the safety net, keeping your game alive when you do fall, which becomes one less thing to worry about.

Here's hoping I made sense. YMMV, of course.

Cheers,
J.

[Selene Tan]

Let me take a shot at explaining what Tony's getting at...

When people get together to play an RPG, their overarching goal is to have fun. (At least I hope it is.) They've decided, furthermore, that they want to have fun by playing this particular game, in this particular way. And they've decided it would be most fun to imagine characters acting in an imaginary world. The world follows some laws which the people playing have agreed upon because they think a world which works that way will lead to fun. Even if everyone knows all the laws, there will still be surprises, as people use the laws in unexpected ways.

In many RPGs, there's one person in charge of deciding when, how, or by whom laws can be applied. Like a judge with real laws. And like a judge, this person might decide to apply laws in a way that makes most people happy, or that makes everyone unhappy, or anywhere on that spectrum. This person often gets called the "Game Master".

You might think I'm being facetious with all this. But it's important to remember that even with a hyper-detailed world model, the DM is still in charge of applying its laws to the situation at the hand. So what happens if a situation arises where the letter of the law dictates an outcome that is un-fun for everybody? The DM could decide that following the letter of the law is more important than having fun, and rule in that way. The DM could decide that fun is more important, and break the law altogether. (Blatantly breaking the law might reduce the fun for some people.) Or maybe the DM will find a way to obey the spirit of the law in a way that is still fun. Whichever happens, the DM has made a decision. The "game world" didn't do anything.

This is pretty much unrelated to narrativism vs. simulationism and what-not. It's about deciding to have fun. (If you're still curious about narrativism, check out Vincent Baker's Creating Theme. Don't ask me about simulationism, I'm confused about it myself. ;) )

[ADGBoss]

Let me take a shot at explaining what Tony's getting at...

When people get together to play an RPG, their overarching goal is to have fun. (At least I hope it is.) They've decided, furthermore, that they want to have fun by playing this particular game, in this particular way. And they've decided it would be most fun to imagine characters acting in an imaginary world. The world follows some laws which the people playing have agreed upon because they think a world which works that way will lead to fun. Even if everyone knows all the laws, there will still be surprises, as people use the laws in unexpected ways.

In many RPGs, there's one person in charge of deciding when, how, or by whom laws can be applied. Like a judge with real laws. And like a judge, this person might decide to apply laws in a way that makes most people happy, or that makes everyone unhappy, or anywhere on that spectrum. This person often gets called the "Game Master".

You might think I'm being facetious with all this. But it's important to remember that even with a hyper-detailed world model, the DM is still in charge of applying its laws to the situation at the hand. So what happens if a situation arises where the letter of the law dictates an outcome that is un-fun for everybody? The DM could decide that following the letter of the law is more important than having fun, and rule in that way. The DM could decide that fun is more important, and break the law altogether. (Blatantly breaking the law might reduce the fun for some people.) Or maybe the DM will find a way to obey the spirit of the law in a way that is still fun. Whichever happens, the DM has made a decision. The "game world" didn't do anything.

This is pretty much unrelated to narrativism vs. simulationism and what-not. It's about deciding to have fun. (If you're still curious about narrativism, check out Vincent Baker's Creating Theme. Don't ask me about simulationism, I'm confused about it myself. ;) )

I am not entirely convinced that "the world reacted" is an invalid concept.  The counterpoint, to my mind, so far comes down to two things:

1.   Fun = Success
2.   Its all the GM's fault.

There has been, on this Forum and others, a tendency to blame the GM either as an individual or as an institution.  I admit that at times it does seem that many of the dysfunctional abuses that occur, do so from the chair of the game moderator. So there is a tendency to lay all bad things at the GM's feet. 

Taking a closer examination however, I think would show that much of the dysfunctional play thought to originate with the GM position in fact comes out of the notion that, "we are all here to have fun." GM's change or ignore rules, switch plots, or make split second decisions all in the name of "having fun".  I am not saying there are no bad GMs or bad GM habits but I am saying some fault does lie with Players and their actions.  The GM is NOT in the game to entertain you as a player.  It is in fact the hardest role to play in any RPG as you typically are forced to play MANY roles.  The GM wants to have fun too (as it were.)

To keep on topic however, lets examine an example.  Remember this is just how I am kind of interpreting all the comments so far.

Character goes over to chest, opens it and is hit by poisoned needle. Character dies.  GM says 'well it was poisoned, that happens when you open poison chests without looking first.' 

Now you could say that all the GM did was explain how the world worked. In a sense he or she did not have choice.  It is their job to select challenges true, but as long as the challenges are realistic to that world, then indeed it was the setting that chose to kill the Character, not the GM.  Now the choice as I see it is: allows the mechanics / rules of the world to go blindly on OR step in and change the essential physics of the setting. 

I would think however that in a Sim oriented game; you let the Character die because he or she just experienced the Setting first hand.

I am going to back and re-read the essay in question but I think there could be something to this Evaluative DM-ing idea that we should not dismiss because it may at first glance be at odds with the prevailing thought.

Sean

[MatrixGamer]

This is pretty much unrelated to narrativism vs. simulationism and what-not. It's about deciding to have fun.

I don't agree. These creative agenda issues get to the heart of what people define as fun. If a player likes taking their lumps when they step on a land mine and feel cheated if the GM saves them (when it just doesn't make sense to the player that they should survive) that's a CA issue.

To get back to Evaluative GMing, what I wonder is...What is the GM evaluating?

We have resolution mechanics (combat, tasks, skills, or conflict resolution aka The Pool) but then there is how actions affect the NPCs. This is the big gray area. How is this done? And just as importantly, how is what is done recorded so that the players and GM can use it later. Trusting human memory is a poor mechanism.

In my games (Engle Matrix Games) there is a "Matrix" of information about the world, made up of maps, scenario opener, character write ups, general knowledge people have about a given world/genre. The actions of the players are presented as verbal arguments for what happens next. Successful arguments happen and are added to the matrix. Over time, arguments completely rewrite the world - just like history does here. The matrix can be just remembered (this works fine in a face to face 2 to 3 hour game) but for long term games it is best to use written arguments (we do a lot of PBEM games on the MatrixGame2 yahoo group). Consequently there is a written record that people can go back to.

I'm not suggesting that Evaluative GM'ing needs to do it that way but considering how to access information later is an important point to consider.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press = Engle Matrix Games

[Selene Tan]

I have to admit to a certain bias. I am not happy with the traditional GM role because I find it to be too much work. There's all the pre-game prep with the laying out scenarios and places and filling out dozens of NPCs. And then there's balancing all the player desires, making sure everyone gets enough screen time, providing opposition that's challenging but doesn't stomp all over the PCs... Geez! And what does the rulebook have to say about this? "...A poor session can be spiced up. For example, props can bring new life to a game." What?! It's like giving someone with no training command of an army and expecting them to win a battle.

In other words, many RPGs give the GM the responsibility of making sure everyone has fun, and then don't give the GM enough tools or advice to actually do it. (If people want to continue this discussion, we should really move it to another thread and stop hijacking Auke's. I'm sorry, Auke!)

So. Evaluative DM'ing. Since this is an Actual Play thread, Auke, I think it would be great if you could give us an example of a game you've run using the technique. I would especially like to see what kinds of thought processes go behind the numbers you give. I'd also like to see some of the reasoning you use when you decide to use one dimension over another, or decide to create a new dimension.

I think that since you're used to using this system, you've come up with a lot of little rules that you follow to streamline things--the "default judgements" that JMendes mentions. What I would love to see is a catalog of these little rules, and instructions for coming up with new ones. I think that such a catalog and set of instructions would be useful for anyone learning how to GM any system, and that excites me.

[Silmenume]

Hey Tony,

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 does have the right of it.  Evaluate is the correct denoted meaning.  Arbitrary is incorrect in both its denoted and connoted forms.  The GM is not pulling decision out of his a**, nor is he flipping through a book or a deck of cards "arbitrarily" choosing his response.  No, rather, upon "evaluating," all or as many relevant data he can summon to mind he then goes about making an informed decision based up his developed knowledge and original assumptions of the game world.  This is anything but arbitrary.  Actually, done right, it is the height of intertwining of logical and creative thinking.

This is one of the old canards about Drama Resolution that definitely needs to be tossed out the door with such hoary old anachronisms as "role-play vs roll-play."

Hi Auke,

Welcome to the Forge!

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.

You do have the right of it in that even a fictional world does have rules.  What is particularly interesting, I think, is if we come to recognize more and more of them through out play.  Think of NPC's as having rules of behavior that evolve over time.  This statement notes three important ideas.  One is that a "person" has certain relatively predictable modes of behavior.  Two such modes of behavior are not fixed but can and do change.  Three in order to mark that change in behavior there needs to be a baseline behavior to begin to with!  So if a GM is "playing" an NPC there does not need to exist a list of mechanics that the GM must consult in order to derive said NPC's response, but neither is he free to be "arbitrary" in his response either.  He must "evaluate" all sorts of situational conditions before responding, and given that what he is portraying, a sentient being, his responses should neither be fixed nor pre-programmed.

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.

Actually I am of the opinion that this is a central modality of Sim play.  This attending to the "game world curve-ball" is what I am now calling the logic cycle of Sim.  Trying to make sense of it and work out a solution is very much a part of the process of extending the Dream.  I call it Disambiguation, but I don't know if that helps or not.

However, as many individuals have pointed out, role-play is a human exercise.  Nothing "happens" in the game (Shared Imaginary Space in not changed in any way) without everyone in attendance agreeing that the change happens.  In the local parlance this had been called the Lumpley Principle.  Basically it boils down that since role-play is nothing more than an imagination sharing process with people doing the imaginings then all those people must agree to any change in the Shared Imaginary Space or someone will get lost or dispute said change.  "Mechanics" can smooth that process along, but in the end all the players still must all agree to what the mechanics "say."  This does not mean they must like what they mechanics "say," but they must agree to abide by them if necessary.

By the way, I believe the "Evaluative" of your "Evaluative DMing" is rock solid Sim.

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.

João,

You are correct in that there are bazillions of minute decisions in this type of play, but this is exactly what our brains are very, very good at.  Actually the rendering of fuzzy real world messiness into specific arbitrary numbers is something the brain is lousy at which does burn up lots of grey power.  It is easier for you to do the mental calculus and estimate the future position of a falling object than to quantify the process and do the hard math.  Now think about driving a car.  Remember how many individual decisions went into that process and how overwhelming it was when you were first driving?  Over time you developed a suite of heuristics that are pretty good most of the time.  We're reaaaly good at that type of stuff!  But now, after a couple of years, you'll notice how effortless it has become.  We've become very adept at estimating lateral forces, predicting the behavior of other drives, how much space we need in order to stop, knowing how much we need to turn the wheel to accomplish a lane change or a sharp turn.  Mathematically it would be a nightmare to try and quantize all this out, but we have over time internalized all this estimating to a fairly decent degree and can get on with it without too much effort.  IOW we simulate a model of the real world in our minds and project forward to facilitate the making of decisions.  The same applies to this style of GMing.  In the beginning it can be very difficult, cumbersome and exhausting, but as time goes on it does become less taxing and, ultimately, easier!  Never easy, but easier.

[TonyLB]

Auke does have the right of it.  Evaluate is the correct denoted meaning.  Arbitrary is incorrect in both its denoted and connoted forms.  The GM is not pulling decision out of his a**, nor is he flipping through a book or a deck of cards "arbitrarily" choosing his response.  No, rather, upon "evaluating," all or as many relevant data he can summon to mind he then goes about making an informed decision based up his developed knowledge and original assumptions of the game world.  This is anything but arbitrary.  Actually, done right, it is the height of intertwining of logical and creative thinking.

Well how about if we're both right?

Yes, Auke is (as you say) collating data and working off of the rules of the game world as they have evolved (and are evolving).  And so, in the context of those rules, his decisions are anything but arbitrary.

Yes, Auke is the one who created those rules, who continues to create them and who judges when they are relevant and how.  He can choose to change them at any time.  And so, if we view those rules as just another tool he creates along the path to deciding what he wants, his decisions are pretty arbitrary.

I don't see those two views as being contradictory.  Do you?

[Auke]

And so, if we view those rules as just another tool he creates along the path to deciding what he wants, his decisions are pretty arbitrary.

I really don't see anything uninformed, random or capricious about my decisions. 
But they, how could I otherwise :)

Regards,
Auke

[Silmenume]

Hi Tony!

Yes, Auke is (as you say) collating data and working off of the rules of the game world as they have evolved (and are evolving).  And so, in the context of those rules, his decisions are anything but arbitrary.

Yes, Auke is the one who created those rules, who continues to create them and who judges when they are relevant and how.

Bolding added

This is where the logic falls apart.  The continuing evolution of those rules is as subject to the Lumpley Principle as anything else that happens during Exploration.  Even the "rules" are subject to the ratification of the rest of the players at the table – the Lumpley Principle.  Near as I can tell, he's not likely to make a radical shift in the evolution of the rules without setting up a riot at this table.  He has to respect has happened in the past and take account of the current circumstances or he's likely to get indignant shouts of "GM control!"

Note, under the moniker of "rules" such things as "rules of behavior" for each and every NPC in the game space must also be included.  In fact when talking about the evolution rules we aren't talking about the evolution of "resolution mechanics" nearly as much as we are talking about the evolution of the "patterns of behavior" (rules of behavior) of sentient beings.

Yes, rulings can be arbitrary, but then one can take arbitrary actions with regard to Premise (like changing it willy-nilly mid Address) or engage in turnin' behavior but both would be considered non-functional forms of play.  So it is with Sim and any "arbitrary" imposition or alteration of "rules."

[Adam Dray]

I think this conversation would be better served if we had a concrete example of Actual Play to discuss. Can you describe a recent GMed scene or two that uses your approach? Explain what the players and GM are doing more than what the characters are doing.

[Josh Roby]

I concur with Adam.  This is Actual Play.  Let's see some Actual Play!

[Auke]

So. Evaluative DM'ing. Since this is an Actual Play thread, Auke, I think it would be great if you could give us an example of a game you've run using the technique.

I concur with Adam. This is Actual Play. Let's see some Actual Play!

Selene, Adam & Joshua,

Actually, I'd intended to post my request for comments in a more theoretical forum ;-)   However, what's done is done, and I'll sit down and write some examples of use in play. Other than what Selene mentioned in an earlier post, anything specific I should include?

Meanwhile, thanks for all the incredibly thoughtful comments (from everyone); I'll have to read a lot more about rpg theory before attempting to make a contribution.

Best regards,
Auke




, Since

[Caldis]

This is where the logic falls apart.  The continuing evolution of those rules is as subject to the Lumpley Principle as anything else that happens during Exploration.  Even the "rules" are subject to the ratification of the rest of the players at the table – the Lumpley Principle.  Near as I can tell, he's not likely to make a radical shift in the evolution of the rules without setting up a riot at this table.  He has to respect has happened in the past and take account of the current circumstances or he's likely to get indignant shouts of "GM control!"

That's an interesting take on the Lumpley Principle Jay but I think it misses the facet of it that really supports Tony's point. From the provisional glossary, "System: The means by which imaginary events are established during play, including character creation, resolution of imaginary events, reward procedures, and more. It may be considered to introduce fictional time into the Shared Imagined Space. See also the Lumpley Principle."   The important point there would be "the means by which imaginary events are established", the model of the game may help establish events but who decided on using this model?  Who decides how it applies and when?  Who created this model and to what purpose?  Is the model specific enough to be interpreted in the same manner by different observers or is it the personal interpretation of whoever is making a ruling?

To put it simply the model exists as a means to an end, if you've chosen to play gurps with 25 point characters you're modelling something entirely different than playing a game with 500 point characters.  If you are roleplaying in the world of Middle earth the model will allow for an entirely different range of possibilities than if you are playing in the world of Exalted.  So what is the end the model is pushing for?  What goal is it the GM has in mind for the game? 

[Adam Dray]

Actually, I'd intended to post my request for comments in a more theoretical forum ;-)   However, what's done is done, and I'll sit down and write some examples of use in play. Other than what Selene mentioned in an earlier post, anything specific I should include?

Well, I said a bit in my last response. Tell us what the GM and players were doing and why you think they were doing those things. Tell us what moments really jazzed you and what moments really annoyed you. There are some stickies at the top of the forum with advice for posting here if you need more than that.

Meanwhile, thanks for all the incredibly thoughtful comments (from everyone); I'll have to read a lot more about rpg theory before attempting to make a contribution.

No! No! We want you to contribute! Now, even. =)

Just post some bit of Actual Play and we'll talk about theory that way. Your contribution is the Actual Play experience you can share with us and the insights you have about "Evaluative DMing" in that context.

We do love it when new folks dig into the theory in the Articles section and then come back here with questions, but it's not a requirement. We may point you at articles and even game texts that support our ideas but, really, we just want to talk about your cool game experiences. Share!