I'm not trying to disagree with advice here, just ask for some more clarification because it's relevant to some issues I've had as well.

Le Joueur wrote: You want to gamemaster something that comes out like A New Hope? All you need is the character write-ups (one lives on a farm, another is a hermit, the third lives by his wits from payload to payload, and the last - a non-player character - has the plans), some vague idea where things will climax (the death star), and that's it.

You set the stage by giving the plans to the robots and the robots to PC#1 to give to PC#2. What do the players do? PC#1 wants to go 'back to the farm,' not cool - think of something on the fly - blow up the farm!

Next you need to put some punch into the 'what are the plans for;' Alderaan is gone when they get there. Was this a part of some plan? Is the gamemaster controlling the game. Heck no, it was late and you realized that a bunch of sneaky stuff planetside would be boring. You can blow up planets on the fly, you're the gamemaster. Next, capture them by the 'big bad evil thingie.' Don't even run it, just tell the 'now your captured and in the hold, think of something cool to keep yourselves out of the brig.'

And so on. None of it is a matter of planning but simply responding to player choices (which are actually inventions with things like the compactor) and continually turning up the tension level and the pacing.

hyphz wrote: I'm not trying to disagree with advice here, just ask for some more clarification because it's relevant to some issues I've had as well.

hyphz wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: You want to gamemaster something that comes out like A New Hope? All you need is the character write-ups (one lives on a farm, another is a hermit, the third lives by his wits from payload to payload, and the last - a non-player character - has the plans), some vague idea where things will climax (the death star), and that's it.

Of course, you have something else too - the plot of "A New Hope", which seems to be standing in for your 'plan' in the examples below.

How about describing how to do something that comes out like Star Wars but not like any of the movies?

hyphz wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: You set the stage by giving the plans to the robots and the robots to PC#1 to give to PC#2. What do the players do? PC#1 wants to go 'back to the farm,' not cool - think of something on the fly - blow up the farm!

Many players will learn from this, "follow the GM's plot or you get hosed". It doesn't matter that this wasn't your intention or that you don't have a hard control - the players may assume you do, and start falling into the dreaded "come on Mr. GM, plot-hammer me where you want me" mode that everyone dislikes.

hyphz wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: Next you need to put some punch into the 'what are the plans for;' Alderaan is gone when they get there. Was this a part of some plan? Is the gamemaster controlling the game. Heck no, it was late and you realized that a bunch of sneaky stuff planetside would be boring. You can blow up planets on the fly, you're the gamemaster. Next, capture them by the 'big bad evil thingie.' Don't even run it, just tell the 'now your captured and in the hold, think of something cool to keep yourselves out of the brig.'

Umm, isn't "You will have this bad stuff happen to you no matter what you do" the very epitome of bad railroading? Regardless of whether you do it by omitting description or whatever...

hyphz wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: And so on. None of it is a matter of planning but simply responding to player choices (which are actually inventions with things like the compactor) and continually turning up the tension level and the pacing.

So I wonder if you have any tips for dealing with the things I've seen happen with this:

hyphz wrote: - Bunker players. They defend themselves optimally and then wait for something to happen, taking no real action on their own. Whatever you do to crack the bunker open invariably looks like railroading to them because it wasn't the result of their action; and since they believe they are being railroaded they carry on bunkering because that's the best tactic in that case.

hyphz wrote: - Unexpected detail. "What story is the guy in the Cantina telling?" The problem with this is that you can't avoid answering it, because not answering is an answer - and to the bunker players above, it's the answer "you have to follow my plan, because only the stuff in my plan has any detail in the world."

hyphz wrote: - Coherence problems. "What's down the corridor? How long is it? How many doors are there, where are they? We go and look in on where they lead." This isn't the problem. The problem is when one of the players spots something that they think is stupid or inconsistent ("hey, they had the mess hall next to the barracks! Guess they *forgot* the kitchen, right? Haha.") and calls you on it. And our old bunker friends learn "you have to follow my plan, because nothing apart from my plan has any internal consistency so meaningful actions and consequences can't exist outside it."

hyphz wrote: - Just plain not being creative. This is, I realize, an awkward question, but let's just suppose for a moment that you are uncreative. You haven't "got it", whatever "it" is. And this is genetic or whatever - it isn't going to be overcome or changed, not even with practice, although it might be possible to work around it. But CAN it be worked around, or do you just have to hang up the screen?

Right, so you're going to cut and past this latest post into the "how to play" section of Scattershot right. Good.

Some day you'll have to come down out of the tundra and run some games for us.

Sorry Ralph, only if you pay my way (wife and kids too). Too many responsibilities to match your jet-setting lifestyle.

Glad you liked it.

Fang Langford

WWFD! Hahahahahaha!

Le Joueur wrote:
No problem, I'm more than glad to help out.

Le Joueur wrote: Then you're reading it differently then intended. I was trying to illustrate a common problem gamemasters have, the player who 'does what the character would do' almost intentionally at the expense of the game. What you provide is the common bad habit that grows up around the most traditional solution. I'm trying to give an example of how it could be done differently.

When you "blow up the farm" in the example, you aren't 'hosing' the player for avoiding the plot because there isn't any. (I said that at the start; remember to understand the example, you have to imagine that the movie doesn't exist for the exemplars.)

If you must think of it in terms of what I consider more 'bad writing' than 'traditional gamemastering' (running them through a plot because you 'know it's better'), then simply learn the 'get stuff out of the way of play' technique. However, I highly advise against it; if you have players who "follow the GM's plot or you get hosed," then they also have some pretty bad habits they need to unlearn.

How is "Alderaan is gone" bad stuff? How is being "captured," bad stuff? They aren't on Alderaan, they don't end up in the brig (well, not until later).

hyphz wrote: - Bunker players. They defend themselves optimally and then wait for something to happen, taking no real action on their own. Whatever you do to crack the bunker open invariably looks like railroading to them because it wasn't the result of their action; and since they believe they are being railroaded they carry on bunkering because that's the best tactic in that case.

"Cracking the bunker" is right out; your analysis is very good here. Eventually, these kinds of 'bunker players' will figure out that it's more fun to 'come out and play,' but for now? Bait. Parade whatever seems appropriate to either the players, their characters, or the setting, around in front of them. Make it valuable to the point of being irresistible and just out of reach. Make it seem so close they can taste it, but seemingly just a tiny bit of work to get. Don't pounce when they go for it, just keep stringing them along. They'll come out; you can bet they will, just try it.

hyphz wrote: Honesty might work; "Hey guys, I don't have anything planned here, you mind if we move it along?" That always works when I'm too tired to improvise. Otherwise, we're using bait again. Did you realize that the Greedo example is bait? Or rather it throws the spotlight on the bait that PC#1 and PC#2 already offered? (Sometimes you need to continue to 'parade' an offer until the players 'catch on.') Likewise, having the stormtroopers show up wasn't just a motivation to move away from the Cantina, it also happens to be a reminder of bait. Indirectly it says, "Hey, Luke, remember the fabulous babe hologram? Wanna go save her?" and "Hey Ben, don't forget you want to save the world, right?" And for gods' sake, unless you want it to turn into an 'on the run' campaign, think of every reason you can that the stormtroopers don't want a battle. (Leave them with a warning, too much paperwork, or anything that characterizes them as lazy will work.)

Spare the rod; this is role-playing gaming. If the players want to 'stick with the Cantina,' they're just 'bunkering down' again. If you can't offer bait, remind them of the bait they're already after.

You're forgetting something that you are implying; 'all consistency is pretend.' That's right, it is only as consistent as it seems. You avoid a lot of these 'preparation flaws' by simply not preparing, by not describing things. Take the Detention Level for example. They get down there and have a fight. No one even realizes there are hallways leading off the main room because you don't describe it. I can't say how many times I've seem gamemasters screw this one up somehow thinking that if they don't totally describe it, people will have problems imagining it.

That ain't how it works people. We've all seen the movie; about all the description you need sometimes is 'you're in an Imperial hanger bay' and leave the rest to their imaginations. (They brought those along, didn't they?)

hyphz wrote: - Just plain not being creative. This is, I realize, an awkward question, but let's just suppose for a moment that you are uncreative. You haven't "got it", whatever "it" is. And this is genetic or whatever - it isn't going to be overcome or changed, not even with practice, although it might be possible to work around it. But CAN it be worked around, or do you just have to hang up the screen?

Ultimately, this is precisely why I advocate 'not controlling' the game. No matter what you do, unless you are a savant gamemaster, your players are going to find out that you are just not that creative. That's why I keep hammering on the 'your idea is better than the players ideas' myth. Not feeling creative? You do have a bunch of other human beings there with you just brimming with imagination; leave it to them.

Let me leave you with one last bit of advice: 'give them enough rope.' See, one of the biggest problems I've had helping gamemasters get over the need to be over-controlling is some idea that if the players 'get their hands' on something great, it'll ruin everything. Just the opposite I've found (when you don't plan). Have you ever heard the saying, 'give them enough rope to hang themselves?' Do that, a lot, as often as possible. If the players want something real bad (like bait) let them have it (after as much of a struggle as remains interesting; when it gets boring hand it over).

Hey Hyphz:

Sounds to me like your players are exercising any means for control that they can get. Have you thought about playing a game with them that has rules for narration rights, and that sort of thing? They might really like something like the I-System. Let them tell you the details, and why not? If they like Star Wars as much as you, they'll say the right things.

hyphz,

Maybe I can offer some advice. I pretty much agree with Fang, though I've used some slightly different approaches in my years of running games.

Re: movie plots and RPGs
I have never found movie plots to transfer well to RPGs. I think a big part of is just a change in medium. For example, Star Wars reads differently as a book than it did as a movie or comic, and the radio series was different from all of them. What works in a movie medium doesn't work in a game medium (necessarily).

Furthermore, a movie gives the screenwriter a lot of control, especially in a case like Star Wars where Lucas also directed. This means he can fine tune what happens to reinforce theme or irony. If you share control with players (which you do, even in old-school games), then you lose that fine control. What seems like a great scene full of depth and meaning turns into a confusing, disappointing muddle.

Re: PC Bunkers
Boy can I understand this one. I've had so many players who would retreat to their bunker. One spent enormous sums of money designing robots that he could send outside to gather information while he hid. The only sure-fire solution I've found is to stop the game and say "OK, what do you want to have happen next?"

Oftentimes, the player isn't really thinking through the implications of hiding. He's fallen into a gamist mode in which he thinks the GM wins by killing him, thus he thinks he'll win if he survives. Bunkers are great for surviving. Asking him what he wants to have happen reminds him that it isn't about winning, but about playing. And you'd be amazed how many players will answer with "Well, maybe the villain should raid my bunker and capture me" or something like that. If you'd just done it as a GM, he'd be really pissed... when you allow him to give you permission first, everyone has a blast.

This strategy works for your example of going back to the farm. Blowing it up is only if you feel like it adds to the story. Otherwise, you're better off asking the player why he's going back and what he wants to happen as a result. I do agree with you that blowing it up is more likely to cause problems than solve them.

Re: Making up details
I once spent a long time reading Stephen King to figure out what people liked about his writing. My conclusion is that King throws in lots of little, apparently random details. It isn't just "a guy" its "a man in a nice suit, but with his tie loosened." Now, what the guy wears is irrelevant to the story, but those two little details flesh him out - the players will probably feel like they know his personality before even speaking to him. You should be able to make up these details off the top of your head, because they don't really mean anything.

What if your details don't add up? As in your example with the missing kitchen, the best option is to find a way to explain it, quick. If you're not good at ad-libbing or can't think of anything, just apologize, explain that you didn't think about it, and ask them to just work with it. If the missing kitchen is important to a PC plan, consider adding it.

You also asked about describing things like a hallway or docking bay. I really think you can afford to be vague, even if its an unusual setting. Most people process the world from the general to the specific. When you walk into someone's house, you see "Oh, the kitchen is over there, and the dining room and living room are in front of me." Only instants later do you process details like the chandelier, the flowers or the couch. If players feel like they need those details, let them ask. Otherwise, leave the description vague and give players room to improvise. If they're in a kitchen and they say "I grab a knife" don't reply "You don't see any" or "Which drawer do you look in?" Say "There are lots of drawers - it'll take about a minute to find it."

And, of course, there are systems (like Donjon) that share narration and encourage players to add their own details. In those systems, let the players provide details using the game's mechanism.

hyphz wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: Then you're reading it differently then intended. I was trying to illustrate a common problem gamemasters have, the player who 'does what the character would do' almost intentionally at the expense of the game. What you provide is the common bad habit that grows up around the most traditional solution. I'm trying to give an example of how it could be done differently.

When you "blow up the farm" in the example, you aren't 'hosing' the player for avoiding the plot because there isn't any. (I said that at the start; remember to understand the example, you have to imagine that the movie doesn't exist for the exemplars.)

Yes, I agree absolutely. There is no fixed plot.. but the players don't know that,

hyphz wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: If you must think of it in terms of what I consider more 'bad writing' than 'traditional gamemastering' (running them through a plot because you 'know it's better'), then simply learn the 'get stuff out of the way of play' technique. However, I highly advise against it; if you have players who "follow the GM's plot or you get hosed," then they also have some pretty bad habits they need to unlearn.

Well, that's kind of my point. Many players I've seen do have this, and it would be really valuable to know what to do about it when it happens.

hyphz wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: How is "Alderaan is gone" bad stuff? How is being "captured," bad stuff? They aren't on Alderaan, they don't end up in the brig (well, not until later).

Being captured is bad stuff. The PCs would oppose it, given the choice. You imply that they should be denied the choice somehow. Now, if you're playing in the kind of the game where the players will take it on trust that if this kind of 'off-screen' action occurs the result won't be too bad for their characters, then that's fine...but a lot of players I know - and I mean really met, played with, run for, know - wouldn't consider that to not be railroading, just for it to be "good" railroading.

The reason why I'm thinking on this is that it's exactly the "let's get the PC's captured now because it would be cool" that leads to problems when the PCs decide to... (big groan, you guessed it) hack the guidance systems of the ships sent out to capture them.

hyphz wrote:

Le Joueur wrote:

hyphz wrote: - Bunker players. They defend themselves optimally and then wait for something to happen, taking no real action on their own. Whatever you do to crack the bunker open invariably looks like railroading to them because it wasn't the result of their action; and since they believe they are being railroaded they carry on bunkering because that's the best tactic in that case.

"Cracking the bunker" is right out; your analysis is very good here. Eventually, these kinds of 'bunker players' will figure out that it's more fun to 'come out and play,' but for now? Bait. Parade whatever seems appropriate to either the players, their characters, or the setting, around in front of them. Make it valuable to the point of being irresistible and just out of reach. Make it seem so close they can taste it, but seemingly just a tiny bit of work to get. Don't pounce when they go for it, just keep stringing them along. They'll come out; you can bet they will, just try it.

Mmmmm... I see what you mean. It'd probably be best to let them get the bait, because otherwise they'll think it was just 'one of those things we'll never get'. It's described very well in the Unknown Armies rulebook as the Static Picaresque: "you never really get what you want, because there's got to be another episode". (And which is one of the reasons why I so appreciated the bit in Ron's essay on making campaigns consciously finite.)

hyphz wrote: Problem is - if they get the bait without too much work, you've effectively rewarded them for sitting around in the bunker... Grrm. I guess at that stage OOC discussion has got to cut in. But discussing that kind of stuff seems to be hard, for some reason. (Could get into a waffly discussion about how railroading describes the philosophical nature of free will, but won't. Well, not here, anyway.)

hyphz wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: You're forgetting something that you are implying; 'all consistency is pretend.' That's right, it is only as consistent as it seems. You avoid a lot of these 'preparation flaws' by simply not preparing, by not describing things. Take the Detention Level for example. They get down there and have a fight. No one even realizes there are hallways leading off the main room because you don't describe it. I can't say how many times I've seem gamemasters screw this one up somehow thinking that if they don't totally describe it, people will have problems imagining it.

Oh, that's fine. The problem comes when the players explicitly ask for that description.

hyphz wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: That ain't how it works people. We've all seen the movie; about all the description you need sometimes is 'you're in an Imperial hanger bay' and leave the rest to their imaginations. (They brought those along, didn't they?)

How do you do this in the case where the game isn't based on a movie, or set in the modern day?

hyphz wrote:

Le Joueur wrote:

hyphz wrote: - Just plain not being creative. This is, I realize, an awkward question, but let's just suppose for a moment that you are uncreative. You haven't "got it", whatever "it" is. And this is genetic or whatever - it isn't going to be overcome or changed, not even with practice, although it might be possible to work around it. But CAN it be worked around, or do you just have to hang up the screen?

Ultimately, this is precisely why I advocate 'not controlling' the game. No matter what you do, unless you are a savant gamemaster, your players are going to find out that you are just not that creative. That's why I keep hammering on the 'your idea is better than the players ideas' myth. Not feeling creative? You do have a bunch of other human beings there with you just brimming with imagination; leave it to them.

The problem is: "Ok, we ask around if anyone's heard anything about the McGuffin." The nightmare I'd have of responding: "Well, yes, there's a.. umm.. uhhhh... guy who.. umm..."

hyphz wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: Let me leave you with one last bit of advice: 'give them enough rope.' See, one of the biggest problems I've had helping gamemasters get over the need to be over-controlling is some idea that if the players 'get their hands' on something great, it'll ruin everything. Just the opposite I've found (when you don't plan). Have you ever heard the saying, 'give them enough rope to hang themselves?' Do that, a lot, as often as possible. If the players want something real bad (like bait) let them have it (after as much of a struggle as remains interesting; when it gets boring hand it over).

I agree with this a lot; a lot of what you're saying seems to tie in with Ron's "story now" comments in Sorcerer, that there's no reason to go roaming around a bunch of dull "it isn't here" places before getting hold of the Big Thing.

I don't know - your comments are just ringing true for me because it sounds like something I need to get over as well. My problem is that when I try to run something I have ideas and thoughts and plans but then get an endlessly nagging voice in my head which keeps repeating "Yes, but what if..?" or "Yes, but what THEN?" until I give up and the game never runs. Which just makes me feel like I'm letting down the players and that I'm not cutting it as a GM - that bit about hanging up screens wasn't purely exaggeration, for a long while I strongly considered just giving up because nobody locally was running anything I liked and, although I had players interested in my running something, any attempt to do so (beyond a one-shot from a scenario book) seemed to be doomed to entropy.

hyphz wrote: Now I've heard from others before about running games the way you described but I'd never read an example of it as good as your original post, but it still feels like it's something that "expert GMs" do and I'm not one of them - I *know* that's nonsensical but it's still there. Um, sorry, paragraph too long, too much personal neurotic ranting, I'll shut up and just say thanks very much again for what you've written.

Le Joueur wrote:
Um...why? When I gamemaster, I'm pretty up front about that. "There isn't any kind of plot so feel free to take the game where it pleases you!" "I dunno, what do you want to play tonight?" These are the kinds of things I always start a game with new people with. They know, right away, that the game is 'about' their characters; these characters are the movers and the shakers of 'the movie.' I explain that if they don't act impulsively or if they try to second guess 'what should be done,' they're doing it wrong.

So, why don't "the players know that" there is no fixed plot? Is it important for a gamemaster to keep so many secrets? I don't think so, a few choice nuggets that are the focus of the conflict, probably, but why not tell them 'there's no plot to follow?'

Then hit 'em where it counts. If they're thinking 'I gotta do something to keep my character out of trouble,' they're thinking as players, not characters. Just turn to them and say, "Okay, who wants to get captured so we can have a 'daring escape?'" I mean it. Literally ask them. People who play 'deep in character' won't mind if you capture them, they know something will come up because you won't end the game suddenly like that (or they should); everybody else is already out of character, so ask the players if they'd like to try a 'daring escape,' and...just forget to mention that they have to be captured to escape. (But remind them when they start groaning.)

What do you mean "for sitting around in the bunker?" The most important thing is they have to leave to get the bait; make that rule numbah one for baiting. Rule numbah two has to be play them along right until they get bored being 'outside chasing the bait' and just give it to them.

I never have this problem. See, you're talking about the dysfunctional, bunker-liver player here; he's looking for some edge he can use the next time you hose him. He wants to stake down as much territory as possible to keep from getting surprised.

See, the kind of game we're talking about here is not a 'simulate the reality of the Star Wars universe;' it's Star Wars, it's clashing lightsabres, it's space dogfights, it's shootouts and moral quandaries, don't let the bunker-livers fool you into 'playing their game.' Like I said, they're just looking for an edge to protect themselves with.

If they ask for information like you're some kind of dictionary, don't give it to them.

hyphz wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: Let me leave you with one last bit of advice: 'give them enough rope.' See, one of the biggest problems I've had helping gamemasters get over the need to be over-controlling is some idea that if the players 'get their hands' on something great, it'll ruin everything. Just the opposite I've found (when you don't plan). Have you ever heard the saying, 'give them enough rope to hang themselves?' Do that, a lot, as often as possible. If the players want something real bad (like bait) let them have it (after as much of a struggle as remains interesting; when it gets boring hand it over).

If you get a batch of those players who're just looking for a 'rollercoaster ride' where they get on and you do all the work (and you like that kinda stuff), tell them on those nights when you don't feel creative enough; tell them the truth. If you can get a group together who are willing to share in creating the game, and everyone can learn to trust each other, you can get some really kicking games going.

Well, this is the thing - I don't know if they look for the rollercoaster ride or not. I mean, for a long while they (sorry - WE) were playing rollercoaster D&D3E but then we quit it because we were bored. So they might not like the rollercoaster style, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they'll get the idea of.. well, having to go do stuff.

Thanks very much again for taking the time to write these long replies. ;)

They don't ask for campaign information like you described. I'm talking about questions like "How wide is the bridge and what's it made out of?"

hyphz wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: Um...why? When I gamemaster, I'm pretty up front about that. "There isn't any kind of plot so feel free to take the game where it pleases you!" "I dunno, what do you want to play tonight?" These are the kinds of things I always start a game with new people with. They know, right away, that the game is 'about' their characters; these characters are the movers and the shakers of 'the movie.' I explain that if they don't act impulsively or if they try to second guess 'what should be done,' they're doing it wrong.

So, why don't "the players know that" there is no fixed plot? Is it important for a gamemaster to keep so many secrets? I don't think so, a few choice nuggets that are the focus of the conflict, probably, but why not tell them 'there's no plot to follow?'

Because they resist that. I've been trying to get them to try out a game of InSpectres or Donjon, but they seriously resist that because they feel that there's no real adventure unless there's something they can push against. Not that I think they'd resist just having the ability to do stuff in the world; but they resist author/director stance like crazy.

hyphz wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: Then hit 'em where it counts. If they're thinking 'I gotta do something to keep my character out of trouble,' they're thinking as players, not characters. Just turn to them and say, "Okay, who wants to get captured so we can have a 'daring escape?'" I mean it. Literally ask them. People who play 'deep in character' won't mind if you capture them, they know something will come up because you won't end the game suddenly like that (or they should); everybody else is already out of character, so ask the players if they'd like to try a 'daring escape,' and...just forget to mention that they have to be captured to escape. (But remind them when they start groaning.)

Well, I did do a similar thing to that once. We were playing a game of Conspiracy X and several of the characters had maxed out for combat (including one who had gone all the way to Strength 5 Size 5, creating substantial laughter when we found that according to the Aegis book he could then be individually targeted by orbital satellites..) But, most of the people they were interacting with were suspicious rather than hostile, and although I knew there was an ending fight in the adventure (it was a sample adventure to try the system out) we ran an awful long time without any combat.

So, once when one of the PCs was going to interrogate some dodgy gang members I basically just admitted that they probably had the skills and appearance to intimidate these guys, but if they wanted a fight they could have one.

They said no. But their perception of it was not that I'd offered them a free choice either way, it was that I'd offered to 'fudge' the adventure. One of them also said that he felt that the creepy atmosphere which was going up to that point was utterly destroyed by the knowledge that the OOC player had affected an NPCs actions.

hyphz wrote: And that wasn't helped by mentioning it in passing to a more experienced GM who gave me in one second and twenty words a plot idea better than any I'd had in that time.

hyphz wrote: I'm becoming a 'bunker GM' by trying to make sure that whatever happens in the game can resist every possible player objection,

hyphz wrote: Well, this is the thing - I don't know if they look for the rollercoaster ride or not. I mean, for a long while they (sorry - WE) were playing rollercoaster D&D3E but then we quit it because we were bored. So they might not like the rollercoaster style, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they'll get the idea of.. well, having to go do stuff.

hyphz wrote: Thanks very much again for taking the time to write these long replies. ;)

Hi Fang,

You may be better at helping other folks with their problems than solving your own.... But who isn't like that?

I wanted to thank you for the work you've done on this post and Eric's Woe post. I suspect they'll both be referred to many times in the future for GMs looking to expand their range of GMing styles. The clarity and passion you've brought to bear on a still relatively unknown type of GMing is going to go a long way for many people who stop by the Forge.

Christopher

hyphz wrote: Well, we were originally talking about Star Wars with Eric but I was looking for general principles - I'm not running Star Wars and nor do I particularly want to. The game I'm trying to run now is UA, which has been "got players, waiting to be run" since freakin' SEPTEMBER because I felt I could not complete an adequate adventure plan. (And that wasn't helped by mentioning it in passing to a more experienced GM who gave me in one second and twenty words a plot idea better than any I'd had in that time. Which, to be honest, made me feel like throwing my rulebook - no, screw it, my bookshelf - in the trash, and is why I asked the question I did about noncreative people earlier. But in retrospect I realised I'd been too harsh on my own idea and his had just looked better because it hadn't be subjected to the "what then, what if, why" grinder.)

Le Joueur wrote:
That's what "they can push against." It's there, you just don't need all the shells to hide it.

That simply looks like you waited too long. Waiting until the end of the scene to solicit the result does look like 'chickening out.' Giving them the option to call a single scene is deferring what they expect out of you as the gamemaster, operating the opposition. The point when to invite their input is just before you're going to do something 'they won't like,' like capturing them.

Then sharing must be the answer; how could the players object to stuff they came up with?

hyphz wrote:

I've seen only a few break out of 'rollercoaster play' and get into 'doing stuff.' That's one of the driving urges to keep working on Scattershot; I want it to explain how to 'do stuff.'

You're welcome. As Ralph pointed out, I get some of my best ideas and methods of explaining things for Scattershot by answering these kinds of posts. (His 'cut this and paste it into Scattershot' comment.) I owe you a debt for prompting this kind of writing. Honestly, I'm a much better solve-the-problems-of-others guy than a write-a-manual-of-how-to-do-it guy. So you've participated greatly in Scattershot; can I get the proper spelling of your name for the 'credits page?'

Geez, that's yet ANOTHER indie game to buy and marvel at the insight of ;)

Ian Charvill wrote:
To hit on the UA blockage, if you don't mind getting into specifics, a quick question or two: what kind of characters have the players created?

hyphz wrote:

Ian Charvill wrote:
To hit on the UA blockage, if you don't mind getting into specifics, a quick question or two: what kind of characters have the players created?

I'll be blunt about it because they were: the Punisher, Mr. T, the Equalizer, and "a hacker".

hyphz wrote: I actually had a think about it today and had quite a few ideas about where it might go (beyond the obvious). But it took time and I don't think I'd have been able to do it on the fly, which is my ongoing worry.

hyphz wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: That simply looks like you waited too long. Waiting until the end of the scene to solicit the result does look like 'chickening out.' Giving them the option to call a single scene is deferring what they expect out of you as the gamemaster, operating the opposition. The point when to invite their input is just before you're going to do something 'they won't like,' like capturing them.

I don't see the distinction here. I asked the question before the scene started, while their PCs were headed to the place where they were going to meet the guys. The scene could not be skipped because they needed to play out interrogating the guys - the question was if they would actually have to smack them down before they'd talk or whether they'd just be intimidated without the PCs needing to fight.

How is asking "do you want to fight them for the info or not?" any different from saying "do you want to play a daring escape?"

hyphz wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: Then sharing must be the answer; how could the players object to stuff they came up with?

Because they can and do object to being asked to come up with stuff in the first place.

As long as you're willing to explain all this, Fang, can I ask a question? I think I've had one of the same problems hyphz has, and I also have no idea what to do about it.

Okay, so I'm going to run our SW game. I want to do things the way you describe; sounds awesome.

I open it up, make clear before we start, at the start of the session, and periodically throughout the session, that the players basically need to write the world and the plot around them, and sometimes make meta-decisions (would we rather do a cool escape thing, or a chase scene, or go play alien-hunting?). They say, "Oh yes, totally cool, no problem."

Then you start noticing that (1) they never do it without prompting --- a lot of prompting, and (2) they won't won't won't do it when it concerns a Plot Element (see below). They do not believe you when you say you have no fixed plan or goal. They are clearly very frustrated by having certain things handed to them openly, and while they like this kind of gaming as a general concept, they just are not comfortable doing it.

By Plot Element, I mean something for which they "just know" I "must" have a plan. For example, when the gang gets to the station to do the Daring Rescue we've agreed will be fun, they "just know" I "must" know where she is. But I don't --- I want them to decide where's a good place. If they don't suggest anything clever, maybe I'll say, "Boodly wheep bleep bleep [R2 speaking] R2 says the Princess is in Detention Block A [C3P0]." "So where is that?" they ask. "I dunno, where would you like it to be?" "No come on, that's stupid, where is it?" And so on. They just can't accept that an important Plot Element is going to be made up on the fly more or less according to what they do or say.

I think hyphz was describing this situation; god knows I've run into it. The players go passive; not exactly into the defensive bunker, perhaps, but they just start trying to "wait you out." They seem to think, "Well, he's not providing stuff, and he keeps asking us to do stuff, but we don't know which way the plot is supposed to go; if we wait him out, he's GOT to produce stuff because otherwise we'll all just stare at each other."

What do I do?

clehrich wrote: I think hyphz was describing this situation; god knows I've run into it. The players go passive; not exactly into the defensive bunker, perhaps, but they just start trying to "wait you out." They seem to think, "Well, he's not providing stuff, and he keeps asking us to do stuff, but we don't know which way the plot is supposed to go; if we wait him out, he's GOT to produce stuff because otherwise we'll all just stare at each other."

What do I do?

Jason,

As a matter of clarification here, how come this flowchart system doesn't encourage the players to think traditionally? I mean, doesn't this tell them, "Yup, we can wait him out, and then he'll go back to what we're used to, and we can be passive again." I believe that it works, but I don't understand why.

clehrich wrote: As a matter of clarification here, how come this flowchart system doesn't encourage the players to think traditionally? I mean, doesn't this tell them, "Yup, we can wait him out, and then he'll go back to what we're used to, and we can be passive again." I believe that it works, but I don't understand why.

clehrich wrote: As long as you're willing to explain all this, Fang, can I ask a question? I think I've had one of the same problems hyphz has, and I also have no idea what to do about it.

clehrich wrote: Okay, so I'm going to run our SW game. I want to do things the way you describe; sounds awesome.

I open it up, make clear before we start, at the start of the session, and periodically throughout the session, that the players basically need to write the world and the plot around them, and sometimes make meta-decisions (would we rather do a cool escape thing, or a chase scene, or go play alien-hunting?). They say, "Oh yes, totally cool, no problem."

clehrich wrote: Then you start noticing that (1) they never do it without prompting --- a lot of prompting, and (2) they won't won't won't do it when it concerns a Plot Element (see below). They do not believe you when you say you have no fixed plan or goal. They are clearly very frustrated by having certain things handed to them openly, and while they like this kind of gaming as a general concept, they just are not comfortable doing it.

clehrich wrote: By Plot Element, I mean something for which they "just know" I "must" have a plan. For example, when the gang gets to the station to do the Daring Rescue we've agreed will be fun, they "just know" I "must" know where she is. But I don't --- I want them to decide where's a good place. If they don't suggest anything clever, maybe I'll say, "Boodly wheep bleep bleep [R2 speaking] R2 says the Princess is in Detention Block A [C3P0]." "So where is that?" they ask. "I dunno, where would you like it to be?" "No come on, that's stupid, where is it?" And so on. They just can't accept that an important Plot Element is going to be made up on the fly more or less according to what they do or say.

clehrich wrote: I think hyphz was describing this situation; god knows I've run into it. The players go passive; not exactly into the defensive bunker, perhaps, but they just start trying to "wait you out." They seem to think, "Well, he's not providing stuff, and he keeps asking us to do stuff, but we don't know which way the plot is supposed to go; if we wait him out, he's GOT to produce stuff because otherwise we'll all just stare at each other."

clehrich wrote: What do I do?

cruciel wrote: On the surface this seems completely contrary to Fang's suggestion. But I don't think it is (or, rather, has to be...it could be very illusionist also). The key is not to lock yourself into the chart. The chart is a framework to get past the bumps when neither GM nor player knows what to do. It is not there to railroad the players with, even if it looks like a nice set of tracks. The players may put new connecting lines on the chart you didn't think of, skip giant sections somehow, or create entirely new 'key events'. If events don't occur as you predicted (and they most likely won't if the players actually participate in the development of the plot) you can still jump around the chart for ideas or a frame of reference for what happens next.

cruciel wrote: So, to put this in context: Your players are helping creating plot, and then they suddenly stop and try to wait you out. Maybe because they are afraid it is too important a decision for the lowly worms that they are, maybe they want a surprise, or maybe they just don't have any ideas. Pick the closest point to where they currently are on the chart, draw a line to the nearest event, and feed it to them. Resume play as normal once past the bump.

cruciel wrote: Make a flow chart.

1) Start with one or more 'opening plot hooks'.
2) Decide on one or more preferred or most likely 'outcomes' to the hooks.
3) Begin organically placing most-likely-to-occur 'key events', or steps, in chains. Optional outcomes of 'key events' may begin new chains. Make sure your chains end at one or more of the 'outcomes' you set out with.

The 'key events' should be like signposts or landmarks for the GM,

You should end up with a root-like structure.

cruciel wrote: ...It won't help them change the way they play. But, it should help you get past everyone sitting around staring at each other and back to playing.

cruciel wrote: A note: the GM is one of the players creating the plot - he gets to contribute to. Also, IMO the common definition of GM includes the responsibility to be creative when no one else wants to.

cruciel wrote: Another note: I personally don't think there is anything wrong with the rollercoaster. It doesn't have to be bunker playing, it can be suspenseful and challenging.

Le Joueur wrote: No, this is definitely not what I'm saying. Using a flow chart is contrary to sharing unless you share it. Resorting to this kind of crutch pretty much invalidates the most basic principles of 'sharing the game' or being a 'non-controlling gamemaster.' I'd even argue that the presence of such will be very enticing towards back-sliding. And if you're willing to forego complete sections, it seems like a lot of work just so you can throw it away. Why not skip the 'control aid' and wing it?

[snip]

This is a thread exploring how to play a 'shared game' style of gamemastering. I'd really like to see someone do a thread on rollercoaster gamemastering, I know I need to brush up on it. Heck, there's absolutely nothing wrong with 'flow charting' either, that's a valid and valuable style of gamemastering; it isn't sharing though. That's what I'm describing; I don't mean to imply any negativity about these other forms, merely that they are incompatible with 'shared gaming.'

Ian Charvill wrote:
Not sure who The Punisher is (Marvel comic character? sure I heard something about an adaptation recently); not sure how deep they are into the Underground; not sure whether they know each other but...

If you think it'd help you I could write up how I'd prep a first session of play for those characters in UA, how much I'd leave open, how much closed and how I'd prep for the players doing unexpected things.

Hello,

Chimin' in ...

Jason, it sounds to me as if you have some assumptions about GMing and the GM's notes. Your posts say, to my reading anyway, that the process is either referencing a flow chart, which to me includes arrows and "go here, then there, or here" kind of planned directions, or it's improvisation. You also suggest that the chart is very useful while GMing in the way that Fang is talking about.

All of the above is my reading of what you've presented. If I'm wrong, let me know.

I suggest that you consider a list of stuff, some of which is rock-solid for the setting and back-story, without the little "go here next" arrows at all. Sorcerer's texts include almost nothing but this sort of thing.

- The main book introduces Bangs (which in the GM notes are possible things that could be tossed to the players; we've taken to calling his notes the "bandolier").

- The scene transition and story-structure information in Sorcerer & Sword is about utilizing Bangs without forcing outcomes upon the players, and also about setting up play such that the protagonists are really the center of attention.

- The relationship-map method in The Sorcerer's Soul is about setting up complex emotional back-story without turning the session into a hunt for clues. Clue-hunts are essentially dungeons with doors and traps and stuff; a good back-story, by contrast, is a social matrix with infinite outcomes and possible relationships to form and be acted upon.

What I'm getting at is that none of these methods are either flow-chart or improvisation. They are "stuff" which may include extreme fixed-setting material or even planned events, but not a planned or even potential flow of this-to-that.

You are kind of hinting at this approach when you say, use the flow-chart for "stuff" when you need it, but I suggest removing the little arrows that make it a flow-chart in the first place. You don't lose the neat stuff (back-story, NPCs, etc), but you don't need all the "go here or go there" either.

Best,
Ron

cruciel wrote: [About Flow-charting...] You called is a crutch, and that is exactly what it is. You are putting a lot of burden in a 'shared game' on improvisation. Most gamers I know freeze under request for improvisational GMing.

cruciel wrote: Improvisation is a difficult skill; I think less gifted people will need a crutch to help them improvise.

cruciel wrote: For this kind of game you would not be dragging the players back onto the chart when they dare defy your carefully laid plans. You would use the chart as inspiration, creativity you put in a bottle for when everyone else is fresh out. A little control can be safety net, if you haven't gotten around to letting go as you put it...

It could very well be a list of cool Star Wars-like things that could happen, or 'neat turns'. I just prefer a flowchart because the organic nature of its construction makes it more likely to be of use to you, without force.

cruciel wrote: It is also handy because it is multi-purpose; in case the whole 'shared control' thing derails on you mid-game and you need to switch to rollercoasterism.

cruciel wrote: As far as the 'anything to get them moving trick', I agree. I may be beating a dead horse now, but I was just saying use the chart to figure out what to use for your 'anything to get them moving trick' if you can't think of anything.

On the issue of 'control aids' enticing back-sliding, you may very well be correct.

cruciel wrote: Your last couple posts did an excellent job of making your position clear. The separation from all Director/Author stance issues in particular is a clarifier that really needed to be stated outright. [They are] also has some good methods for helping yourself improvise, like the 'flirting' comments.

Fang,

I'm not going to say that I hope you're someday soon going to cobble all this together into an article. I'm going to say that you will do so. Yah yah, job wife kids, blah blah, excuses excuses. :) Seriously, I've never heard anything so coherent and helpful about GMing in my life. Thank you!

Alright, now before you go getting a swollen head, I want to ask more questions. <squats in lotus position before the feet of the master>

1. Every now and then, in anything but a freeform one-shot, you're going to want something predetermined. I realize that the basic point of shared GMing is, if I understand you right, precisely that you don't do this, but every now and then there's a reason to. One example would be when the story in an extended campaign has just turned temporarily into a mystery: who whacked this dude? You don't have a precise answer to that, you don't have a complete story of how it happened for them to go dungeon-crawl-hunt-for-clues on, but there is something you have decided on about this.

Alternatively to continue the SW example, suppose I thought of the Death Star as a way-cool idea, and had an NPC mention it pretty early on so everyone would know about it. Now I really don't want to railroad more than I absolutely have to; the one thing I need (for whatever reason) is for them to go to the Death Star. I don't care why, I don't care whether they blow it up, I don't have a map of it, nothing. I just need them to go there.

Again, if I hear you right, you would say that such railroading is very very dangerous, because it encourages GM-control backsliding, and encourages player passivity. What you have here is a major point that is invented by the GM and not the players, which is in itself problematic. So do you have any advice for sharing the game with them when there is one thing you just have to get to?

2. I think I get your point about sharing vs. Director Stance. You don't need to be open with the players about what you're doing as such, you just need to share with them and flirt when they won't share back. Is that more or less right? And can you explain flirting a bit more?

3. Can shared gaming go well with Director Stance? I think your point is that it's not about stance, and that telling the players, "You will write the plot now" is intimidating and counter-productive. But does this approach work well when the players do jump out and direct? Is it best if it's done like the Confessional in InSpectres, where Director Stance is done in-character, or does that matter?

4. Does shared gaming help with immersion? Not that immersion (I mean players being "in character all the time") is necessarily the goal, but does this promote that style of play?

Fang,

While I hope you'll remark on those questions above, it looks to me like I should read more or less everything on the Scattershot forum, then ask questions. So I have a question: where do I start? It looks to me like the Gaming Model thing should perhaps be first, but what then? Since Scattershot is an emerging game, not a done deal that can be referred back to, a road-map would really help me a lot.

Thanks!

Regarding the Death Star...
If it were me and I really wanted to have a Death Star (while not being sure exactly what it was)

I'd do a Cut Scene very early on...
something like...
Leia in Vader's custody arrives to be questioned by Tarkin the commander of the DeathStar...

or , even better

the Vader choking scene in the meeting room concerning the missing plans, Technology and the Force...

Do these very early... like perhaps before Luke even loses R2...

As GM I still don't know what a Deathstar is...or where it is... just that its a terrible weapon

Ron Edwards wrote: Jason, it sounds to me as if you have some assumptions about GMing and the GM's notes. Your posts say, to my reading anyway, that the process is either referencing a flow chart, which to me includes arrows and "go here, then there, or here" kind of planned directions, or it's improvisation. You also suggest that the chart is very useful while GMing in the way that Fang is talking about.

All of the above is my reading of what you've presented. If I'm wrong, let me know.

Le Joueur wrote: Who said anything about 'going without crutches?' I'm not communicating here; I already suggested character hooks and 'neat turns' (or twists) in a list. How is that not a valuable tool, a crutch if you will, for improvisation?

Le Joueur wrote: Then get rid of the "flow" in your chart, the "and then this" part, because that's where it stops being improvisation and starts being control. (For that matter, throw out the "chart" part too, because a chart implies positional relationships, almost as much 'flow' as before; the only chart that might be handy is one that implies relationships rather than order.) There is nothing 'organic' about putting events in a predetermined order. An 'organic' list of hooks and turns would be almost deliberately out-of-order; this I suggested.

Le Joueur wrote: That's fine; you can run a game any way you want. Until I've completed the description of 'shared control' gaming, tossing in 'use this to Transition to rollercoasterism' won't do anything but obscure the understanding of 'shared control' gaming. There's absolutely nothing wrong with Transition, I invented the term after all. You can't Transition from a form until you can do it; I think a thread about Transition would be excellent, just not here. I'm trying to keep this thread on track to explain what is apparently a really tricky gaming technique.

cruciel wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: Until I've completed the description of 'shared control' gaming, tossing in 'use this to Transition....' ...I think a thread about Transition would be excellent, just not here. I'm trying to keep this thread on track to explain what is apparently a really tricky gaming technique.

You're dead on. I was offering up a solution to the 'what if I can't?' and 'what if they won't?' questions. But, in doing so I went and introduced methods for Transition, or even more complicated...So you're right, I'm gonna drop it. I'm very interested in seeing where this thread goes, and I don't want to see it lose focus either.

cruciel wrote: I think you hit the heart of the dispute with your comments about 'organic'. I see two valid approaches to such a chart (at least two that we are discussing), but there is a big difference between the two of them:

• A chart of events and turns that might happen pieced together in a logical chain...but leaving some options open.

• A chart starting with a single event (or hook) that grows outward based on 'what if the players do this? or this? or this?' ...Trying to account for all the variables of player actions...doing your best to predict the future

I'm suggesting (2), and I think you are seeing (1).

clehrich wrote: I'm not going to say that I hope you're someday soon going to cobble all this together into an article. I'm going to say that you will do so. Yah yah, job wife kids, blah blah, excuses excuses.

clehrich wrote: 1. Every now and then, in anything but a freeform one-shot, you're going to want something predetermined. I realize that the basic point of shared GMing is, if I understand you right, precisely that you don't do this, but every now and then there's a reason to.

Bob McNamee wrote: Regarding the Deathstar...
If it were me and I really wanted to have a Deathstar (while not being sure exactly what it was), I'd do a Cut Scene very early on...

Leia in Vader's custody arrives to be questioned by Tarkin the commander of the DeathStar...

or even better,

The Vader choking scene in the meeting room concerning the missing plans, Technology and the Force...

As GM I still don't know what a Deathstar is...or where it is...just that it's a terrible weapon.

clehrich wrote: One example would be when the story in an extended campaign has just turned temporarily into a mystery: who whacked this dude? You don't have a precise answer to that, you don't have a complete story of how it happened for them to go dungeon-crawl-hunt-for-clues on, but there is something you have decided on about this.

clehrich wrote: Alternatively to continue the SW example, suppose I thought of the Death Star as a way-cool idea, and had an NPC mention it pretty early on so everyone would know about it. Now I really don't want to railroad more than I absolutely have to; the one thing I need (for whatever reason) is for them to go to the Death Star. I don't care why, I don't care whether they blow it up, I don't have a map of it, nothing. I just need them to go there.

clehrich wrote: Again, if I hear you right, you would say that such railroading is very, very dangerous, because it encourages GM-control backsliding, and encourages player passivity. What you have here is a major point that is invented by the GM and not the players, which is in itself problematic. So do you have any advice for sharing the game with them when there is one thing you just have to get to?

clehrich wrote: 2. I think I get your point about sharing vs. Director Stance. You don't need to be open with the players about what you're doing as such, you just need to share with them and flirt when they won't share back. Is that more or less right? And can you explain flirting a bit more?

clehrich wrote: 3. Can shared gaming go well with Director Stance? I think your point is that it's not about stance, and that telling the players, "You will write the plot now" is intimidating and counter-productive. But does this approach work well when the players do jump out and direct? Is it best if it's done like the Confessional in InSpectres, where Director Stance is done in-character, or does that matter?

clehrich wrote: 4. Does shared gaming help with immersion? Not that immersion (I mean players being "in character all the time") is necessarily the goal, but does this promote that style of play?

clehrich wrote: While I hope you'll remark on those questions above, it looks to me like I should read more or less everything on the Scattershot forum, then ask questions. So I have a question: where do I start? It looks to me like the Gaming Model thing should perhaps be first, but what then? Since Scattershot is an emerging game, not a done deal that can be referred back to, a road-map would really help me a lot.

Fang,

The only thing that bothers me here is that it sounds so damn easy. I've got these couple-inch-thick 3-ring binders for some of my games. Sigh.

Thanks a lot. I'm working on my Scattershot reading list now. See you in the forum.

Hi Fang,

So, I'm getting the ideas here, liking them, and I'm gradually coming up with a bandolier (I *love* that metaphor) for my UA game. And I just want to clarify the sort of things that can be done here. (If you want to know the stuff I have so far I'll post it, but I don't think it's relevant to the general discussion, especially since Star Wars is being used as the yardstick example.) I know you can have characters and things on it, but can you EVER have scenes on the bandolier at all or does that lead to railroading? Moreover, how deeply can you define the characters on the bandolier so that their interactions don't become completely predictable and create predefined scenes? What is the distinction between a scene and a 'bang'?

Secondly, what kinds of 'little stuff' can you put in? What I mean by 'little stuff' is that the players suddenly go quiet and frozen and you don't exactly want to toss in one of the big items (because a) it'll make the plot look disjointed and b) you'll run out of big items too fast), but you need to stir things up. The obvious thought I have here is PC action consequences, because you can't run out of them (even doing nothing might have consequences for the PCs) and they create coherentness rather than disjointedness; but as you don't know the PCs actions in advance, consequences have to be generated on the fly rather than pre-prepared. So, is there anything you can pre-prepare and slip into the bandolier for this sort of situation?

Le Joueur wrote: Really, this is how I've been gamemastering and prescribing gamemastering for almost a decade. I'm surprised that this time everyone loves it.

hyphz wrote: But it took time and I don't think I'd have been able to do it on the fly, which is my ongoing worry.

clehrich wrote: The only thing that bothers me here is that it sounds so damn easy.

hyphz wrote: So, I'm getting the ideas here, liking them, and I'm gradually coming up with a bandolier (I *love* that metaphor) for my UA game. And I just want to clarify the sort of things that can be done here. (If you want to know the stuff I have so far I'll post it, but I don't think it's relevant to the general discussion, especially since Star Wars is being used as the yardstick example.) I know you can have characters and things on it, but can you EVER have scenes on the bandolier at all or does that lead to railroading? Moreover, how deeply can you define the characters on the bandolier so that their interactions don't become completely predictable and create predefined scenes? What is the distinction between a scene and a 'bang'?

hyphz wrote: Secondly, what kinds of 'little stuff' can you put in? What I mean by 'little stuff' is that the players suddenly go quiet and frozen and you don't exactly want to toss in one of the big items [because, 1) it'll make the plot look disjointed, and 2) you'll run out of big items too fast], but you need to stir things up. The obvious thought I have here is PC action consequences, because you can't run out of them (even doing nothing might have consequences for the PCs) and they create coherentness rather than disjointedness; but as you don't know the PCs actions in advance, consequences have to be generated on the fly rather than pre-prepared. So, is there anything you can pre-prepare and slip into the bandolier for this sort of situation?

GreatWolf wrote: So don't be afraid to say, "Duh" and gather your thoughts. Maybe it will only take a few minutes. Maybe you'll need to think about it longer. Just be honest and upfront with your players. We all have creative lapses, and I think that your players would rather wait for you to gather yourself then be artificially railroaded down a path that they do not wish to take.

Just a totally different concrete example here, which I hope you'll all "deconstruct." (Not quite sure what you mean by that here, but that's a subject for private messages.)

Years ago, I was in a game run by Ken Hite (I mention the name because a lot of you know of him). It was a Pulp-type campaign, entitled "The Insidious Doctor Fang and His Zeppelin of Doom." There were about a zillion players (ten or eleven, I think), every one a fairly classic pulp type.

Now Ken is not exactly Mr. Share. He railroads heavily, but we all pretty much accept this, because the stuff that happens along the way is lots of fun, and because we know that if we can gob-smack him really effectively, there will be intense social fun happening.

So one fine day the PCs find themselves trapped in a sub-hold of the sunken Titanic. This turns out to be a Dr. Fang deathtrap, like so many others. The hatches seal behind us, there are no working knobs on the inside, and water begins very slowly rising in the hold. Dr. Fang's voice comes through a hidden speaker, essentially saying, "Ha ha ha, now you all die, and my plans for world domination will succeed!" Oh, what will the intrepid PCs do? Cliffhanger, end of session.

Next session, we come up with some way out. First important point here: Ken had no idea how we would get out. He expected us to use our "cool PC special pulp schticks" to get out. So the old assistant to Nicolai Tesla comes up with a way to use his belt buckle and a dangling light to create an arc-welder and cut through the hatch. Sounds cool, so it works.

So now we get into the escape sub, overpowering Fang's mooks, and are ready to go anywhere we like. Ken has made VERY CLEAR that we're supposed to go to Murmansk. But we've been discussing this amongst ourselves, and we think Murmansk sounds like a giant death-trap. So we tell Ken, "We're not going to Murmansk." "What do you MEAN you're not going to Murmansk?" says Ken, peeved. "Nope, we're going to Casablanca. There we can hook up with the international arms dealers, and get at Fang that way. Besides, Ken, you can do your Sidney Greenstreet impression." Ken wambles for a bit, then says, "Okay."

So point two: Ken lets us do whatever the hell we want, even though it means discarding the vast majority of what he's got planned for Murmansk. At the same time, we've just established a short-term social contract: if he lets us go to Casablanca, we can't just wander around the streets looking for something to happen. We have to hook into the plot immediately, working to do so, and we've even told him we're going to go to the Blue Parrot (where the Fat Man will be waiting). So Ken doesn't have to improvise everything; he's got a scene, a setting, and a cool NPC waiting for him, created by us.

Setting aside Ken's usual railroading practices, does this fit into the Sharing concept?

clehrich wrote: "The Insidious Doctor Fang and His Zeppelin of Doom."

...Setting aside Ken's usual railroading practices, does this fit into the Sharing concept?

Got it. The reservations and qualifications are precisely the ones I intended, so we're clearly on the same page.

Just one thing:

I'm dubious about the synchronicity of the heavy's name....

clehrich wrote: Just one thing:

I'm dubious about the synchronicity of the heavy's name....

Eh? Lost me there.

Yeah, but now that we know you have a Zeppelin at your disposal you have no excuse not to come game with us :-)

hyphz wrote: (I couldn't get Trigger Events out of them for love nor money.. well, one of them, the Punisher player, said that 'His wife and children had been killed by criminals' which is at least a motivation to act, if nothing to do with the occult. Nobody else could think of one that was sensible. ("Once I was kicking a guy's teeth in and after about five minutes I realized that he was really hard and there was an unknown army around.")

(One beef I have here with the gamebook, is that I showed them the examples. Problem is, they are written by professional writers who know the setting. All they did was intimidate the players.)

Hmmm.

I have some grave reservations here.

Fang, you seem to be positing your solutions as a cure-all. Now, I agree with you that players can often be cajoled with the right techniques into accepting this sort of play. And where that's true, it's good to do so. And I think that you may feel, and possibly correctly, that the descriptions that have been given to you of intractable players are overstated.

But there is also the possiblity that these players really are looking for something that your methodology won't give them. In a way that's similar to how players can often tell when illusionism is being used, they can also tell when it's not. And some players demand illusionism (or, rarely, even open GM control). Its the only style of play that they want to see from the GM. As such, trying to force such players to accept this style of play is simply going to backfire.

So, not to be a wet blanket on all this enthusiasm for what I consider to be powerful methodology for play, but I'd just like to state for the record that it's just possible that these methods may not be suitable for the GMs who you are counseling. Also, despite the power of these methods and ease of use, I hope everyone realizes that they are not as foolproof as Fang makes them sound. These techniques will not make your lawn greener, and give you a better sex life.

Now, if you think, Fang, that you've actually found the "One True Way" to play RPGs, that you are our messiah, please come out and say so. Then we can debate it in the open. But until then, let's all remember that these methods are just one very good set of rules to play by, and they may not be applicable to all situations.

Further, Fang, it seems to me that the reason that you've never been able to explain this so well before is that you only seemed to come up with it a couple of months ago. Perhaps you were playing this way for the previous decade, but on those threads that dealt with the whole "universe in flux" idea, at the very least you were discovering the terminology to describe the method of play you describe. So it's no suprise that you needed a little practice before being able to get the idea across effectively. And I agree, the cessation of the use of other languages helps, too.

Hey, Ralph, you know, if Mohammed will not come to the mountain...

Mike

Well I don't know about a cure all, but they are definitely a pretty powerful way of introducing a greater shared gaming experience without scaring the begeezus out of em talking about metagame and director stance.

I see them as an effective trust builder to gradually break players out of a paradigm that may be inhibiting their ability to enjoy the game. I say may because there are likely some for whom their current style of play IS the way they enjoy; but I tend to think that for many more it is simply the way they've learned to be.

Hey Mike,

Thanks a lot for encapsulating the disclaimer; I've been feeling a little leery about the 'love in' quality this has all been taking. (I'm going to use brief quotes to separate this response into sections; I believe your post stands by itself and responding point-by-point would be, well...pointless.)

Mike Holmes wrote: Fang, you seem to be positing your solutions as a cure-all.

Mike Holmes wrote: ...What I consider to be powerful methodology for play

Mike Holmes wrote: ...On those threads that dealt with the whole "universe in flux" idea...you were discovering the terminology to describe [this] method of play...

Perhaps this will contribute to this discussion.

Ten Ways to Ask a Player Where The Story Should Go Without Asking the Player Where The Story Should Go

1.

GM: It's a small public shrine of [player's god here]. Modest, but tastefully appointed.
PLAYER: I perform the devotions and offer a sacrifice of [whatever].
GM: Fine. What do you pray for?

2.

PLAYER: I hack my way into (some computer system somewhere).
GM: Make your roll (etc.)... You've gained access to the main database. There are millions of files here.
PLAYER: Like what?
GM: You don't know. It would take you years just to read the file names, and they're not very informative.
PLAYER: I look at a file at random.
GM: It's a video message from Centurion Cenarius from the Epithet Front in 7G223, reporting a shortage of jute in the Armitage Back Worlds.
(Continue in this vein until...)
PLAYER: Can I just do a search?
GM: Of course. What keywords do you search for?

3.

GM: The sorting hat says, "Hmmm, an extremely unusual case. A restless inquisitive nature, the capacity for true friendship, a streak of heroism, and a dash of ruthlessness. You have qualities of all the four Houses. What house do YOU think you belong in?"

4.

GM: It's a [something] with the power to cast a Fateful Wish spell.
PLAYER: Did you say a Wish spell?
GM: It's no mere Wish spell. Its a more subtle and ancient magic, and in a way much more powerful. The effect is to make your wish come true over the course of [choose: hours, days, weeks, months, years] by manipulating the workings of fate itself.
PLAYER: And I can wish for anything at all?
GM: Yes, but the strands of fate can only be rewoven so far and so quickly. If your wish is too ambitious to happen in [time period] it might not come true. So, what do you wish for?

5.

GM: The medium gazes into her crystal ball with intense concentration, and says, "I'm seeing something, it's very vague, but it's looming there in your future. There are strong feelings there, a strong desire, do you sense it?… an R... perhaps an R... Ri or maybe Re..."
PLAYER: Revenge?
GM: "Yes, that's it, I see something with blood, a lot of pain, makes it hard to see clearly. There's a beautiful woman... beautiful, but older... was beautiful when she was young... no, wait, now there's a man with her, a man with shaded eyes..."
PLAYER: The man who killed my father?
GM: "Yes! And he's waiting, where is that place... he's near water, in place with many tall... figures, shapes of some kind..."
PLAYER: Like a city?
GM: "A city, is that what it is? Yes, it's clearing now... a city, a place you've never been to. It has many bridges, and secrets, and walls of stone."
PLAYER: Venice?
GM: "That's it, I see it. The man who killed your father will be in Venice, and Revenge will be in the air."

6.

GM: You decipher the ancient prophecy. It reads:

Seek the secret section.
Seek the certain friend.
Seek the dark connection.
Seek the bitter end.

Follow the roiling waters.
Follow the sacred runes.
Follow the mountain's daughters.
Follow the waning moons.

You'll find your heart's desire.
You'll find the world in pain.
You'll find the secret fire.
You'll find those who remain.

7.

GM: You make a final perimeter check and then hit the sack.
PLAYER: Does anything happen before morning?
GM: For some reason you have a restless night. You finally drop off about 2AM, and you have intense dreams. But the only one you remember is the last one before you wake up.
PLAYER: Which is...?
GM: You tell me. What dream did your character have?

8.

GM: You may ask the ORACLE up to ten questions. Answers must be yes or no. Past, present, or future: the ORACLE is never wrong.
PLAYER: Will you answer 'no' to this question?
GM: The ORACLE says, "Very funny. You have nine questions left."
[For all answerable questions whose answer is not already known to the players, the GM chooses the answer at random. Not merely at whim; an actual randomizing device should be used.]

9.

PLAYER: I look in the mirror.
GM: As soon as your gaze meets your reflections, you realize that this mirror was crafted to reflect the gazer’s greatest fear. What do you see?

10.

All right, I have to include one old-school tried-and-true stand-by.

GM (points to map of world, partly filled in, partly blank): Where do you go next?

Some Comments and Warnings

Number 3 is more or less equivalent to the choice of a clan or an alignment during char gen. But this way you can do it in play instead. It should be easy to modify appropriately for whatever set of personality-groups your game system or world contains.

Number 5 is getting right at the heart of the matter; in a way, all the other examples here are easier (but less powerful) variations of this one. Note that the GM is saying nothing of substance; all the meaningful information is coming from the player (though the player might think it all came from the GM and might even, ironically, think he's being railroaded into going to Venice to avenge his father). It's called cold reading. It takes some practice and won't work if e.g. the player just sits there and says nothing. (It's more likely to work with the whole group present, but some individual members might end up not having any input.)

Number 6 is the basic all-purpose Rorschach Prophecy, suitable for any epic quest fantasy and guaranteed non-railroady. Of course, it has to be clear that it applies specifically to the player-characters (perhaps the tablet it's written on also has a likeness of them). It takes about five minutes tops to write one of these. But the application can be a bit tricky; you're depending on the players speculating about what it could mean, either in or out of character. Also, I wouldn't recommend using it more than once for a game group.

Number 7 is probably too challenging for many players without some advance preparation. But advance warning and preparation are OK. Players might wonder why you're asking, but their characters' dreams isn't something most would normally expect the GM to tell them. So it's not at all like asking them where they want the story to go. Except it is.

Number 8 works the best early in a plot arc where there's a lot still unknown and it can help establish a general direction. Used later, players will tend to use it to try to solve problems or mysteries already in play. However, this is a good self-test for a GM: if your situation can't stand ten random yes-know answers thrown into it, then you're over-planning. (You can always decide an answer non-randomly if you absolutely must.)

Also, it might appear in number 8 that the direction is being decided by the randomizer rather than the players. But that’s not really the case. The players are choosing the questions, which have orders of magnitude more information in them than the yes-no answers. For instance, characters who have been searching over many adventures for the all-important Tchsk’ll’ra might ask, "Will we ever find the Tchsk’ll’ra?" If the answer is yes, that just confirms what players probably already expect. But oh my god, what if the answer is No? Does the whole story arc come crashing down in flames? Well, think about it. Why did the player ask the question? Could it be that the search for the Tchsk’ll’ra has gone on long enough and they’re ready for the story to take some new direction?

Number 9 focuses on the issue of adverse developments. One drawback to some of these examples is that players might concentrate on their positive goals and might not bring up setbacks that they would actually want (or at least expect) to encounter. By eliciting fears (or doubts, regrets, or sorrows) you gain information about that side of it. Examples 5, 6, 7, and 8 all allow for this as well to some extent, but largely leave it up to the player. Example 7 can be focused on the negative and made nearly equivalent to 9 by changing the description from "dream" to "nightmare."

Remember, the main purpose of this is to get you, the GM, some useful information. Use it wisely. If the "greatest fear" the player describes immediately jumps out of the mirror and attacks them, they’ll never be honest with you again.

Number 10 can be as powerful as the other nine, if it's set up right. Places on the map have to already be associated with not only different plot options but different types of plot options. The world can't be too detailed and it can't be too big. You need one intrigue-riddled trading city, not twelve of them. One frontier, one wartime capital, one haunted ruin, one mad powerful dude's stronghold. Think closer to Never-Never Land than to Middle Earth or Garweeze Wurld.

Back to Star Wars

These examples are best for wide-open situations when deciding where the story should go next on a larger scale. For more constrained situations on a generally smaller scale, it's sufficient to make sure there's an opportunity to pursue any of a wide but finite set of goals – a multiple-choice version of Fang’s bait concept. For example, the protagonists' approach to just about any hostile Star Wars encounter is one of four options: fight, sneak, bluff, or run. If you're prepared to continue the story in an interesting direction whichever approach is chosen, and whether it succeeds or fails, then you don't need to railroad. Unexpected actions like hacking enemy ships can be allowed to result in successful fight, bluff, sneak, or run actions by themselves, or they can be resolved so as to lead back to (all of, not just one of) the options.

For instance, the hacker might discover maintenance logs indicating certain weapon systems are down for repair (making fighting a more attractive option), and recent receipt of orders to be prepared for surprise inspections (offering a possible avenue of bluff), and navigation charts showing a nearby dark-matter swarm (a place to run and try to lose pursuit), and the presence of top secret data of highest priority in the system that can only be accessed from a terminal aboard one of the ships (making trying to sneak aboard or allowing themselves to be captured more attractive options).

Of course, if players come up with these options in some other way, thinking on their own to impersonate an Imperial surprise-inspection team or scanning for nearby astronomical anomalies that might aid an escape, that should work just as well. But if they aren’t coming up with such ideas on their own, a skill like hacking is perfect for helping them out. As long as it’s giving them a wide range of ideas to choose from and work out how to put into effect, rather than just one take-it-or-leave-it viable option.

- Walt

Wow, Walt, once again you come through big. That's cool stuff. I think you just added one more element to Fang's list of things that are prepared for this stye of play, the Hidden Question. Alternate with macguffins, and play should write itself.

Call this sort of questioning the John Edwards approach. See the South Park episode about it?
:-)

Mike

I'm less optimistic; a number of these constitute RPG cliche, to an extent, just like the potential SO slated to die at the end of the episode in TV series.

I'm a true believer in the cliche. Often it serves one well in that in a medium where one can easily get lost without referents, cliches serve to ground play.

Further they are only examples of a technique that have been presented deviod of context. Of course before using these, one should tailor them to the game, and make them more original if they like.

Mike

Um, yeah. I fabricated the situations to show the questions being used in easy-to-understand familiar contexts. The questions themselves (and more important, the general technique underlying the questions) -- the text in italics, in those examples that have it -- are more generally applicable.

I've also described them in their baldest form, for GMs who (as per the topic of the thread) might not be familiar with the general idea of creating continuity contingent on what the players want to happen, part of which is finding out what the players want to happen without engaging in overtly metagame conversation about it (which, as several posts have mentioned, can frighten or confuse players not expecting it by prior social contract). With a bit more experience and the right mix of players, everything a player says can give clues about where the player wants the story to go next, and such explicit questioning is not needed. But these examples should work even in less fortunate circumstances.

Yes, Mike, I did see the South Park episode. :-)

- Walt

I'd just like to support the idea of "cold reading" here. Admittedly, I like to run occult games, where it's directly relevant, but the practice of cold reading is something I keep thinking I ought to study up and work on. For those of you who don't know, cold reading doesn't just apply to divination (card-reading, crystal balls, etc.), but to "mentalist" magic in general.

I saw this guy on TV once, being interviewed and demonstrating his stuff, who was really quite terrifying. [He had a widow's peak and cultivated a vaguely Satanic air, worked small crowds --- anyone know who I mean?] He was explaining the way the system worked, just totally openly --- not claiming "I have mental powers." And he would read the show's host. The thing is, he was watching everything --- every move, every flick of the eyes, and also listening to everything the person said. And as a result, he could more or less "read" the person cold. By the end of the interview, he was rambling on about what the guy had for breakfast yesterday and his relationships with his mother.

Not that I think we all need to try to do this, to this degree, but suppose you were OK at it, as a GM. The players don't really know what they want --- but they do, deep down. The social contract prevents them, they think, from expressing what they want. So you read it off them --- words, moves, actions, everything --- and you give them what they want. If you were very, very good at it, you'd get a rep for always having the best games ever, because the players wouldn't have to tell you what they want: even as their expectations shifted, you'd know what they really wanted. Most importantly, you'd always know when to give them the "bait" they've been chasing, because you'd always know when they were willing to chase more or were just about to get bored with it.

Just a rant, really, but an idea for "giving them what they want" derived from Walt's wonderful post. Dag!