The Easter weekend brought about a few good opportunities for actual play, which sadly has left me feeling demoralised and down over RPGing in general. I thought I might post a little of what happened together with a question about the cause of the morale loss. Bear in mind that the obvious problems with what happened aren't actually that much to do with the eventual question, other than that they were the experiences that left me asking it (and I'm not sure why).

There were two games planned for the Easter weekend: one was a 'test run' of Mutants and Masterminds, and the other was a run of the much-postponed Unknown Armies I've mentioned here before. Unfortunately not all the players involved in the UA could make it, so I decided instead to run Bill In Three Persons for the remaining players as a 'system taster'.

The M&M test game - again using a sample adventure - was a disaster. Basically, one of the players was a munchkin, and because I hadn't played the system before I didn't catch his broken character until it was too late. He defeated three villains in a single attack on the first round of a battle, and then destroyed their plan two turns later. Total playing time: 10 minutes. (There's more detail on the Green Ronin forums if anyone cares.) The main reason for this test was that I hoped that the Power Level system would alleviate the classic problem I have with supers games - that all of the complexity and detail in character generation gets turned back on itself when the GM has to design villains to counter the players abilities just enough to create a comic-book style showdown. It didn't. Oh well, lived and learned.

The Unknown Armies game went a bit better. The three characters - with reference to my former post - were the Punisher clone, the "mean badass", and the auto speedfreak. They pulled over to the three Bills and helped them out, the speedfreak investigating the circumstances of the accident and finding them rather bizarre.

Sub-scenario one: They moved to the end of the aisle, Punisher immediately shot Skeet, Badass shot Bill. The cop told them to drop their guns, Punisher shot Manning (who had taken his last action to put down the safe and get his gun out), and the other players surrendered to the cop. The cop took a shot at Punisher (because he fired again when told to put his gun down!) but missed, and Punisher then surrendered too. The weapons were taken from the three (although most of them had others concealed - UA is very lax on equipment rules, but I figured it doesn't really matter that much given that combat isn't mean to be that huge) and they were shepherded over to a holding area while the cop went to deal with the customers held in the florist. Since they'd killed Bill, that was a scenario win.

Sub-scenario two: They walked into the apartment, saw Don with his mouth sealed over. Punisher blew his Unnatural check and frenzied on Bill and killed him. They then cut Don a new mouth and tried to interrogate him.. they rolled quite badly but I fudged that Don was so freaked out by that point he admitted to the business with the girl (forcing a Self check on Punisher, as he realised that killing Bill had violated his Noble; not that he minded, as the player has basically stated he wants Punisher to be a sociopath, although he doesn't know about Avatars yet). They went to Don's apartment, searched it and found the girl, but by then there was little more to do, so the scenario ended.

Sub-scenario three: The PCs went into the trailer and saw the mutilated body and got an explanation from the cultists. Badass annouced he was going to throw Bill at Satchel (he actually took "throwing people" as a skill) which he did, causing the rest of the cultists in the trail to either panic or go on the defensive. Punisher (predictably) shot Bill, then Satchel shot Punisher and rolled a crit. Punisher's player very quickly learned why gunfighting everyone in UA is a bad idea. The others PCs blew up the trailer and dived out. End of adventure. Total time: about an hour. The Punisher player then said he wanted to make a differently-themed character if he was just going to get blown away all the time, but I tried to convince him that a hard guy with a gun can make a difference in UA.. you just have to be more careful than that.

But the negative feeling I got afterwards wasn't about the munchkinism, or the violent solutions (hey, I *knew* the guy was playing Punisher, I *expected* that). It was about the fudging and shifting I had to do. I mean, basically, as I sat there running I had numerous occasions where I was saying "well, right now I either have to get them to roll a dice or come to some unqualified judgment about their roleplaying skill, and if they fail or aren't good enough, then the game's going to be over".

This happened several times. In the M&M, I had to have one of the villains cough up the location of their secret base even though the player blew the Intimidate roll because if they didn't, they wouldn't find it. In UA, I didn't really think it was reasonable to have Don admit that he had kidnapped the girl, but if he didn't, they'd never find out about that part (and Punisher would never have faced the Self check as he'd never know he'd done anything wrong).

And this seems to apply regardless of group, regardless of game, regardless of setting: "if they fail, then nothing happens and it's over". Even if there isn't a predefined plot, a dynamic developing plot can still be brought to a crashing halt by a failure at the wrong moment. Or look at the i-System games: if somebody manages to roll a 1, I get to narrate a negative consequence, but if I hose them enough to affect future actions seriously then the game is over, and if I don't they don't give a damn.

There must be a middle ground somewhere, but to be honest I really can't see it. Am I doing something wrong? Am I thinking about this all the wrong way? Any help would be appreciated, as right now I just feel really down on the whole RPG business.

What you're missing is the "failure means adversity" principle.

Never have a failure mean that things come to a stop. Just don't ever rule that way. Always interperest a failure as a continuation of the situation with an additional problem worked in.

Failed Intimidation die roll? Don't have the guy clam up, have him give directions to a trap. Once they discover the trap, they can make another roll with a bonus representing how pissed off they are.

Failure by the players to ask "the right questions"? That's a horse of a different color. Unless it's a Gamist game you're playing with failure as an acceptable option, the "neccessary information" must always come out. So, just have players roll for it. Make it another Intimidation die roll. Or smarts, or whatever. If they succeed, then they get the info. If they fail, then they get the same treatment as in case one.

As long as you keep throwing adversity in front of the characters, the players will be pleased, and the plot will continue. And as long as the plot continues, the final goal can be reached (assuming that it's important to you for that to happen).

Just remember, failure doesn't mean that the plot stops dead, it means more adversity.

Mike

Hey Hyphz,

'Know howya feel buddy.

hyphz wrote: ...The negative feeling I got afterwards...was about the fudging and shifting I had to do. I mean, basically, as I sat there running I had numerous occasions where I was saying, "Well, right now I either have to get them to roll a die or come to some unqualified judgment about their role-playing skill; if they fail or aren't good enough, then the game's going to be over."

And this seems to apply regardless of group, regardless of game, regardless of setting: "If they fail, then nothing happens and it's over." Even if there isn't a predefined plot, a dynamic developing plot can still be brought to a crashing halt by a failure at the wrong moment. Or look at the i-System games: if somebody manages to roll a 1, I get to narrate a negative consequence, but if I hose them enough to affect future actions seriously then the game is over, and if I don't they don't give a damn.

There must be a middle ground somewhere, but to be honest I really can't see it. Am I doing something wrong? Am I thinking about this all the wrong way? Any help would be appreciated, as right now I just feel really down on the whole RPG business.

You know, I'm getting a strong Deja Vu feeling here. Haven't we been over this with you already, Hyphz?

Mike

I think Mike stole some of my thunder, though I think I may have something useful to say here.

First problem is modules themselves. This is not meant as being critical but did you read the Three Bills adventure? there certianly are notes on what happens if you 'fail.' and I do not see any reason why you need to fudge anything. As long as they were given every oppurtunity to make the right decisions, sometimes the dice just fail you. Unwelcome consequences can be (should be) as exciting and fun as unwelcome ones.

the real problem though is modules. for the most part they tend to be very point A to point B. Some basically put you on the Train and drive you along the railroad. It is difficult to get a true sense of the game play when really your choices are limited. Essentially a gun is leveled at the Player's head: "Succeed or no XP"

This ties into the second point. I have no issue per se with the Traditional defeat it or no XP model. If thats how a game wants to run then ok, we can play by the rules. It IS a bit limiting though. That is why so many people wonder whether Experience for Failure should be a part of a reward system. Ideally, a player should be rewarded for playing his character, whatever that exactly means, and it should not be tied to success or failure. The honor is in the attempt and 'failure' can teach us a great deal.

So fudging rolls for the players so that they follow the plot may not be the best idea. Simply my two Lunars.

Sean
ADGBoss

Mike Holmes wrote: You know, I'm getting a strong Deja Vu feeling here.

To add a little more, I believe there is also a prevailing set of feelings that make 'failure' anathema. Of course none of us want to fail and many of us being Americans, we never want to quit (or BRitish and having stiff upper lips) etc... Here are some of the items that facotr in (I apologise if they have been enumerated with better grammar by someone before me.)

Failure = Game over. The idea that if you fail the game is pretty much done. Sauron gets the ring, Yavin 4 blows up, my Sorcerer fails to bind that big demon he wanted. Ok we're done time to go to Dunkin Donuts. Modules and one shots, can have a tendancy to support this because there is no going back.

tied in with the above is lineage of war gaming. Now I love war games and have no issues with RPGs being the bastard children of such. However, in most competetive games, if you do not reach the victory conditions, well again game over. Defeated by the big boss? Toss in another quarter (or three).

We talk about realism (well ok maybe not here as but in gaming 'realism' is one of those words) and yet no one wants to role play time in jail, working for the Dark overlord, living alone after our lost love is well lost. Its a Clint Eastwood world where he always lives on, not a John Wayne world where sometimes the Duke bites it.

Which is not saying people have to accept failure as much as it is saying the have to play THROUGH failure. Case in point above, in The Cowboys John Wayne's character dies. Well ok the Cook and the boys could have had anice funeral and roll the credits. Instead they get revenge and eventually get the herd through.

Of course its all about discussion between GM and Player which may be the single most important thing I have learned in my time here. Talk between GM and Player can alleviate both sides need for 'success' in traditional terms.

Sean
ADGBoss

For those of you who saw my little rant down in Theory, here's a twist on it that may help you Hyphz:

Gamers, think about what gameplay experience you want, and what can deliver it

This, of course, is basically the same message delivered in GNS, but different words. If I'm understanding you right, you want a superhero experience with M&M. That means heros vs. villians, escalating threat, big showdown with (bomb timer running out/fortress falling apart/deathtrap filling room with water, etc.).

The key problem with M&M, and really any game like it, is that while it does a great job recreating superheroes in terms of lists of powers and skills, it does very little in terms of giving advice to recreate that "superhero" pacing, or feeling. In other words, like many other games, the gamers are expected to "just know" what that gameplay experience is supposed to be like. The GM is rated "good or bad" by the players based on how well he or she can make the expected gameplay experience happen.

All of this really occurred to me when I sat down and made a couple of characters for M&M and said, "But what do I do now? How do I enmesh these characters in a conflict, in a universe? What is the point of play?" At that point, I realized that all the "cool stuff" I needed was absent.

Coming back to your personal experience, you're realizing that the M&M rules alone do not constitute enough to give you that superhero experience. No matter what superhero comic you read, all of them face adversity and conflict, from poor abused Daredevil all the way up to nigh invincible Superman, or even Dr. Manhattan from Watchmen. And as you experienced, simply setting up a higher DC or raising an enemy's hp/damage save does not constitute a good "conflict".

If I find myself fudging, that means the rules aren't supporting the type of play that I want, and that means problems.

On note of the UA game, I have to agree that the pass/fail mentality makes games get "stuck". If there's a linear, "this is how it has to be" whether a single plot or a flowchart of scenes, again, you'll have points where the players do not know "what they're supposed to do" next. This is the great dysfunction of illusionist play..."I've got this story, but I can't tell you, and if you act out of line from it, I'll be forced to fudge/cheat/railroad you to get you back in it..." Its not much different than a person in a relationship who is mad at you and won't tell you why.

As far as what you're saying with bringing the game to an end, that's part of the assumptions of gameplay that need to go. Character death and "simulating what would happen" generally need to get tossed out for the sake of a fun game, and also are the places where GMs fudge the most. If something would happen that would leave the PCs stranded in space, and end the adventure, then either it doesn't happen, or somehow they find another way to get to where they were going.

Like everyone is saying, proper failure/complication/difficulty is "Aw, jeez, not this TOO!" not "Well, that's it pardner!".

All of the above comes back to the differences between Sim and Nar issues. For the Sim game, things happen a certain way because they "make sense" in terms of the plausibility of the setting. The villians get wiped out by munchkin hero because his powers and skills and stats would take them out. For the Nar game, things happen because "they are interesting/fun and fit the expected conflict/story experience". The munchkin hero does well, BUT THEN the villians pull out their secret weapon!

Failure means, "Not this time, or not this way" but never "never".

Chris

To make a short note on Bill in Three Persons and linearity, the adventure provides an ending that is responsive to "success" or "failure" in all three parts of the scenerio. There are no "fail and the story ends" points in it. There are "fail" and the characters don't learn thing X, points, but they don't stop the adventure in its tracks.

(As an aside, Hyphz, there are better 'getting to know the system one-offs' for the game: Jailbreak from the collection "One Shots" is oft-vaunted)

Walt may be right about the style of running not being easy, but I don't feel there's that much to be lost trying it out: try it, if it doesn't work start looking for plan B.

Just to gloss something Fang wrote...

the something that I wanted to gloss that Fang wrote: And 'no [thing] is so important that you can't cover it with 'a sheet' and use it again.' If the character's don't get the information from the source you thought of, think of another.

Hey Ian,

You're right of course and it doesn't go without saying, but I don't want to waste a lot of space, so how about a flip-seeming retort?

Ian Charvill wrote:

Something I wanted to gloss over that Fang wrote: And 'no [thing] is so important that you can't cover it with 'a sheet' and use it again.' If the character's don't get the information from the source you thought of, think of another.

For this to work, the players must be invested in finding the thing. They don't need to have originated the thing, but they do need to want it. Putting something the players are indifferent to in their path, no matter what, will feel like railroading.

Hi all,

Walt suggested that what Fang suggests is not easy. I'm not so sure about that. (This might be a new thread, by the way, but I'll tack it on here for now.)

One thing I've noticed over time is that people give other people a lot of credit for being "that kind of person" or a person with "a knack" for that kind of thing. But the truth is, from what I can tell, having learned a bunch of disciplines, is that the thing that seperate one person who can do one thing and another who can't is that the first is doing it, and the second isn't. (You can get better with practice... but the first step in practice is to *do.*)

I think Walt is closer to the difficulty of the matter when he refers to the issue of "alternative system of decision making" which is required by this style of playing. Most games don't support it, and most folks don't even know about it.

I'd offer, ultimately, that what's stake is not the GM's temperament (again, if you do it, you're doing it), but his or her dependence on tools or haibts that run completely contrary to what he or she actually wants to happen.

So: When Fang rightly suggests that one has to give up the Myth of the World, has to start trading Opposition in for Complication, he really means it. The GM who wants to stop getting caught up on these issues needs to turn away from the old kind of action and start the new kind of action.

After all, we expect players to think on the fly, making up decisions and new bits of detail on the spot. Why not the GM? Because he's responsible for the whole game world? No. As Fang points out, he's responsible for the scene at hand. To let the players open that next door and be guided to know what's behind it by Fang's suggested list of "sources" is different than how we're used to running games. But not nescesarily more difficult. In fact, since the one we're used to using often leads to frustration, I'd suggest the old way (for certain desired results of play) are *more* difficult.

To give up the rules that frustrated us, the pre-printed scenarios that tie our shoelaces, the habits of GMing that only run counter to what we want our of play may not be easy -- but that doesn't mean that the new alternative is hard. It's becaue giving up our habits is difficult. That's a completely different issue than the new methods being hard.

Like a debtor who knows that as long as he's got access to one more cash advance so doesn't need to really change his life and change his income habits, the GM who keeps trusting tools that don't force him to behave differently will not change.

I'd offer that's what's at stake here. Change. Not the new work itself.

Christopher

OK, while I agree with many of the poster's points, I want to point out drawbacks of the "failure=complication" model. I have experienced this both as a GM and as a player. What I experienced as a player is often a feeling that I was just jumping through hoops: i.e. regardless of what I did, I'd end up at the same ending point simply by a different path. Sometimes I would just metaphorically grit my teeth and proceed by the most blunt means possible, simply accepting that my PC will take some lumps but will make it through in the end.

An important alternative is simply not having a pre-defined plot. If you don't have an established end you are working to, then failures can be seen as opening up new story possibilities rather than closing old ones. There are two approaches to this:

• Prepare setting elements: i.e. locations, NPCs, groups. As long as there is conflict among the characters and groups, there is interesting material to play out. You improvise what happens in response to the PCs actions. (Simulationist - Exploration of Setting/Situation)
• Prepare story elements: i.e. you have a Theme or Premise pre-defined, and then improvise setting material and events in response to what the players do with this. (Narrativist)

I think a lot of this presupposes that Hyphz wants to change his style. The Adversity equals failure that I laid out was intentionally slanted towards the style that he seemed to be trying for (Illusionism).

There are certianly other approaches, but they all require him to alter his style further. IMO.

Mike

I read quite a bit about this elsewhere on the Green Ronin boards. My understanding on reading that is:

A) A newbie GM (Hyphz) allows a player to use the rules to make a PC
B) Said player appearently knew the rules better than Hyphz
C) Hyphz didn't make an "executive decision" that is override certian things that were dubious in the character to begin with (and some that IIRC were outright rules violations)


Then Hyphz complained on the games' boards about the game not running well, and was provided with advice that ran from excellant to dubious on dealing with the player character/player. (Much of it dubious, but there was some really good suggestions as well.)


Hyphz I've run superhero games for many years, there by far my favorite style of gaming and have written one superhero game.

Which has /absolutly/ no play balance in its design.

Why?

Because flat out no mechanical system will ever accurately allow superheroes in all their variability and remain balanced. Many give you points, checks, limits "no more than PL in stacking effects" such as M&M but the sad truth is that won't ever work. That produces the /illusion/ of balance--but it only stays that way based on how a GM (and players) make use of those rules. The same thing could (and I've seen!) occur in Hero, in Marvel Superheros Advanced Set, in Blood of Heroes, and Villians and Vigilantes--among many others.


Superheroes specifically is in my mind always going to be one of the "high" trust style games--that means you and your players /have/ to be on the same page with regards to scale of the game, the scope of the game, and the tone of the game.

The M&M adventure is aimed specifically at playing fairly Heroic (non-lethal!) style supers--and your player---not his PC--but the player didn't fit the feel of the game. He didn't approach that adventure in the way he was expected. (Hence why so many games have GM's to adbjucate these situations).


The adventure wasn't themed for the player--no pre-packaged adventure will fit every given player, and you being new to the game, and new to GMing (right?) lacked the knowledge to adapt to the players decisions and styles.


I don't wish to be harsh here, but the reason supers are high trust is because they ask for far more leeway with what characters are capable of than most games--many games you say "I wish to move the moon" and the play groups will laugh. You say it in a supers game and might really have a PC capable of doing just that--moving the moon, right now.

This is where the trust and player contract come in--you have to share that trust with your players that they won't abuse the system.

But your player did.

It has nothing at all to do with the system, or RPG's and everything to do with what the player wanted.


He got what he wanted, at the expense of you getting what you wanted out of the game. Now this is a flaw in many games--the expect you, the GM to simply "deal with the player"---and a lot of the advice you were given is based on that.


I think its time to change that personally. Now your player may not be one who will ever understand, but my suggestion is to sit him down, talk to him, and explain to him "what you want out of X game." and then ask "What do you want out of X game." finding out what they want out of the game may help you choose games, and create adventures more suited to those players. But without asking, how do you know? M&M is a great game that gives a lot of good advice--but this one not a lot do:

Not everyone is suited to playing every game, and not every game suited to every play style. Find out what your group wants, as a group. If this one player wants something different than everyone else, he may not ever be happy playing any game you run, and by default will destroy your fun, and the fun of other players because A) he can or b) he's bored or C) Both.

But /find out/ what they want first and foremost.



It's like a misprinted page in a comic---you read the Punisher offing everyine around him then flip the page and see Archie and Jughead--while extreme, this is how different some players can be from each other and still otherwise be players in the same game.

(Keeping to the questions asked as opposed to analyzing the questioner...I'm still trying to figure out how to explain this beast.)

Hey John,

You and Christopher K. pretty much underscore the toughest part about explaining the 'No Myth' gamemastering style. Your post provides a few cool insights, if you don't mind....

John Kim wrote: OK, while I agree with many of the poster's points, I want to point out drawbacks of the "failure=complication" model. I have experienced this both as a GM and as a player. What I experienced as a player is often a feeling that I was just jumping through hoops: i.e. regardless of what I did, I'd end up at the same ending point simply by a different path. Sometimes I would just metaphorically grit my teeth and proceed by the most blunt means possible, simply accepting that my PC will take some lumps but will make it through in the end.

John Kim wrote: An important alternative is simply not having a pre-defined plot. If you don't have an established end you are working to, then failures can be seen as opening up new story possibilities rather than closing old ones. There are two approaches to this:

• Prepare setting elements: i.e. locations, NPCs, groups. As long as there is conflict among the characters and groups, there is interesting material to play out. You improvise what happens in response to the PCs actions. (Simulationist - Exploration of Setting/Situation)
• Prepare story elements: i.e. you have a Theme or Premise pre-defined, and then improvise setting material and events in response to what the players do with this. (Narrativist)

Hi there,

A bit of terms/reference clarification ...

What Fang is describing is very much what I'd call Narrativist GMing, or one of the techniques in that category.

What John called Narrativist (quoted by Fang) is emphatically not in that category.

Best,
Ron

NOTE: In retrospect, I shouldn't have put in the labels "Simulationist" and "Narrativist" on my points. I've had a number of clashes of definitions over this (especially since the terms here have a different meaning than the ones I am more used to). I would prefer to talk more about the styles and then let others decide on labels.

Le Joueur wrote:

John Kim wrote: An important alternative is simply not having a pre-defined plot. If you don't have an established end you are working to, then failures can be seen as opening up new story possibilities rather than closing old ones. There are two approaches to this:

• Prepare setting elements: i.e. locations, NPCs, groups. As long as there is conflict among the characters and groups, there is interesting material to play out. You improvise what happens in response to the PCs actions. (Simulationist - Exploration of Setting/Situation)
• Prepare story elements: i.e. you have a Theme or Premise pre-defined, and then improvise setting material and events in response to what the players do with this. (Narrativist)

Nope, once again yer reachin' back into the 'traditional gaming' bag o' tricks. Setting elements should be as familiar as the genre, no need to prepare; not places, people, or things, it should all pretty much flow out of what everyone expects. Flying wings, deuce-and-a-half trucks, desert roads, nazi u-boats, hidden bases, all of these things are absolutely no surprise coming from Indiana Jones' world. I'd go so far as to speculate that every single thing you prepare ahead will feel like a hoop.

Ron Edwards wrote: What Fang is describing is very much what I'd call Narrativist GMing, or one of the techniques in that category.

What John called Narrativist (quoted by Fang) is emphatically not in that category.

Ron Edwards wrote: A bit of terms/reference clarification ...

What Fang is describing is very much what I'd call Narrativist GMing, or one of the techniques in that category.

Hey John,

Either we're not quite communicating, or we're gonna have to agree to disagree.

John Kim wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: Nope, once again yer reachin' back into the 'traditional gaming' bag o' tricks. Setting elements should be as familiar as the genre, no need to prepare; not places, people, or things, it should all pretty much flow out of what everyone expects. Flying wings, deuce-and-a-half trucks, desert roads, nazi u-boats, hidden bases, all of these things are absolutely no surprise coming from Indiana Jones' world. I'd go so far as to speculate that every single thing you prepare ahead will feel like a hoop.

Well, no it doesn't. I've had a lot of experience with this. The main reason why it feels like a hoop is exactly because it is a hoop. Whether prepared ahead of time or improvised on the spot, the GM has put it in for the specific purpose of being a Complication for preventing the PCs from getting what they want.

John Kim wrote: One alternative, at least, is simply not trying to pre-determine the end-point. Instead, you simply have a situation which could go in any number of directions. Whatever the PCs do, you simply follow what would happen.

John Kim wrote: Nearly all GMs as well as modules will prepare an intended plot. This is simply because it's not obvious how to keep things interesting without any intended plot.

Le Joueur wrote:

John Kim wrote: The main reason why it feels like a hoop is exactly because it is a hoop. Whether prepared ahead of time or improvised on the spot, the GM has put it in for the specific purpose of being a Complication for preventing the PCs from getting what they want.

That's not at all what's up with 'No Myth.' A 'No Myth' Complication is not something there to "prevent" anything, that'd be an 'impediment.' It would also require orientation upon 'what the characters want.' A Complication is a change in direction or more accurately the stimulus which might change the game's direction.

Thanks for all the replies here folks - I'm sorry if I'm covering old ground. I did wish to raise one big question about the 'No Myth' style, but I couldn't really express it in words on the previous thread, so I'll have another go at it here.

Just to address some other replies here: I don't really want to discuss the breakdown of the M&M session here, as the thread on Green Ronin has done that perfectly well and I don't think it's too relevant here. Secondly, I did know about the "consequences of failure" in Bill In Three Persons, but they didn't apply - I wasn't talking about overall failure. As an example, in the second subscenario, the players killed Bill, thus ensuring he would never reach the crossroads and succeeding at the subscenario as far as the adventure (and the Comte) were concerned. The problem was that, if they afterwards failed their roll to get information from Don, that could easily have been basically it - back to the crossroads - and the players would know that they'd appeared outside an apartment, gone in, and blown a guy away. Where's the interest or the "cool weirdness" in that?

The big question I've had about "No Myth" GMing is basically to do with how it can be kept flowing. I mean, as far as I can see, you have to desperately avoid the situation where the players wind up saying "ok, we've exhausted all our leads; where else in this city is there for us to go?" Not only do you then have to make up an entire city on the spot (bit tricky, that), but when they decide where to go you're left either arranging that their choice advances the story no matter where it was (feels like a railroad, though it may not be intended that way) or telling them that nothing happens there (in which case you get to play a guessing game with the list of locations). So there always have to be clues or leads or something - the players have to know, by the time they leave Bill's, that their next destination is going to be Don's, or Bill's local pub, or the police station to turn Don in, or the hospital where Bill might have been treated for those scars, or or or.... Any of those is fine. But, then the problem is: if there are clues and leads, they either have to be blatant, or the players can miss them. And if they miss them, you get the "where else in this city?" question. So how do you resolve this situation by always making sure there's a chain to the next step?

I mean, yes, the business of interrogating the captured villain in M&M could have been done better, now I think of it: if they can't get the info from him, just have one of the *other* villains try to break him out of jail, fail due to the PCs, and fly off casually explaining their entire evil plan as he goes (heck, it's a trope). But I've only just thought of that, a long while after the moment was past. I'm not sure how to practise this. ;)

Hyphz-

I think you've exactly hit it.
Nevermind the characters, you're sensing the players getting frustrated and tired. They're wracking their brains, can't come up with anything viable.

And the key is right there: you're sensing how the players are feeling.

My take on all the great advice from Fang and Christopher is to run the game with an emphasis on everyone enjoying themselves, versus an emphasis on the characters not seeing cracks in reality.
Because never mind the characters, if the players aren't having a great time, it just doesn't matter.

So pace the game, rather than construct a reality.


As the players interest wanes (which you can feel), throw them a bone!
They investigate 4 likely locations, they're getting frustrated, have that last one be the payoff.
That's it.

Suddenly it's the players who are making up the city - throwing out ideas of likely places to go. You build on these, throwing complications in (Argh. No info here. What can we do next?) until it starts to get stale. Then the characters find what they want, the game moves on a notch, and the players have a new type of worry to think about.

Listen to your gut, not your brain.

-Matt

Garbanzo wrote: Hyphz-

I think you've exactly hit it.
Nevermind the characters, you're sensing the players getting frustrated and tired. They're wracking their brains, can't come up with anything viable.

As the players interest wanes (which you can feel), throw them a bone!
They investigate 4 likely locations, they're getting frustrated, have that last one be the payoff.

hyphz wrote:

The issue is this: suppose they go to the one starting location, can't get the information from the guy there, but work out he's bad and kill him. Now they need to know where to go next. But, they fail all their Search checks to find stuff in the place they're in now. With no clue, they say "where else is there to go?" And I freeze, because I can't make up every location in a city on the fly.

My comments:

1. "Balance" (after a fashion--and you can PM me if you wish to discuss that) *is* acheivable. Games can be made with rules which make them either harder to exploit or make the exploit more obvious. M&M fails badly in this regard (lots of cheap-shot powers, I understand--I'm not an M&M guru ... but I *do* like what they've done with it otherwise).

2. I think the problem with not having ways to embed your character in the world (what someone called the "cool stuff") exists only if the player in question wants it to. There are standard role-playing conventions (which along with some mature GM-player cooperation) address those problems. Doubly so for super hero games.

3. I'd also be interested in seeing examples the no-myth play. What if I'm running something where the genre isn't established? When the play is in genre, does it become simply a list of genre tropes (euphimism for cliches)? I've got a few listed samples of play around here: what genre were they?

As far as pre-defined situations: I find that they reward the player with logical outcomes of investigation or maneuver (strategy). They also allow complex plots without paradoxes (something my eyeball examination of no-myth would have problems with--I may be misunderstanding it).

4. I agree with John Kim--the failure as complication if taken to extreme becomes hoops. My interpertation of that is that after a few complications the attempt simply fails.

Here's my advice:

1. Examine the game. Discuss it. If necessary (for example) make the players characters with/for them. It's an extreme measure but it'll prevent you from being surprised. Find some compromise in character-design philosophy. If you can't do that, consider allowing the character to exist so long as you're acutely aware of the character's powers. If that's no good: leave.

2. Construct scenarios in the usual way but:

a) be very careful about oganizing must-win/must-lose fights. They're usually unnecessary. Build the situation to omit them (a slightly different cant on the "no chasms" approach).

b) Use the concepts of backup antagonists, forces acting on the PC's, and the leverage of plot-hooks to keep things in motion. An investigation that revolves around one credible wittness who is a target for assassination (and is pinned down under cover when the PC's arrive) is a *very* fraglie situation. Avoid it. Build other avenues into the structure of situation.

If the PC's beat the villains, the villain's boss will come looking for them (as a very basic example).

c) Figure out what you really like. One of our members sat in a game (Exalted) where the GM, as he threw low-powered monsters at the party continously appologized for not challenging them. The players were having a great time. The GM seemed to be fine as well--but he felt he wasn't doing his job.

I find that low-powered oppostion is often more satisfying to all parties involved than nail-biting fights--especially those that are life and death (and that's just a generality).

Decide if you're hanging on to something that you can let go of. In another light, taking down three villains with one attack could just be a splash-page intro to the story (kinda like Spiderman comics where he annihilates some nobody before moving on to the rest of the story).

-Marco

But, they fail all their Search checks to find stuff

Valamir wrote:

But, they fail all their Search checks to find stuff

This is the key sentence for me.

Search rolls. Blech. Total nonsense and useless in ANY GMing style. They are a pure holdover from the days of D&D where the extra good treasure was hidden behind secret doors or the like and you only got them if you remembered to search and got lucky enough to find it. If you failed...no biggie, you just missed some prime loot, you'll have another shot at prime loot in the next dungeon.

But to use the same tactic to hide important plot information...ridiculous. What author or screen play writer of a mystery rolls a random die to determine if the detective finds the clue and if he doesn't the book is over. Nonsense. If it is important for them to find...let them find it...the alternative is what...hmmm...not finding it? How is that good.

You should consider relying a bit more on karma than fortune.

There is no way for the guy to be intimidated by the players unless the players state they are trying to intimidate him. They could state they are trying to befriend him, they could state they are trying to fast talk him and get him to slip up, they could approach the task in any number of ways. Lets say they did approach the guy in an intimidating fashion.

Is the punisher an intimidating guy? How is the NPC likely to respond to such intimidation? But most important if this is the only way the module gives to provide the party with the information they need to continue you have a decision to make: end the session, or find a way to get it to them. That's your job as GM in this sort of a game. IMO relying on the dice to decide is a huge cop out. "The dice said you don't find out what you need to know...sucks to be you" is insufficient. If you allow the dice to say this than you MUST have something else to fall back on. If you don't have something else to fall back on then you CANNOT allow the dice to say this. If you cannot allow the dice to say this, then you should roll them to begin with.

Relying on the players to ask the right question to the right person or they don't get the clue is identical to this. Its basically just a different form of randomization where players go through the game of playing 20 questions until the get the answer. I submitt that if they enjoy playing 20 questions, they'd be playing 20 questions.

There are only 2 possibilities in a scenario like this. The players uncover what they need to know, or the game ends. That's it. Period. If ending the game is undesired than you have only one choice left. Find away to convey the information to the players. Period. The dice aren't going to do this for you.

On any thread where the subject of GM vs GMless comes up you'll find someone commenting that a GM is necessary because he is the holder and dispenser of the secrets. Personally I think secrets in the game are not nearly as important as some people do and that some players have simply gotten trained into thinking this way.

Theres a host of discussions around here about ways to play that don't involve GM as dispenser of secrets...simply empower the players to drive the plot where they want and to hell with the GMs secrets. Thats certainly one solution.

But if you're a fan of the GM as dispenser of secrets model of play...then you have to step up and actually do it. If that's the way you're going to play then you have the responsibility to handle it or the game is going to crash. No written module where the side bar says "make an alertness check to uncover the secret" is going to do this for you. Your take away from text like that should be that alert characters and alert players get the secret and find a way to deliver it to them that is entertaining and interesting. If you have no such characters and players than you again have a choice. Don't run that module or adapt it. Maybe your characters are more persistant than alert...so do that.

Whatever you decide, if this is the style of play you want, you HAVE to get that information into the hands of your players somehow...or else don't play this way.

Valamir wrote: You should consider relying a bit more on karma than fortune.

There are only 2 possibilities in a scenario like this. The players uncover what they need to know, or the game ends. That's it. Period. If ending the game is undesired than you have only one choice left. Find away to convey the information to the players. Period. The dice aren't going to do this for you.

Theres a host of discussions around here about ways to play that don't involve GM as dispenser of secrets...simply empower the players to drive the plot where they want and to hell with the GMs secrets. Thats certainly one solution.

Hey Hyphz,

I was starting to worry that we'd hijacked your thread. Glad to know you're interested.

hyphz wrote: Thanks for all the replies here folks - I'm sorry if I'm covering old ground. I did wish to raise one big question about the 'No Myth' style, but I couldn't really express it in words on the previous thread, so I'll have another go at it here.

...The big question I've had about "No Myth" GMing is basically to do with how it can be kept flowing. I mean, as far as I can see, you have to desperately avoid the situation where the players wind up saying "ok, we've exhausted all our leads; where else in this city is there for us to go?"

hyphz wrote: Not only do you then have to make up an entire city on the spot (bit tricky, that),

hyphz wrote: Not only do you then have to make up an entire city on the spot (bit tricky, that), but when they decide where to go you're left either arranging that their choice advances the story no matter where it was (feels like a railroad, though it may not be intended that way) or telling them that nothing happens there (in which case you get to play a guessing game with the list of locations). So there always have to be clues or leads or something

hyphz wrote: ...The players have to know, by the time they leave Bill's, that their next destination is going to be Don's, or Bill's local pub, or the police station to turn Don in, or the hospital where Bill might have been treated for those scars, or or or.... Any of those is fine. But, then the problem is: if there are clues and leads, they either have to be blatant, or the players can miss them. And if they miss them, you get the "where else in this city?" question. So how do you resolve this situation by always making sure there's a chain to the next step?

hyphz wrote: I mean, yes, the business of interrogating the captured villain in M&M could have been done better, now I think of it: if they can't get the info from him, just have one of the *other* villains try to break him out of jail, fail due to the PCs, and fly off casually explaining their entire evil plan as he goes (heck, it's a trope). But I've only just thought of that, a long while after the moment was past. I'm not sure how to practice this. ;)

Garbanzo wrote: My take on all the great advice from Fang and Christopher is to run the game with an emphasis on everyone enjoying themselves, versus an emphasis on the characters not seeing cracks in reality.

Because never mind the characters, if the players aren't having a great time, it just doesn't matter.

So pace the game, rather than construct a reality.

hyphz wrote: The issue is this: suppose they go to the one starting location, can't get the information from the guy there, but work out he's bad and kill him. Now they need to know where to go next. But, they fail all their Search checks to find stuff in the place they're in now. With no clue, they say "where else is there to go?" And I freeze, because I can't make up every location in a city on the fly.

Marco wrote: What if I'm running something where the genre isn't established?

...As far as pre-defined situations: I find that they reward the player with logical outcomes of investigation or maneuver (strategy). They also allow complex plots without paradoxes (something my eyeball examination of no-myth would have problems with--I may be misunderstanding it).

Valamir wrote:

hyphz wrote: But, they fail all their Search checks to find stuff

This is the key sentence for me.

Search rolls. Blech. Total nonsense and useless in ANY GMing style.

hyphz wrote:
But then it's just my arbitary judgement of their roleplaying rather than a dice roll.

Oh, except I have to get them the information whatever they do or the session will end.

So has the whole "No Myth" idea just fallen out of the window now?

But is it? I don't see that it is. The GM *has* to give the players something with which to make a reasoned next move. Otherwise, it's the "where else is there in this city?" problem.

Hi there,

I finally got a clue about how to discuss this.

Let's examine the two extremes, with an eye to the possibility that they are not the only options.

#1: The GM has secrets. Enjoyable play is generating (a) by the players lack of immediate access to the secrets, including some risk if they don't get them; and (b) by the players making decisions and perhaps rolls (i.e. uncertain-outcome) that get them access to the secrets in some satisfying way.

I maintain that if the GM is not skilled at distinguishing between (a) and (b), and if the players are unwilling to let the GM essentially set the pacing and content-per-unit-time of (b), then we'll run into serious problems. Not to mention that some people are simply disinclined to play at all if the GM has full input regarding "what's important" in the scenario, which is often the case in this mode of play.

Shall we use, perhaps, Call of Cthulhu play as an example? It's hard to find a touchstone since we don't play in one another's games. That's how I run CofC, anyway.

#2: There are no secrets. The GM has a slightly different role than the players, but "the scenario" is built mainly through improvisation by all parties. I'm talking not just about turning left or turning right, but about "what's going on" in the most basic back-story sense.

InSpectres is probably the most functional and fun game design I can think of that lends itself well to this mode of play.

Now for the big point: it's not an either-or issue, between #1 and #2. And there are many variables involved. Here are a couple of intermediary (or even off-the-spectrum) ways to break the #1/#2 dichotomy but still let the GM have secrets.

Possibility #1: the back-story, NPCs, and "what's afoot" may be very heavily GM-prepped. However, the player-characters' concerns and decisions determine, perhaps over time, the conflict(s) that will be of group interest. The GM has immense power in terms of NPC activity and so forth, including information that is not immediately available to the characters, but very little in terms of who is "against" whom, or what the ultimate themes produced through play will be.

The point is that finding out the secrets is not the point of play. The secrets exist as part of the GM's prep for running NPCs, and that's all. If the players find out any or all of the secrets, great. If the players do not discover the secrets, that is OK too - what happens is still important to them (or rather, to everyone), and that's what matters.

This is pretty much how Sorcerer is built to run, and as far as I can tell, it runs very poorly in any other mode unless various character creation or other prep options are seriously Drifted (as for con play).

Possibility #2: "what's afoot" is set in stone as the GM's prep, or secret if you will. However, the GM is not especially committed to keeping it secret, just to having its access be interesting rather than a big gimme. So no matter what the player-characters do, NPC relationships, physical locales, and even more are very shiftable during play. It's as if the GM can say, "They did this, so the gardener knows the next clue, not the chauffeur."

In this mode of play, the secret does belong to the GM and it isn't going to change its content. But how to get to it is very labile and may carry a lot of power as the players' chosen mode of attack and NPC-interaction will set a lot of the content of play.

This is pretty much how Castle Falkenstein is built to play, I think (judgment call based on play-experience, possibly limited, obviously). The setting is so interesting that the GM's secret takes on primary aesthetic interest for everyone.

I've presented these two approaches specifically because I think people mix them up, especially when the word "improvisation" is being used. In the first possibility, what's created through play (and technically improvised, although I don't think it's much like theater-improv) are the protagonist priorities. In the second, what's created through play are certain logistic elements of the setting and even features of the back-story (this is a bit more like improv in my mind, although kind of a back-room behind-a-curtain sort).

Best,
Ron

On the search thing, if you decide not to change your play style, use the classic Illusionist technique that I call the "shifting target number". It works like this:


• Call for the search roll.

• Scan the results looking for the highest.

• Is the high roll not pathetically low?


• If it's not pathetically low, then he found "It". Depending on just how high or low the roll was, describe how difficult it was obtaining the information.


• If the roll was low (not pathetically low), then it was pretty much out in the open, or the target of the intimidation is a pansy.

• If the roll was high, then the information was secreted well away, or the guy put up a real struggle in giving away the information.


Note: Essentially you reward a high roll with an even more protagonizing description of the event than you would otherwise.

• If the roll was pathetically low, then the "failure equals adversity" effect comes into play. The player determines from a file that the info is in a safe. Now they have to figure out how to get the safe open. Something like that.


• If other players have very similar results to the successful high roller, then they get the same result as he does. Narrate it, like, "Bob you notice the file, and Janice, you notice Bob noticing the file."


Works like a charm. Very much like Fang's technique, except that you're fooling the players into thinking that you do have a set target. If you have to, pretend to do some math on a calculator or paper to complete the illusion.

Mike

Le Joueur wrote: Hey Hyphz,

I was starting to worry that we'd hijacked your thread. Glad to know you're interested.

That might be the case in a Sherlock Holmes Genre Expectation, where all travel was as a result of finding a clue or something, but honestly, the only story I've seen lately that didn't just dump clues on the protagonist when he was stuck was, believe it or not, Beverly Hills Cop II. Running 'Sherlock Holmes style' is exceptionally difficult (and I'd suggest only worthwhile when the player is willing to practically co-gamemaster). The basis of "No Myth" style is just like all those movies where the good guy has used up all his clues and something simply 'falls in his lap' (usually with the retroactive back story that the investigation has attracted the interest of 'the powers that be').

hyphz wrote: Not only do you then have to make up an entire city on the spot (bit tricky, that),

Let me stop you right there, yer just not getting it. In "No Myth" style, there never, ever, is "an entire city." There really is nothing more to make up than 'the next stage set.'

A railroad only exists to connect points on the map; the clues and leads are actually the tracks. You aren't going to escape the sense of railroading so long as you provide a trail of clues; I can guarantee that. Many players are so conditioned that they desperately try to find and follow these, knowing (by experience) that nothing else exists (true or not). "No Myth" is as much a style to be learned by the gamemaster as it requires the above style to be 'unlearned' by the players. These kinds of players, encountering "No Myth" for the first time will be confused because the gamemaster is no longer spoon-feeding them the next place to go, because there isn't any...yet.

I hate to point it out, but don't players expect that their "choice advances the story?" "No matter what?" Do you really have players who'd be happy when you go 'nope, you followed the wrong lead; this is a dead end.' I doubt it; I expect they look to you for 'the right lead' so that the character's choice will advance the story, knowing full well that they, as players, don't really have a choice.

I just can't seem to make this point. That chain is what is binding your adventures; following it makes you force the game, which is what you complained about in the first place. Forget the chain. Sure, the players are canny enough to know some of the places you list (probably the local pub, police station, or the hospital), it doesn't matter which they choose, you make something up.

See this is classic railroading. There is no place "to go next" unless you're railroading them.

No Myth?

I'm quite curious about this--I've got some questions. I'm gonna start a thread in RPG theory.

-Marco

Hey Hyphz,

Glad I could shed some light on a potential style (not one I trying to force on anyone). However, this thread is getting way too many quote-and-responds, so let me try to summarize. (And by the way, thanks again for giving me a chance to try out yet another way of describing it.)

First a few disclaimers, I haven't played Unknown Armies (you'll have to pitch the Genre Expectations to me if you want any constructive input). My only copy of InSpectres is the ancient freebie that I pulled together into a saddle-stitched book over a copier one day. ("Make Booklet" - my hero!)

The problem I think is the kinds of questions you are supposing the players will be asking. Given the players are comfortable not having the railroad tracks laid out before them (that'd by you going, "Go here, here, here, here, or here."), no one will ever ask 'where is there to go?' They'll just say things like we go to the police station (every city has a police station) and et cetera; you are imagining that the players have absolutely no grasp on the Genre Expectations. That's just not true.

If it really came down to "Where is there to go?" You'd say, "Anywhere you like." This is what needs to be unlearnt, the idea that the gamemaster holds all the possible options. If it's a city, there should be fifty bazillion places you can think to go, like in any city you've lived in, that don't need to be spelled out in advance. The trick is to think in terms of 'what would be at a Laundromat that fronts a numbers racket,' not to design one in advance.

More importantly, you've got to try not to give the players time to say aloud either "Where should we go?" or "Where is there to go?" Learn to sense when they've run out of ideas; when that happens, hit 'em with an unexpected Complication. Don't give them time to sit around with nothing to do.

And using archetypical locations won't create any sense of inconsistency because they're archetypes. It wouldn't be archetypical if it were inconsistent. For players who just go wandering around? Hit 'em with a Complication; like I said, so Don's house happens to be there or there's a drive by. (Why the heck are you characters playing Battleship anyway - "I go out of the house, turn left and walk two blocks down" - sheesh. I have never see that happen. Ask him where he thinks he's going; use that archetype.) No player action should ever be let avoid the 'action;' is there a point to trying to be boring?

As far as remembering what you've created, if the players want to go back to somewhere they've been before, make it their job to remind you what happened. (Remember #1? You ain't supposed to be some historian, ya know; make them remember it, their memory is why their going there isn't it?)

So far I haven't been clear what the players need to unlearn. You don't ever need them to think or know that the reality is a myth (I think that'd hurt the enjoyment of the game for some.) The habit that needs to be unlearned is 'playing off the menu;' "Where is there to go?" is the players looking at the menu and being very uncreative or 'free.' Needing a clue to 'find their way' from scene to scene is expecting you to lead them around by the nose, not creative, not free. This is what they need to learn; "Where is there to go?" gets a "You tell me." "What does this clue mean?" gets a "Where would you look for that?" At first, it's a hard habit to unlearn, expecting the gamemaster to give you all your options, but once they do, their creativity will give you most of the input you need to improvise locations.

Once you've got players who think in terms of 'what to do' or 'where to go' based upon the Genre Expectations rather than a menu you provide, once they don't expect everything to provide a direction of where to go next, then they'll be ready to play in a "No Myth" game. They'll respond to the Complications based upon how the want to rather than fishing for what you want. This may sound confusing, but it makes them more susceptible to the "Myth of Reality." They won't be thinking, "Where can my character go?" but "What do I want to do?" The myth is something that it is dangerous for the gamemaster to believe in.

What then connects scenes? Player initiative. Sure they might get some pretty weird ideas of what to do, but since you are being guided by what 'seems right' for the game's Genre Expectations, you can't go wrong by combining the two (the weird direction the players have gone and the 'next Complication' the Genre Expects).

Evoking rarity amongst game elements is a ringer. Many games say 'this is rare' or 'players should hardly never see this' and all I say is 'why list it then?' Look at it this way; if there were all these 'hidden things,' wouldn't you expect them to chum around? Sorta like a conspiracy? After all, unless I'm guessing wrong, the player characters are 'rare beasts' too, right? Have you ever read a story were the 'rare and mysterious' fails to show up? I have to say that these games do a piss poor job of explaining how to make 'rare' seem 'cool,' 'cuz having them just not show up ain't cool.

Another thing, you seem really worried about things that just don't seem to happen. Can you provide real, concrete examples of things like, "I drive down Main Street drawing a diagram map of every business I see; and an artist's impression of their logos, as well!" It just doesn't happen and if it does, just say, "Okay, what do you do with it?" I mean all I've seen this as was a player wasting their time. If they want to do something this boring and tedious, just gloss over it. Noting the details of a neighborhood is meaningless unless they do something with it; it is that action that counts, not some tired map of storefronts.

If the players try and "force a whole bunch of stuff to exist," don't let them. (I mean what's the point; they aren't really 'going there' are they?) Just breeze over it. I mean, so what if they want a map, what's a map except a guide to places¹ Don't let the players sifting for details distract you from running the next Complication; if you can cloak the Complication in those details, do you really need to make the players figure it out when actually the characters are doing the figuring. Just tell them what they want to know based upon your opinion of what the characters will glean from it. (I mean, do I really have to invent a whole new alphabet, language, and grammar, so Indiana Jones can take a half an hour trying to figure out if something relevant is written on the tomb walls? No, he just takes it in and you tell the player what Indie has figured out an hour later.)

Forgive me one quote:

hyphz wrote: The players now have to decide where their characters are going to travel to, and they have to have some information to use to make that decision. If they don't, they go get it and...

{Edited to not the cross post with Fang.}

You're worried about nothing, Hyphz. Do you worry that your players in a "normal" game are going to walk away from the plot, and just start doing stuff at random? No? Then why would you worry about such illogical actions in another sort of game.

If a player asks you "where is there to go?" then indeed they are not ready for this sort of game. The appropriately Zen obfuscatory response to teach them th enew paradigm is, "I don't know, where is there to go? It's a city, think of some place to go in a city."

You are stuck in a very Setting first mindset. Of course Unicorns will tell you they're rare. Every time you meet them. Rarity in a game world has nothing to do with how often a character will encounter the rare thing. Certainly you have to keep things plausible. But that doesn't mean that the character is "just somebody" in the game world. They are protagonists. That means by definition that things happen to them that just don't happen to "just somebody".

So, in this play style, when the player says, "Well, I'll go check out one of those seedy dive bars where the criminals hang out." He should be pleased to find out that they guy he's looking for just happens to be there.

If you want a more Sim edge out of this, use Area Knowledge die rolls. Player says he's going to a dive that he makes up. He rolls. If he rolls well, then that dive is just like he described it with all the criminals in town there. If not, then he has to try again.

Are you starting to see it? Nothing exists at first. It's all created in play by the need of the plot.

Don't allow maps. "How do we get there?" should be answered by framing directly to the needed scene. "OK, you've driven to the seedy bar, and are currently looking about the room for your target. A big guy comes up and asks what 'your type' is doing in 'his' bar." Believe me, the player will forget about how far it was to the Bar.

Player says, "I drive down Main Street drawing a diagram map of every business I see; and an artist's impression of their logos, as well!"
GM response, "OK that takes about an hour. Make a note that you've got your copies. Now what do you do?" Do they get to see the map or logos? No. But they might get a bonus on a roll for having done this on a future roll.

Would you see all the logos it if it was a movie? No? Then why do the players need to see them? It's only important that the characters can see them.

This is all easy stuff to avoid or work around.

Mike

Just something...

The player is haggling for a horse. If they succeed on the roll they get a cheap horse, if they fail they get an expensive horse. Of course, they don't have to buy the horse at either price.

Is the GM railroading? I mean, the player gets the horse both ways.

The "Punisher" tries to intimidate the paedophile: he succeeds - he gets the information. He fails, the paedophile gives him the diary of his last victim. Cue high rank Helplessness rolls. The player gets the information.

Is the GM railroading? I mean the player gets the information both ways.

Hi Ian,

Here are a couple of threads that you might find useful:
Illusionism: a new look and new approach
So ... what is railroading (using illusionism terminology)

Going by the concepts in these threads, it is quite likely that the GM you describe is not railroading, but plain old contributing, much as he or she might contribute any information.

There may be some illusionism involved (if the player is in doubt but the GM is not), but that is not the same thing as railroading.

Now, railroading (as we defined it in those threads) is at least possible in your example depending on the Social Contract, but the basic fact that the GM has provided the information "no matter what" is not, itself, railroading under all circumstances.

Best,
Ron

Le Joueur wrote: Hey Hyphz,
The problem I think is the kinds of questions you are supposing the players will be asking. Given the players are comfortable not having the railroad tracks laid out before them (that'd by you going, "Go here, here, here, here, or here."), no one will ever ask 'where is there to go?' They'll just say things like we go to the police station (every city has a police station) and et cetera; you are imagining that the players have absolutely no grasp on the Genre Expectations. That's just not true.

So far I haven't been clear what the players need to unlearn. You don't ever need them to think or know that the reality is a myth (I think that'd hurt the enjoyment of the game for some.)

Have you ever read a story were the 'rare and mysterious' fails to show up? I have to say that these games do a piss poor job of explaining how to make 'rare' seem 'cool,' 'cuz having them just not show up ain't cool.

Another thing, you seem really worried about things that just don't seem to happen. Can you provide real, concrete examples of things like, "I drive down Main Street drawing a diagram map of every business I see; and an artist's impression of their logos, as well!" It just doesn't happen and if it does, just say, "Okay, what do you do with it?"

Hey Hyphz,

Can you help me out here? I'm not making sense to you. Perhaps if you tried to sum up what I am saying, in your own words; then I'll understand what I'm saying wrong.

hyphz wrote: But, how would the players get the idea to go to the police station...Reasoning has to work on some basis, or it's just guessing.

hyphz wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: So far I haven't been clear what the players need to unlearn. You don't ever need them to think or know that the reality is a myth (I think that'd hurt the enjoyment of the game for some.)

But I think that they do. In an illusionist game, the PCs have to reasonably follow the existing plot and not wander off in random directions; in a "no myth" game the players have to avoid making moves which require huge amounts of world information to be spontaneously generated at once (like drawing that map).

hyphz wrote: If I gave I response like Mike suggested ("ok, you have the map (but I'm notably not telling you what's on it), now what do you do?") that would be no less of a 'slightly in-character smackdown' than the classic responses to an illusionism violation ("nothing interesting happens there - why don't you go to where you know the action is?")

hyphz wrote: "If I fight a dragon I want to know that it was always there. There's no satisfaction in fighting it, if it just appeared because I wanted to fight a dragon."

hyphz wrote: The most popular question of that type I've had before is "How far is the <whatever> away from <whatever>?", expecting an answer in metres.

hyphz wrote: ...purely defensive characters who were obviously just designed to survive random stuff coming at them.

hyphz wrote: When I asked them not to do this, one of them (in both games) responded by making a character who couldn't survive any action at all, and announcing that the character was a politician - thus giving him no link to the rest of the group (and forcing me to come up with a political system).

Le Joueur wrote:

hyphz wrote: In an illusionist game, the PCs have to reasonably follow the existing plot and not wander off in random directions; in a "no myth" game the players have to avoid making moves which require huge amounts of world information to be spontaneously generated at once (like drawing that map).

Absolutely not! As I've tried to say, there is no decision that players can make, that forces huge amounts of anything to be improvised.

John Kim wrote: I think you are saying...when the players start asking questions about the town, you don't answer their questions. You have a couple of options: [1] gloss over it - i.e. saying "OK, your PCs learn what the town looks like" but not drawing a map for the players; or [2] distract them, i.e. don't answer their question but instead say "As you start looking around, a desperate looking man runs towards you..."

John Kim wrote: So the players aren't "forcing" you as GM to do anything by asking those questions, but you at least have to deny them an answer. This means that the players do have to unlearn tendencies like asking for a map of the area. (They will hopefully learn quickly by having their requests denied, but they do need to unlearn this.)

John Kim wrote: Also, most of this depends highly on which genre is picked. For example, my current game is in the genre of the historical Icelandic sagas. For those, as you are reading it, it is really nice to have a map of Iceland and a family tree. Many of the editions I have include such information with the main book. It seems to me that part of your assumption is a genre which isn't concerned with details (like the typical superhero comic or action movie).

Something Hyphz said, and I think John seconded, really caught my attention. Your players think they're stuck; you personally maybe can see lots of things they could do, but they can't think of anything. So they ask things like, "Where can we go in this city?" or "Well, what is there to do now?" What they're really saying is, "We don't know what we're supposed to do, so tell us."

Some folks here do not seem to have had this experience with players; others suggest that players like this are "not ready for" no-myth gaming.

This stuns me, frankly. This is the #1 problem I have with players, no matter what I'm doing. I find that a huge number of players (gasp!) love railroads. They want it all clearly in front of them, so they can sort of semi-passively watch the pretty scenery and do fun shtick (color) things as they go. The problem is that they ultimately find it somewhat dissatisfying, because they're really not putting anything into the game, and so they don't get much out.

So to my mind, the big issue is how to lead the players from their old habit -- "What do we do now?" -- into the new one -- "Okay, we're going to start making it up as we go along." Now I realize that the latter case is not explicitly what Fang means, but in fact, few players will admit to the former, either. Both are implicit, if you see what I mean.

I agree that there are some problems along the way here, lots of them, but I do not see that throwing complications at the players when they're stuck and frustrated is going to help. Let's imagine the situation:

The PCs are standing around on the road, at the scene of a crime, and they're convinced (for some reason) that they shouldn't call the police. They don't know what to do, and they think there's some Special Thing they should do, because that's what they're used to. Yes, it's their Genre Expectation: railroaded game. So you throw a complication: somebody pulls over and says, "You guys need help?" Okay, they desperately cover up the body and get the guy to go away. Now they start standing around again, because they don't know what they should do. So now you have a cop pull up, wondering why there's all these guys standing around the roadside. What happens now? The players think -- though they may not say it -- "Okay, we failed, I have no idea what he wanted us to do but we didn't do it, this game sucks, I have no idea what's going on, now he's just going to punish us." This then colors their interaction with the cop, and besides the whole dynamic is already sliding downhill.

Does this make sense? If you say, "Well, you could..." the players will think, "Oh great, the Hint Hammer." If you throw a complication, the players think, "Oh great, we failed." It's a lose-lose situation.

Now admittedly I'm talking about a rather dysfunctional group here, but the whole point of analysis is to fix problems. If you've got this group, and god knows I've seen a lot of them, I just don't think that throwing complications at them is going to work, because they're not in motion. If they're doing something, you can complicate matters: Indy and the gang are heading home when the sub shows up. But if they're just sitting around because they don't know what to do, having more Nazis break in isn't going to help matters.

Sorry, I'm rambling, but there seems to be this impression that the "Draw us a map" or "Where can we go?" thing is not actually going to happen. It does. Often. So what then?

Le Joueur wrote:

John Kim wrote: So the players aren't "forcing" you as GM to do anything by asking those questions, but you at least have to deny them an answer. This means that the players do have to unlearn tendencies like asking for a map of the area. (They will hopefully learn quickly by having their requests denied, but they do need to unlearn this.)

Actually the players are forcing you to do stuff; that's mostly the point. What the players need to unlearn is asking for information they aren't really going to use anyway. For example, when I visit someone's house, pretty early on I'll ask where the bathroom is; I don't ask for a tour.

Le Joueur wrote:

John Kim wrote: Also, most of this depends highly on which genre is picked. For example, my current game is in the genre of the historical Icelandic sagas. For those, as you are reading it, it is really nice to have a map of Iceland and a family tree. Many of the editions I have include such information with the main book. It seems to me that part of your assumption is a genre which isn't concerned with details (like the typical superhero comic or action movie).

Good point. The map is not very likely the most accurate in the world (little more than rough positions) and the family tree probably doesn't have a full bio of each, so none of this is outside of the Genre Expectations. That's what I'm talking about and all this is shared information. What formerly were secrets held by the gamemaster are now unknowns resolved by working out the Complications in a game. No secrets, no detailed maps, just the information that's relevant at the time it's needed.

Yep, that's "No Myth" gamemastering. (And the secondary function of Genre Expectations is to provide guidance of how to fulfill new 'secrets' to reveal.)

Le Joueur wrote: Hey Hyphz,

Can you help me out here? I'm not making sense to you. Perhaps if you tried to sum up what I am saying, in your own words; then I'll understand what I'm saying wrong.

But I think that they do. In an illusionist game, the PCs have to reasonably follow the existing plot and not wander off in random directions; in a "no myth" game the players have to avoid making moves which require huge amounts of world information to be spontaneously generated at once (like drawing that map).

Absolutely not! As I've tried to say, there is no decision that players can make, that forces huge amounts of anything to be improvised.

hyphz wrote: If I gave I response like Mike suggested ("ok, you have the map (but I'm notably not telling you what's on it), now what do you do?") that would be no less of a 'slightly in-character smackdown' than the classic responses to an illusionism violation ("nothing interesting happens there - why don't you go to where you know the action is?")

Y'know, I'm just not seeing that. Yer talking that moon-man talk agin. How is "What do you want to do" anything but empowering. Exactly what is a player supposed to do staring at your newly made map? I just don't get it. To me, handing them a map shuts them up, asking them "what's next" gets them involved. I don't get it.

The real question you should be asking (even if you plan on foisting a map on them) is "what for?" I mean it; what the hell do they do with a map? What could they do with it that wouldn't be more streamlined if you just did that instead? Think about it; ask yourself, as a player, what are you going to do with a map? Now, how can't you just do the very same thing without it? The same goes for that drawing of store fronts; what's it for? What do they do with it?

You're just not following. It's not like "I wanna fight a dragon" and "You turn the corner and there one is." Where's the Complication in that? The game starts out, many sessions before when the player expresses an interest in pitting his character against a dragon (whether his character has this interest or not). So you say, "where do you find one?" They say, "I dunno." And you offer, "Who would you ask?" After that getting the location becomes the Complication. Once they have the information, they say, "We go to the caves of Glondorak and seek the deadly Snarl."

The point is, without a map, you don't need to fudge any results to get them where you need them.

hyphz wrote: The most popular question of that type I've had before is "How far is the <whatever> away from <whatever>?", expecting an answer in metres.

And you respond, "Why?" So's mine. Of what use will you put such information? If their planning travel time, why not ask in minutes instead of metres? Moreover, if planning travel time, what exactly are they racing? 'Cuz if it ain't a race, how far or how long is meaningless. If their trying to determine which is the shortest or fastest trip why not give that information instead.

See, this shows that "No Myth" gamemastering probably isn't for you. If you are asking them to not do something, you are trying to exert some kind of control; I'm not surprised by the turtle behaviour. "No Myth" gamemastering is about 'releasing control.'

The best tack I've found for the above situation is ask them if they want their character to be totally safe, if so tell them they get their wish and they must wait for the next game.

clehrich wrote: The PCs are standing around on the road, at the scene of a crime, and they're convinced (for some reason) that they shouldn't call the police. They don't know what to do, and they think there's some Special Thing they should do, because that's what they're used to. Yes, it's their Genre Expectation: railroaded game. So you throw a complication: somebody pulls over and says, "You guys need help?" Okay, they desperately cover up the body and get the guy to go away. Now they start standing around again, because they don't know what they should do. So now you have a cop pull up, wondering why there's all these guys standing around the roadside. What happens now? The players think -- though they may not say it -- "Okay, we failed, I have no idea what he wanted us to do but we didn't do it, this game sucks, I have no idea what's going on, now he's just going to punish us." This then colors their interaction with the cop, and besides the whole dynamic is already sliding downhill.

There is no player I hate more than the Information Gatherer. Most of us have probably played with these guys. They will ask for every inane detail about everthing and store it all up just in case it might be useful later. They are like setting detail packrats. I find they come in two species.

First: the "by necessity" breed. These players just know that the GM has hidden all sorts of important clues and hidden "easter egg" type surprises throughout the game world..."Hmmm, the restaurant was named Liu Ming's, we're searching for a stolen Ming vase, and this guys last name is Gordon...just like Flash Gordon and Ming the Merciless...there must be a connection". These people need to be broken out of this the same as the untrusting players in post about active players in Jack's thread.

Second: the "make the GM squirm" breed. These players just keep asking for detail after detail after detail until they find something that the GM doesn't know the answer to. Their response varies. Some then get pissed off and think the GM is "cheating" and "making stuff up" others just get some twisted satisfaction of showing the GM up. I've found the latter type to usually be crappy GMs whose sole talent is filling 10 notebooks with every single possible thing you could ever want to know about anything and believing this makes them a great GM. They then test every GM they play with to see if they are equally "talented" in this regard. I've found euthanasia to be the only proven method for dealing with this sort of player.

But they are out their Fang and they'll stare at you slack jawed and wonder why they're playing with such an unprepared GM if you try this No Myth style without having broken them in first.

God I hate these types of players.

clehrich wrote: Something Hyphz said, and I think John seconded, really caught my attention. Your players think they're stuck; you personally maybe can see lots of things they could do, but they can't think of anything. So they ask things like, "Where can we go in this city?" or "Well, what is there to do now?" What they're really saying is, "We don't know what we're supposed to do, so tell us."

This stuns me, frankly. This is the #1 problem I have with players, no matter what I'm doing. I find that a huge number of players (gasp!) love railroads. They want it all clearly in front of them, so they can sort of semi-passively watch the pretty scenery and do fun shtick (color) things as they go. The problem is that they ultimately find it somewhat dissatisfying, because they're really not putting anything into the game, and so they don't get much out.

So to my mind, the big issue is how to lead the players from their old habit -- "What do we do now?" -- into the new one -- "Okay, we're going to start making it up as we go along." Now I realize that the latter case is not explicitly what Fang means, but in fact, few players will admit to the former, either. Both are implicit, if you see what I mean.

hyphz wrote: But there IS: they can decide to drive down Main Street drawing a map. Now, you can try and stop them doing that (by what is effectively OOC pressure - asking "why?" or "what are you trying to achieve?"), or you can abstract the result ("ok, you have the map") but either way you are avoiding giving them the information that they apparantly wanted, and that their characters SHOULD by all rights have been able to get. None of these, to me, counts as them "not making the decision". The moment the words are out of the player's mouth that that's what he wants his PC to do, the decision is made, and it's just up to you whether you respect it or not.

"Hey, look - if you look at that store's logo backwards through a red filter, it's Dr. Evil's insignia!"

If they ask in minutes, that doesn't help me much either. And usually it's "to see if I can shoot from here to there".

{Goddamnit Walt! This edit is to note that he beat me to it again.}

This is a lot simpler than people are making it. I think some actual play would give everybody a better idea of how all this works. Play Universalis once, for example. Once you've done that, you can see exactly how a game's expectations can cause a player to play like you want. It would be absurd to ask for a map in Universalis. Who would you think would provide that map with no GM? You don't. Instead you just build the map as you need it (which was, interestingly, the entire inspiration for the game).

First, yes, players have to be disabused of the notion that they will have access or a need for all the sorts of information that they might have needed in other games. People who are protesting that players do ask for this kind of stuff are pointing out exactly why it's good to move to the "No Myth" style of play. Because they'll stop having these problems. The assumption seems to be that the players are just uncreative. But that's not the problem at all. The problem is that the players are used to thinking that their creativity is not empowered, and, in fact, quite dangerous. So no surprise in such a game they practice turtling and look to the GM for guidance. They expect it.

Take away that expectation, and replace it with the expectation that their creativity will be rewarded, and voila! No more turtling players.

Hyphz, you're sorta misreading my ideas. First, I tend to use a very Zen master sort of teaching methodology. I have no patience for people who are unwilling to learn. So I do tend to club people over their heads with their own ignorance, even if it's not their fault. So when I turn the tables on a player, it's not meant as a smackdown power wise. It's meant to teach.

More importantly, who says the player isn't empowered by getting a map he can't see? I tried to explain this already, but this is where the disconnnect occurs for you. You seem to think that the character and player are one and the same. That is, if the character has a map, that they player should also have one, or the player is not empowered.

In boffer LARP, you actually carry swords around as players if the character has one, and you actually use it. Do you do that in tabletop? That is, if the character has a sword, and the player does not, is the player any less empowered? Same with a map. So you say that the character has a map, but you don't give the player one. Does that mean that the player can't then have the character find his way around? No, he can do just fine. The map should add to his ability to use skills like navigation or area knowledge. Basically success at one action becomes a mechanical or even just situational bonus in play for the character (and hence the player). You never need the actual prop, unless that's somehow pertinent to the conflict of play. As in boffers in boffer larp.

So, yes, in some styles of play you need these props. The one you play in now requires maps. The one Fang describes requires none because all Conflict is on the character level. The player only directs the character, the player neither fights, nor does he interperet maps.

Take this further example. Player finds a little puzzle box. Now, if you have a puzzle box, you could give it to the player, and let him puzzle it out. Is it OK for you as the GM to just say to the player that the charcter has one, and must roll? Sure, who would argue that?

It's only because maps have become expected (that wargaming heritage again) that we're even having this discussion.

Set your group's expectations correctly, and the "No Myth" style is easy as pie to pull off.

Now, will this satisfy every player? No. I personally think that as long as expectations are truely agreedto that anyone can enjoy any game. But some curmudgeons will insist on certain elements for whatever reason. And that's their right. So for some small number this method isn't going to work.

But again, it's only because it's non-traditional that people are even here arguing that it's problematic. Get past that tradition and this becomes yet another cool way to play amongst all the others.

Mike

Okay,

We need to cool down (me especially). We're talkin' right past each other with all the 'players do this' and 'players don't do that.' There is one important point that I thought went without saying.

Dysfunction players play dysfunctionally.

The reason this is so important is that there is nothing, absolutely no way, to design a game or develop a play or gamemaster style that will change this fact. What I thought went without saying was that we aren't talking about these people.

I'm sorry Hyphz, if your players insist on playing dysfunctional, no style, mine included, will make play enjoyable for anyone else. Ralph names two of the most prevalent of the kind you keep throwing up as examples, Cluemasters and Flaw-hounds. The Cluemaster is convinced that buried somewhere in the voluminous campaign notes are pieces of information that, when fit together, form a picture of what is 'really' going on so they don't need to do it 'the hard way' (often claiming that they enjoy the feeling of 'solving the puzzle'). Flaw-hounds pit themselves against the gamemaster (and fun, often) trying to find a mistake in the background (for whatever reasons; to exploit, to get 'the edge,' or whatever). Both of these types suffer from the idea that a gamemaster should, or even can, be a perfect simulation of a fictional reality. Since this is obviously impossible, their play is automatically dysfunctional. These types of players don't need to unlearn bad habits, they need to 'start over.'

If you have dysfunctional players who aren't willing to 'start over' drop them; no amount of flexibility on your part will result in anything more than a dysfunctional relationship.

Clehrich offers another type of player who can either be dysfunctional or not (basically told by whether they cause problems or have fun together - there is no other way to differentiate). "Players who aren't doing anything" cause problems for any gamemaster, but the only proper cure is to say, "Why don't you do something?" Dysfunctional, 'static players' return to this state again and again, not out of bad habit but for a number of other desperate reasons. (Some say they're being defensive; I don't think it matters, all that matters is that they keep trying to remain static.) Non-dysfunctional, 'static players' soon realize that if they don't act, nothing happens; it's their game. (Or a rarer and harder to manage game is needed, something I've been calling the "rollercoaster;" the gamemaster takes them on a fun and exciting ride because it's all him - that's functional but not necessarily "No Myth" gamemastering. I suspect that if 'fudging to get them where they have to be' bothers you, this will too.)

Now, I'm not going to get back into this circular quote and respond thing again because all you keep saying ultimately is, "But this won't work for dysfunctional players." Or course it won't, because they're dysfunctional! I may point out examples of dysfunctional play, but otherwise I will not try to cater to that kind of example when explaining "No Myth" gamemastering; there is no point to it.

Maps

Maps are a form of Prop. A Prop is anything that makes some actions by the characters less difficult. The actual information contained in the map only matters to the characters, all that can therefore matter to the players is that they can have their characters do certain things more easily (that's textbook empowerment). Any other requirement is a result of dysfunctional play. (When I say requirement, I mean it; if the gamemaster already has, or wants to make, a map, it is just another in a long list of wonderful gimmicks that can be used. Players making a requirement of it is the evidence of dysfunction.) This goes for drawings of storefronts, listings of businesses, or any similar Prop (see Ralph's dysfunctional players above).

You don't need them.

Here There Be Dragons

So, are your players active or reactive?

Doesn't matter.

Active players will have things they want to do (slay dragons and find treasure for example). They communicate this to you and you select Complications based upon that kind of 'narrowing' of the Genre Expectations.

Reactive players want things to happen. These things match the content of the Genre Expectations too, except you pick. You run a few 'blank Complications' past them until the see something they fancy (burned village(r)s and stolen treasures for example). Once they do, you're off on exactly the same journey as before less the 'investigation.'

In fact, both of these function just as well without investigatory characters; all you need to know is what will hold the interest of the players. If at least the players are interested, that's all that is needed. Needing to 'feed players the clues' is a hallmark of dysfunctional, uninterested, or 'static' players.

Yes, it's true that the players should be aware that you are interested in their desires; shouldn't they be? One argument often levied is that 'knowing that the players interest will make things happen for their characters' is bad. I should say not; that is what anticipation is all about. The only time knowing that player interest shapes the game is bad is for dysfunctional players. (And yes, it is possible that 'once things get going' the players will forget, that's fine as long as they never believe that their interests are worthless.)

I'm Allergic to Fudge

A 'fudge' is when the rules, scenario, background, or other previously agreed upon 'thing' is altered covertly to make something else happen. It primarily relates to die rolls in common usage.

If there are no maps, no concrete background, no scenario packet or module, then you can't fudge them. It has been pointed out, quite rightly, that not many rules systems can support "No Myth" gamemastering; that's sad but true (I'm working on a solution, so help me). For those games, yes, fudging die rolls is a necessity, but the purpose, meaning, and results are far different.

Before (per your complaint) you had to fudge rolls to get players 'where they needed to be.' In "No Myth" gamemastering, you alter the 'place they needed to be' so that it passes for 'where they went anyway.' That means no fudging of die rolls in that sense. The 'place they needed to be' in "No Myth" gamemastering isn't defined by some prearranged scenario, it comes from shaping the gross movements of play towards a generalized form 'listed' in the Genre Expectations. So too go the fudged die rolls. The purpose is to make the game come out more like the players expect generally, not specifically. This means that only extreme results must be edited, usually for the sake of loyalty to the Genre Expectations that the players helped choose in the first place. (For example, protagonists aren't allowed to die in the Genre Expectations where they don't. If players want character death, they must pick different Genre Expectations; either way, the fudging doesn't even need to be covert, the players know they are getting what they want.) The result is that the game is satisfying because it doesn't breach player expectation. (Keeping this kind of fudging covert supports people who don't want to focus on "it's just a game" and would rather focus on "What's going on.")

It Builds Character

When it comes to character creation, I prescribe that all games make this a shared practice whenever possible, not just "No Myth" gamemastering. Nothing spoils the flow of a game more than many surprises (mind you a few 'plot twists' is healthy, but many turns the game into chaos). I've yet to see one good reason that the group ought to avoid having their characters and game formed communally. ('We can't get together' is a reason why it can't happen, not why it should be avoided.)

The major advantage is that no one gets that 'unpleasant surprise' during play (like "I made up a senator, will that be a problem now that we're deep in this dungeon?"). Does this mean players are allowed no secrecy at all? Far from it, a few potent secrets can be a lot of fun, but saying that all character information should be top secret is plain dysfunctional. Trying to gamemaster 'around' this kind of dysfunction is limited at best and foolhardy at worst.

In Scattershot we call these 'few potent secrets' by the name 'Mystiques' for a number of reasons. In practice, a player simply says "this relates to one of my Persona's Mystiques" and the others respect his right to privacy (id est non-dysfunctional play). Everything else is 'on the table;' like hold cards and face up cards, Mystiques are the 'hold cards' in your 'hand.' Not even the gamemaster is allowed to know the content of a player's Mystique necessarily, but expects it to regularly impact play. Player who have Mystiques that involve things not within their Proprietorship (the stuff they have say over in the game) will need to conspire with those that do (not necessarily the gamemaster).

If everyone is working together on character/game creation (settling on Genre Expectations and so on together), then it becomes quickly apparent how the group dynamic is forming for the characters. This makes the 'oddball' character more than just a problem for the gamemaster, but the players expectations as well. Y'see, anyone at such a session could have suggested the senator was being transported to negotiations, not just the gamemaster. Why? Because it affects what they get to play too doesn't it? Saying this is all a problem for the gamemaster (for however traditional it is) is dysfunctional. (You're basically saying the gamemaster is hostage to making play fun no matter how hard the players try to wreck that, intentionally or unintentionally.)

So this means in "No Myth" gamemastering, the gamemaster isn't trying to control what the players create for their characters, he is trying to help them see the consequences of their actions (especially as a group). Most importantly, the gamemaster is allowed to say, "I don't think I can run this." In a dysfunctional group this alternative can be wielded in a passive-aggressive way, but again, no style works for a dysfunctional relationship. The gamemaster is just as human as any other player, he cannot be expected to do everything; a gamemaster who knows his limits is good, one who can negotiate things to prevent 'going there' is better.

Out of Control

The most important issue overall in this thread seems to be one of control. Most of the responses I've read from Hyphz seem to separate it into extremes; either the gamemaster is in total control or everything is out of control. That's not how this works, "No Myth" gamemastering functions by 'whoever is speaking' is in control. When the players talk, the gamemaster attempts to respond their desires (both immediate and prearranged) in game form. 'Absolute control' resides in no single person. Each supplies and supports portions of play as they like, none are cut off, nor does any one dominate.

This is not rulership by committee, but by appointee. If you have a commanding player(s) (and everyone likes it that way) his way is how the game goes; the gamemaster follows too. If you don't have any, then the gamemaster 'gets his marching orders' from the group consensus (not the ongoing one, but the one set up in place of all the maps and scenarios at the beginning, often in the Genre Expectations). Because a gamemaster 'does things for the good of the game' (like suggesting alternative characters), it should not be he who is in control, but the consensus of the group. (Surely you can imagine a leader chosen by consensus doing what the consensus desires without constant polling.)

The whole premise of "No Myth" gamemastering is one of 'handing over (more) control' to the players (often without seeming like it). If you can't get past that part, or can only imagine dysfunction responses to it, I can't help you. Try something else.

Fang Langford

I've been following this discussion with considerable interest. And largely, I agree with the comments made by clehrich, Spooky and Ralph. But I wanted to add a few comments myself.

First, Fang's method IS functional. I know because I've used it myself. But it won't work for every mentality and approach to gaming on the player's end. I don't think Fang ever claimed that it did.

It won't work for player's who derive their pleasure from taking stock of their resources and THEN deciding what the best course of action is. Your "Garison" example is perfect. You have to ask what order did the desires come in? Did the player want to try and figure out what to do based on the a priori resources at hand? OR Did the player want to see if there was a good spot SPECIFICALLY to set up a Garrison.

The "No Myth" method will work for the SECOND player it won't work for the first player. It won't work for the first player because you're cheating them out of exercising their tactical and analytical skills which is what is "fun" for them. It WILL work for the second player because he already has all his imaginative energy invested in a particular idea. So all you have to do is roll, say, the character's Tactics skills. If they succeed then there's a good spot to set up a Garrison, make up the details from there. If they fail then, nope, the city just isn't defensible that way.

You see, "No Myth" assumes the PLAYERS are driven active participants who know what cool things they want to try and see have happen. These players don't ask, "What are our options?" but "Will this approach work?" "No Myth" won't work for puzzle solvers, tacticians or what I call economic/political/cultural analysts.

The question you have to ask yourself is WHAT DO YOU ENJOY? What do YOU want?

Jesse

For some people who are into exploration of setting, there needs to be an established setting for them to feel a genuine sense of exploration.

Fudging of the kind Fang is talking about - fudging the world - requires a metagame agenda; some people view a metagame agenda as undesirable in play.

Ian Charvill wrote: Fudging of the kind Fang is talking about - fudging the world - requires a metagame agenda; some people view a metagame agenda as undesirable in play.

Ian Charvill wrote: For some people who are into exploration of setting, there needs to be an established setting for them to feel a genuine sense of exploration.

Fudging of the kind Fang is talking about - fudging the world - requires a metagame agenda; some people view a metagame agenda as undesirable in play.

Lot's of information I disagree with flying around here.

First, while this style of play is not particularly conducive to Gamism, Jesse, there's no reason why parts of play can't remain more Gamist. But, yes, as has been repeated about a jillion times not all players will like this style. Nobody, and I mean nobody has said that it would. So I wish people would stop pointing that out.

That said, I think that people are falling into the trap of assuming that if a player likes one sort of game, that he can't like others. Which I am vehemently against. I personally like all these proposed styles and their "opposites". So, while, yes, occasionally I like to explore what I percieve as a "stable" or "costant" predefined world, I also can enjoy this other form of play. One doesn't have to be narrow in what they choose to enjoy. As such, I think that most players can enjoy any style if given enough time, understanding and encouragement.

But, yes, there will be curmudgeons as I point out. Nobody said they had to play this way.

Also, what does it matter where the information comes from as to it's relative permenance? I think that people are confused that if things are created at need, that they, therefor, just dissapear after they leave the "screen". That's just not so. Once a person, place, thing, concept, whatever, is established, it remains in play as a permenant thing.

So if I establish that Blazonia is next to Talaria, and you establish that Talaria is an agricultural nation, then it's logical to say that a possible reason for Blazonia ro invade Talaria is so that they can take their abundant food products. I'm not seeing how the idea that some facts are made up on the spot means that they're any less important in play.

Indeed, even in the most well established setting, the players only know the details once they've been transmitted to them either via the text or the GM narration. What does it really matter where the information comes from as long as it makes sense? The facts will occur, and then they can be discussed (creating more facts possily).

To get back to the Gamism issue, once the facts have been established, then "normal" Gamism can commence. Even if the players are creating a lot of detail they can frame a playing filed, and conduct tactical challenges upon it. These have as much "realness" to them as any element added by a GM.

The only reason to object has to be aesthetic. And I understand better than most the idea that such metagame creation can void the SpecSimInt that some people demand. Again, this style is just not for them. Big deal.

I think that people here who haven't played this way really should before commenting further. I really think that they see this mode as radically different from how they're used to playing. But I'd bet that in play, they'll find that it's really not all that different from what they're familiar with. That "sometimes" that Gordon mentions where the two modes work the same is, actually, very large.

One thing I think people think is that what Fang suggested has to be like Universalis (which is radically different), in that the players make everything up. This just isn't so. The GM can still make everything up in this style. He just does it only as needed. Allowing the players to help is just an added benefit assuming that they want to do so. The players aren't forced to do such creation other than the most reasonable request.

Would you think that a player would object if his character opened up a closet, and you said, "You see normal closet stuff." Well, you are asking the player there to visualize the contents of the closet and therefore make them up. Would you object if then the player said, "I pull out a shirt." ? Unlikely. So you see all GMs do this all the time. In Fang's style, he's just asking the player to envision things on a little larger scale. We all know what's in a closet. If we all know what a "modern urban area" looks like, and I think we all do, then how is it any different to be asked to create the McDonalds yourself?

This is what Genre Expectations are.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: That said, I think that people are falling into the trap of assuming that if a player likes one sort of game, that he can't like others. Which I am vehemently against. I personally like all these proposed styles and their "opposites". So, while, yes, occasionally I like to explore what I percieve as a "stable" or "costant" predefined world, I also can enjoy this other form of play. One doesn't have to be narrow in what they choose to enjoy. As such, I think that most players can enjoy any style if given enough time, understanding and encouragement.

Mike Holmes wrote: I think that people here who haven't played this way really should before commenting further. I really think that they see this mode as radically different from how they're used to playing. But I'd bet that in play, they'll find that it's really not all that different from what they're familiar with. That "sometimes" that Gordon mentions where the two modes work the same is, actually, very large.

I know this will further confuse things, but it needs to be pointed out.

You can have "No Myth" gamemastering with a map.

Wait! Before you get out the guillotine, remember what I said before; you don't need a map. That's very important. If you already have a map, I don't see why that can't be a part of the Genre Expectations. Say we want a game set in New York instead of Superman's Metropolis; go ahead and get a map. The agreement (or the expectation) is that no one will use the map 'to pull a fast one' on anyone else, players and gamemasters included.

What I have been so insistent about is that a map cannot and should not be forced, especially not in "No Myth" gamemastering, but importantly not in non-dysfunctional play (boy, that sure is getting to be a mouthful).

Fang Langford

Le Joueur wrote: The reason this is so important is that there is nothing, absolutely no way, to design a game or develop a play or gamemaster style that will change this fact. What I thought went without saying was that we aren't talking about these people.

I'm sorry Hyphz, if your players insist on playing dysfunctional, no style, mine included, will make play enjoyable for anyone else.

Ralph names two of the most prevalent of the kind you keep throwing up as examples, Cluemasters and Flaw-hounds. The Cluemaster is convinced that buried somewhere in the voluminous campaign notes are pieces of information that, when fit together, form a picture of what is 'really' going on so they don't need to do it 'the hard way' (often claiming that they enjoy the feeling of 'solving the puzzle').

Since this is obviously impossible, their play is automatically dysfunctional.

"Players who aren't doing anything" cause problems for any gamemaster, but the only proper cure is to say, "Why don't you do something?"

Mike Holmes wrote:
This is a lot simpler than people are making it. I think some actual play would give everybody a better idea of how all this works. Play Universalis once, for example. Once you've done that, you can see exactly how a game's expectations can cause a player to play like you want. It would be absurd to ask for a map in Universalis.

Take away that expectation, and replace it with the expectation that their creativity will be rewarded, and voila! No more turtling players.

So I do tend to club people over their heads with their own ignorance, even if it's not their fault. So when I turn the tables on a player, it's not meant as a smackdown power wise. It's meant to teach.

You seem to think that the character and player are one and the same. That is, if the character has a map, that they player should also have one, or the player is not empowered.

That is, if the character has a sword, and the player does not, is the player any less empowered?

Take this further example. Player finds a little puzzle box. Now, if you have a puzzle box, you could give it to the player, and let him puzzle it out. Is it OK for you as the GM to just say to the player that the charcter has one, and must roll? Sure, who would argue that?

Now, you've said that the only solution to the players you described as dysfunctional, was to 'start over'. What exactly does that mean you (the GM) doing or asking them to do?

Hyphz wrote: Now, you've said that the only solution to the players you described as dysfunctional, was to 'start over'. What exactly does that mean you (the GM) doing or asking them to do?

Valamir wrote: For starters, quit trying to guess where the GM wants them to go and just play.

Chris, there are two easy solutions.

For one, I really don't think that Hyphz wants to try this at all. He sounds defensive and scared. In fact he seems to be fighting it tooth and nail making it much harder than it is (its a RPG for chrissake, not brain surgery). If that's the case, then he shouldn't use Fangs model. He should only use it if he is comfortable with it. As we've pointed out before, again and again, "No Myth" is just one option, and we've given advice on how to improve the Illusionist game as well.

There's really no amount of advice that we can give here that doesn't boil down to, "just do it". Given that this seems to work for everyone who genuinely tries it, I can't imagine what else to say.

Second, if there is a Magic Bullet to solving this problem, it's playing a game that doesn't allow for the players to play any other way than "No Myth". For example, SOAP, Donjon, or InSpectres (don't need to go as far as Universalis; are these other games also incomprehensible?). If they play a game like this, one of two things will occur. Either the players will suddenly "get it", or they'll make it abundantly clear that they'll never like this sort of thing.

Either way, problem solved. You then either have converts, or you know not to even attempt it.

Fang does say that going with this method whole hog is a radical change. But as his map post just above points out, it's not something that has to completely dominate play. One can transition back and forth.

But there is no method of "sliding" that I'm aware of that isn't going to take way more time than it's worth, IMO, in terms of trying to ascertain player aceptance. People talk about using such stealth methods, and I've never heard one actually work.

To speculate on what it would look like, you'd have to start expanding on the "closet" idea. That is, allow the players to make up what's in the closet, or at least see that you're winging the contents yourself. Then you'd move on to larger things like establishing the content of entire rooms this way (and what GM doesn't do this already). Then whole locations. Then NPCs. etc. Just work your way up. This would require probably several entire games to accomplish subtly. And then you'd still have no garuntee that it would work.

Which just to me argues for one hour-long session of SOAP. Much more efficient. Open communication seems to me to always be better for this than subtley. If not, then play Illusionist. That's what one form of Illusionism is, anyway; subtly doing the "No Myth" thing without telling the players that you're doing it.

I mean, if the players are that resistant, and you really, really want to change styles (and Illusionism is just no the way for you), the answer is simple. Get different players. (Cue statements about friends and these guys being the only players in all of London).

Mike

P.S. I've said this so often that if it comes up again, I'm almost certainly going to make it a standard rant.

Hey Clehrich,

A ray of sunshine...

clehrich wrote: No, stop a second. Let's all step back and take deep breaths. We're starting to slide into the whole "who's dysfunctional and who isn't" thing, and that's endless and pointless.

clehrich wrote: Assume you have players who have never played a No Myth style, and are exceedingly wary of it (it's cheating, it's fudging, etc.), but who genuinely are somewhat dissatisfied with straight Illusionist games. You, the GM, want to get them into this new style. Your reason? You think they will like it, and will get into it, once they really give it a try. You want to make your game fun for everyone, and you think they will find it so.

...I honestly don't think Hyphz is saying that No Myth can't work for his players. The problem is, they don't like the sound of it. If they actually experience it, they are likely to love it --- that, anyway, is Hyphz's hope. So how do you get them to drift?

clehrich wrote: What can you do to draw them toward another style?

Fang, for someone who talks a lot about sliding and shifting among styles, you seem to be proposing rigid boundaries between styles. I don't mean you're saying that No Myth is the right style, but I do see you saying that No Myth is radically distinct from others, and as such one can only do that or not do that; no slides can occur.

I don't buy it. And I think that there has got to be a way to encourage Drift toward a No Myth style, allowing people to get their feet wet before diving in at the deep end.

Chris, paraphrased, wrote: How to make the transition?

Walt, with this post you've now officially joined Fang on my list of people who give far better GM advice than Robin's Laws.

LOTS of GM advice will advocate finding other ways to get the beans into Jack's possession so the story can continue. Your "Thorough but Limited" advice sets all that on its ear. The example was perfectly illuminating.

Good stuff. I bow to your superior GM-fu ;-)

hyphz,

I think what's needed here is real, concrete info about what your players think is the "right" (or a good) way to solve the kinds of problems your initial post talked about. If it's an Impossible-like Thing situation, what's THEIR solution? They just banged their heads up against it (a "dead-end" in UA, a story-breaking charcater in M&M, whatever) - they don't need the theory, or even to agree that they're trying to do something Impossible. They just ran into an unpleasant bit of game play, and are almost CERTAIN to have opinions about it.

Get them to talk about those opinions, and then you can figure out ways to apply some of the various possible solutions people have mentioned here. It seems to me like you understand the theory and issues involved, but *I* sure don't have a good grip on what your players think at the most basic level, so it seems to me possible you'd get some value from checking into that are more deeply.

Gordon

Mike Holmes wrote:
For one, I really don't think that Hyphz wants to try this at all. He sounds defensive and scared. In fact he seems to be fighting it tooth and nail making it much harder than it is (its a RPG for chrissake, not brain surgery).

Second, if there is a Magic Bullet to solving this problem, it's playing a game that doesn't allow for the players to play any other way than "No Myth". For example, SOAP, Donjon, or InSpectres (don't need to go as far as Universalis; are these other games also incomprehensible?).

I mean, if the players are that resistant, and you really, really want to change styles (and Illusionism is just no the way for you), the answer is simple. Get different players. (Cue statements about friends and these guys being the only players in all of London).

Hyphz

The only way you're going to extend your comfort zone is by stepping beyond it, but you only need to step a little way at a time. Walt's given you a hell of a good step-by-step, all you need to do is to decide where your comfort zone is in Walt's scheme and prep for one step beyond.

I suspect that until you are prepared to step outside your comfort zone that your going to continue having sessions go poorly.

You yourself have identified the problem and you're too interested in the solution to pretend that you don't at least want to give it a spin.

hyphz wrote: Yes, I've tried those, but they go too far. The "even the GM doesn't know what's in the dungeon/even the GM doesn't know the mystery" aspect of Donjon/InSpectres puts them off. At least in the No Myth style that Fang seems to be describing, it isn't directly pushed onto the players to make up the plot; they just have the option of doing so.

Great example Justin! The Complication (a fight) remains the same, but the Detail (a bar and its patrons) are changed to protect the innocent. Right in line with what I've been describing.

And Walt, man, that was beautiful. It very much scripts how to travel from a specific style to No Myth via sustainable 'nodes' (that don't need to be abandoned if desired). I couldn't have explained it that well. I hope your interpretation bears some similarities to Hyphz style; I couldn't make that guess. It's a symphony of Transition.

What I'm hoping for is some feedback on both your post and mine about 'in between' Transitional 'nodes.' How about it Hyphz?

Fang Langford

Well, about transitional modes, I was trying to think of an example of such a thing.. now, I'm not sure if this actually *counts* as an example, but if it doesn't, the fact that it doesn't will be useful to learn..

Feng Shui. I submit that this is a 'No Myth' game as far as fights are concerned. After all, the players are invited to make up cool things they do, and to suggest things might exist in the location even if the GM hasn't stated that they do. You don't need a map, but you can use one if you like.

Now, these same players have played Feng Shui very well before (of course, it helps that many of them are HK movie fans) and had no problem with this aspect of combat. The reason for this is that, I think, the famous Feng Shui rule that "if there's an easy way and a hard way, doing it the hard way is no harder on the dice than doing it the easy way" actually goes both ways; it also reassures the players that "anything you can do by 'no mything', you could have achieved without it (easy way), so it's not cheating to use it."

Now, the players have balked before at InSpectres and Donjon because there, they *have* to make up the running plot as they go. (If you roll a 6, you *have* to narrate.) In FS, the GM is still in charge of the plot, but the details of the scenes within it (which, if you follow FS's advice, is the majority of the game anyway) is in their control in a limited fashion.

What Fang and others seems to be suggesting is a similar thing; where the players don't make up anything other than their character's actions (and possibly the odd side fact to facilitate them) but that these actions create the game world by their implications.

Now, I can understand this to some extent. And I think that the players would, in actual honesty, not have too much trouble thinking to go to the police station or to visit similar places to that. What gets difficult is when they have to make a leap of reasoning.. like 'working out where the killer is hiding now', or 'working out what's really going on here'. This last one is especially essential in UA, and UA actually has setting rules that try to facilitate it (such as, Stonehenge might not have been mystical when it was built, but it is now because so many people think it is.. basically, whatever your players think has mojo, probably actually does).

Now, the problem here is: how do you deal with this? They can't actually solve it as a puzzle because under 'no myth' there is no real solution. Simply not having this kind of thing in the game is quite a loss IMHO. And it is possible that the players will work *something* out from the things you've thrown at them so far in the 'no myth', and you can then arrange that it's right - but there's likewise the possibility that they will just say it's all too hard and begin to idle.

And that's part of my worry. I mean, for the UA thing I've been planning, I have a basic theme, a kicker beginning and a planned end (that can be moved around and altered if necessary) but I have no idea what to put in the middle, and under 'no myth' I would have no idea of how to do it without surrendering the basic theme - and without that, the PCs aren't liable to achieve anything because they don't yet know where to look for weird stuff.

hyphz wrote: Now, the players have balked before at InSpectres and Donjon because there, they *have* to make up the running plot as they go. (If you roll a 6, you *have* to narrate.)

Just a very brief note on Walt's brilliant post. It occurred to me while reading it that what he's describing has an endpoint analyzed in detail some time ago: bricolage, as described in Chapter 1 of Claude Levi-Strauss's The Savage Mind.

I'm not going to go into all the details now; I'll work it up as an essay, and see whether it makes any sense then. But the point is that Levi-Strauss thinks the bricoleur, or the myth-maker, essentially has a stock of odd bits in his mental warehouse. As the story, characters, audience, and everything else going on (read: every possible concern in the RPG) move along, various "holes" show up. As in, "What comes next has got to have X and Y characteristics; beyond that it doesn't matter a damn. Well this weird thing in my warehouse has X and Y characteristics, although it sure as hell doesn't seem like it's going to fit easily otherwise. Oh well -- so long as it fits, we'll see where it leads us."

The trick is that these X and Y characteristics, the things required, are in RPGs related to Genre, Character History, Social Contract, all of Fang's various structures (up or down, etc.), and whatnot. Thus when the guy goes fishing with a net, the magic mer-person bit from a totally different story (as imagined initially) fits perfectly. Who knew there was going to be a magic mer-person in this story? Nobody, but it was the best "fit" for the "hole" that opened up when the guy dipped his net. Quick change of sex to add a little va-va-voom to the story, and away we go!

I love it -- RPG advice, pushed toward the limits of intelligence and perception, starts to turn out to be how mythology really alway worked in the first place, from a Structuralist point of view. Ha!

I should add here that I also thought Walt's post was fantastic.

The only things is that it assumes I'm running a regular game, which I'm not, and, well... basically, I just don't know if I can make things up on the fly. I mean, I've had way too many experiences when I spend ages - sometimes months - trying to think of an idea for a scenario, and then I run it by somebody and they immediately suggest something much better in ten seconds. Even if I get a general adventure idea, I can generally never think of an in-between at all, and things have faded in the meantime. Like, those UA characters were made in the middle of last year. The players, quite literally, couldn't remember their characters because it was so long ago. They've also had unused TROS characters sitting around for about a year now after every scenario I could think of fell into the "lazy and cheating" mold and even then, again, I had no idea how to fill it out. I couldn't even develop a Star Wars scenario and a freakin' 16-year-old can do that. (And then I see module authors who get published in spite of writing bs like narcoleptic military security guards, and wonder how bad I must be..)

I know there's not a lot of point posting this and it seems horribly like a whine, because it's not exactly like anyone can tell me how to be creative, but I guess it's just to explain the other reason why I might have seemed defensive. Yea, there's the "practice" deal, but how am I really supposed to practice? Have the players sit down and, as soon as they move into something that needs 'no myth', have them wait a few hours while I think of something? Doesn't seem likely to me.

I'm kinda sad I missing the development of this thread...and my head is sort of spinning from sitting down and reading the whole thing. Forgive me if I repeat something that has already been said.

hyphz wrote: Yea, there's the "practice" deal, but how am I really supposed to practice? Have the players sit down and, as soon as they move into something that needs 'no myth', have them wait a few hours while I think of something? Doesn't seem likely to me.

Hyphz,

You're saying two things that worry me here.

First, you say you have trouble coming up with scenarios, in response to Walt's suggestions for Transitioning from scenarios to No Myth. Before, the problem seemed to be that you were using a pre-printed scenario. The goal here is to run without a scenario. That's the whole point. You don't need a scenario: all you need is some small-scale ideas that seem more or less to fit right now. You don't know where it's really going any more than they do. If you want a scenario, then presumably No Myth isn't going to work for you. But I thought this all started because your players were working hard to break determined scenarios, leading to the idea that maybe you should avoid them for this bunch.

Second, you say you don't have time to practice. I think Walt means that you have to GM with some regularity. Furthermore, you have to be willing to suck occasionally, and then try to learn from your mistakes.

Look, it's a game. The players want a good time, you want a good time, so everybody has the same goal, right? So get them involved in making it a good game. Can't think of something intelligent for an NPC? Tell a player whose character is standing on the sideline, "Hey, um, Dave? This guy's a cop, a donut-eating fat slob type, okay? So play him." And then wing it from there. Don't know what's next, when the gang have done something you didn't expect? Well, there are lots of tricks and techniques, but if under-pressure creativity isn't your bag, ask yourself what kind of scene the players seem to like, preferably one you haven't had 10 seconds ago, and do it. So if they like combat scenes, maybe those guards weren't so narcoleptic as they seemed? So now it all turns into a whacking great firefight, everybody's having a good time, and who the hell cares what you'd planned?

See, this is what Fang means about fictions: the guards aren't narcoleptic until you say so. If it turns out it was a ruse, because you decide a firefight would be fun around now, who's to say you didn't plan this all in advance? Does it matter?

You want my #1 suggestion? Say the following to your players, a little while (say, a few days) before your next session:

"Okay, guys. Here's the thing. I'm not real happy with my GMing right now, I don't know about you. So I'm gonna try a few things that might help. Thing is, they're things I haven't done before, or not much, so I'm not really all that comfortable with them yet, so things may be a little rocky for a bit, okay? Kind of bear with me, but please try to think about what is and isn't working as we go along, and then tell me after the game -- especially, I sometimes have trouble seeing when you guys are having a good time, because I get kinda caught up in my thing and miss your thing. So if a scene went really great from your point of view, could you tell me afterwards? 'Cause sometimes I think a scene sucked and you loved it, so I get pissed that it didn't work, and you get pissed because you don't get more scenes like that, and so on and so forth. And you know what? If we set up a new scene and you think it would be cooler with some little tweak around the side? You could say so, actually, and that'll help me get the hang of what make you tick, and generally provide a cool game for you. But anyway you gotta cut me a little slack, because I'm in pretty new territory for me. Whaddya say?"

I think you're putting way too much emotion and ego on the line (I have this habit too), and so sometimes you genuinely do not see when the players are having a great time, so when they're thinking, "Wow, Hyphz rocks!" you're thinking, "Oh god, here we go again, why can't it ever work?" Now I'm not saying they're thrilled all the time, but if they hate the game why are they in it after all this time? I'm betting you do some things they love, and if you can figure out what those are, and recognize when they're happy players, you'll start aiming more for a specific goal, and besides, start realizing what you do well.

Here's another suggestion: don't rehash old ground alone. I call this the Death Spiral. What you want is for the players to pay attention, at a meta-level, to how the game is going, and kind of mentally tick off things that go well. Then, after the game, you can go over it with them. I'm betting they will say, "Oh, I thought it was so cool when..." about things that surprise the hell out of you.

I ran a quite long campaign some years ago where I did some of what you're doing, mentally I mean. I look back on this game with considerable ambivalence. I remember OOC "intense discussions" (read: arguments) about whether things were going well; I remember scenes that seemed stupid and pointless; I remember feeling like I was pulling teeth to get them to see the "obvious" clues I'd dropped; etc. You know what? When you talk to them now, the players in that game all say, unanimously, "Sure, it had a few problems, but that was a great game. Why do you think it went on almost two years? And when are you moving to the city I live in so you can run more of the same?"

The moral of the story? Goddamn I wish I'd been paying attention to the good things, so I could have as positive sorts of feelings as they do! Apparently I did pretty well, but I spent much of the time feeling like the campaign was on the verge of total breakdown.

Anyway, hope that helps.

clehrich wrote:
First, you say you have trouble coming up with scenarios, in response to Walt's suggestions for Transitioning from scenarios to No Myth. Before, the problem seemed to be that you were using a pre-printed scenario. The goal here is to run without a scenario. That's the whole point. You don't need a scenario: all you need is some small-scale ideas that seem more or less to fit right now. You don't know where it's really going any more than they do. If you want a scenario, then presumably No Myth isn't going to work for you. But I thought this all started because your players were working hard to break determined scenarios, leading to the idea that maybe you should avoid them for this bunch.

Second, you say you don't have time to practice. I think Walt means that you have to GM with some regularity. Furthermore, you have to be willing to suck occasionally, and then try to learn from your mistakes.

Look, it's a game. The players want a good time, you want a good time, so everybody has the same goal, right? So get them involved in making it a good game.

So if they like combat scenes, maybe those guards weren't so narcoleptic as they seemed? So now it all turns into a whacking great firefight, everybody's having a good time, and who the hell cares what you'd planned?

I think you're putting way too much emotion and ego on the line (I have this habit too), and so sometimes you genuinely do not see when the players are having a great time, so when they're thinking, "Wow, Hyphz rocks!" you're thinking, "Oh god, here we go again, why can't it ever work?" Now I'm not saying they're thrilled all the time, but if they hate the game why are they in it after all this time?

Hyphz,

What do you think of starting a new thread with a focused or specific point that's emerged out of this one? Your choice, but I think it might be time. Also, it's possible that we've moved to "intellectual digestion" stage, in which case more discussion at this time (however interesting or valid the points) is actually obscuring your initial goals in beginning the thread.

Here are some things to consider as well.

#1 - I think that Unknown Armies play is far more pre-set than most people seem to realize, based on Forge posts. The one-shots are essentially 91% completed stories; they seem coherent and "we made story" in play, but that's because the key decisions are incorporated into the character descriptions and all we've got left is One Last Revelation and the Big Blow-Out. I consider all the published scenarios for this game to be Illusionist, albeit using different techniques.

#2 - You wrote, regarding the weekly D&D game that you're in,

although I like it enough to do it, it's not something I look forward to very much

Ron Edwards wrote:
What do you think of starting a new thread with a focused or specific point that's emerged out of this one? Your choice, but I think it might be time.

[Edited because x-posted with Ron & Hyphz]

Hyphz wrote: Well, [sudden combat scene]'s something I might have to look at. I might need to address that, because these players like combat, but combat in UA is not entered lightly as it's very deadly... might have to try and tone it down a bit, at least until the PCs know enough about the background to buff themselves mystically ;)

Well, no - not quite - but I don't actually like the idea of determined scenarios that much anyway. The reason it's a problem, though, is that Walt descibed transitioning from determined scenarios to 'no myth' - and that's pretty tough to do if I haven't even reached the determined scenarios stage! (At least, not determined as in determined by me)

The second thing is that I'm not sure about having "no scenario". As I say, the Unknown Armies game is the most promising venue for testing this, as it has a number of things that facilitate it quite well, but it has a big problem too: a good part of it is in the PCs *discovering* information about the setting. Now, I have to give them some poking to get them to discover it, because if I don't, they won't know where to go looking to find it - because they don't know about it yet! Yes, it can "just happen to be" wherever they go, but that runs the risk of making it seem a bit tired and over-normal..

Well, that's one of the other things that got me in the sessions on Monday.. the guy who GM's the D&D3E campaign, who is normally a good voice of reason when it comes to the others' nutty PCs and who has helped me with my GMing quite a lot, was the guy who made Homer Simpson in the supers game - out of theme, out of place, with no motivation, incapable of doing anything effective, and existing only so that he could make jokes about eating donuts wherever he went. Of all the people involved he was the one who I least expected to do something like that. I thought he had some cunning plan up his sleeve, but it seems not...

I wrote: I think you're putting way too much emotion and ego on the line (I have this habit too), and so sometimes you genuinely do not see when the players are having a great time, so when they're thinking, "Wow, Hyphz rocks!" you're thinking, "Oh god, here we go again, why can't it ever work?" Now I'm not saying they're thrilled all the time, but if they hate the game why are they in it after all this time?

Umm.... they're not. We've played a bunch of one-shots, not an ongoing campaign, and it's been getting harder to get them involved in them, not easier.

Hi there,

H'm, given the cross-posting, it's going to be hard to close this thread. So let me state it here: we're done here. Anyone want to continue? Focus on one specific point and start a new thread, whether in Actual Play or RPG Theory based on the content.

To be a good example, I'll continue with the Unknown Armies issue in a new thread.

Best,
Ron

I've only a few things to add to the fine commentary provided. One way you could think of straight No Myth gamemastering is like running InSpectres or Donjon, but telling the players that it's just regular (or Illusionist) gaming. Most certainly they are 'making it up' as much as in those games, but you are 'making it look' like they aren't. (Well, actually you're 'herding' play towards a satisfying conclusion, but not an specific ending.)

Secondly, you seem totally riveted to both the problems inherent to puzzle-solving and one-shot play. Neither should create any special difficulty in No Myth gamemastering; you could even us a clock to run this way.

Here's the plan: a four hour game;


Hour 1, you do some really spook and mysterious things and don't tell them what the problem is (just keep them interested) - take notes on what they think are clues;

Hour 2, start with a confrontation with a mysterious 'big baddie' and get them to 'try and figure it out' using the clues they think they have;

Hour 3, work each Complication resulting from tracking down each clue together with the others so derived (give each clue-to-Complication only 10 minutes);

Hour 4, quickly merge all the Complications into one major Complication and attach that to the mysterious 'big baddie' (extra points if you could make it look like he - or his influence - was sneaking around the background throughout the middle of the game - late hour 2, early hour 3), build this up to the big 'faceoff' and leave enough time for the game system to 'run a combat.'


It ends however it ends. And you can do this by the clock. Ya gots yer puzzle and yer one-shot, all in jus' four hours, can't be beat.

Third, the trick I use to run No Myth gamemastering even on my worst days is, "If all else fails run an action scene." If things happen to fast for the players to think about and you stress the kind of action that the players like; they won't notice any mistakes you make.

Lastly, don't be afraid to suck! You're trying something new and for heaven's sake you're only human! Fear not being bad. Make sure they know how hard you are trying and if they have a shred of decency, they'll forgive any failure. They're your friends, right? (You aren't being graded on this are you?)

Fang Langford

(p. s. And Ron's right. Let's address your concerns and situation separately from the No Myth gamemastering stuff in a new thread. What's the deal?)

p. p. s. Whoops, cross posted with Ron. (Shouldn't leave those browser windows open so long.)

Hello,

Closed! Stop! No one post again to this thread! Good-bye! Have a nice day!

Best,
Ron