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.

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.

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

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"?

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

TonyLB wrote:
"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"?

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?

TonyLB wrote:
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

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

Hey, Auke, :)

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

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

Your wrote: 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)

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

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

JMendes wrote:
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.)

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

Auke wrote:
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!

TonyLB wrote:
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?

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

scene frame

Auke wrote:
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)

Hi, :)

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

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. ;) )

Selene wrote:
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. ;) )

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

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.

Hey Tony,

TonyLB wrote: 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 wrote: 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.

Auke wrote: 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.

JMendes wrote: 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.

Silmenume wrote:
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.

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.

Hi Tony!

TonyLB wrote: 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

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.

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

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!

Silmenume wrote:

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!”

Auke wrote:
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.

Hey Caldis,

So as to not drag this thread away from Auke I've sent you a PM.  If anyone else is interested in pursing the ideas being discussed between Caldis and myself feel free to PM me.

Auke,

Great thread!  Keep on keepin' on!