A demoralising day

[John Kim]

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.)

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.  

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).

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.

[hyphz]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?")

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.

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..)

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"!)

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! ;)

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.

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".

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" ;)

[hyphz]

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.

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).

[Valamir]

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.

[Spooky Fanboy]

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."

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.

[Walt Freitag]

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.

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.

"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.

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".

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

[Mike Holmes]

{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

[Le Joueur]

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

[jburneko]

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

[Ian Charvill]

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.

[jburneko]

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.

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

[Gordon C. Landis]

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.

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

[Mike Holmes]

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

[Gordon C. Landis]

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.

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.

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.

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 . . . "

[Le Joueur]

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