PDA

View Full Version : GMing Flowchart



Totally Guy
2011-06-01, 01:52 PM
http://www.evilbrainjono.net/images/Finding_your_GMing_Style.jpg

I found this image and I think it rocks. It's all about identifying GMing and game styles. But take it with a pinch of salt. :smalltongue:

dsmiles
2011-06-01, 01:58 PM
I believe that this is wrong. All roads eventually lead to 'GM Burnout.' :smalltongue:

valadil
2011-06-01, 02:00 PM
Story Now / Collaborative Improv. It's accurate for my style. I didn't see much support for no story whatsoever, just send them on a string of increasingly difficult fights till they TPK.

Shadowknight12
2011-06-01, 02:02 PM
"Story Now"/Collaborative Improv.

Eh. Fits, I guess.

Toofey
2011-06-01, 02:18 PM
I think what's missing is an option for a plot, but no definite ending. Most of mine are bad guys who have goals that have timelines of their own and I try and get the game rolling with some early part of this happening right on top of the PCs. I would say I don't have an ending because I don't expect things to go as planned and the players actions have the effects they would have on the villains plots or whatever else. My current campaign has a set timeline the bad guys are operating on that the party has discovered, so my players are actually spending a decent amount of time on side quests which gives me a bit of a chance to improvise sometimes, which has actually been really nice.

although the chart did get me to realize that I used essentially the same recipe basically every time.

edit 1: Although i will also say that whenever I'm getting a new group/campaign going I have my players meet, and test out the waters with a session to make characters, and another of very light play just to see if they talk to one another and stuff. My campaigns are always built somewhat around any plots from any players who create back story to the table. I cannot stress this enough if you want to get more screen time send you DM an email with the back story for your character even if they haven't asked for it. If they ask for it think it out, this is what really matters about your character. Optimization shmotimization.

edit 2: I ranted

Talakeal
2011-06-01, 02:34 PM
The chart obviously makes a lot of negative assumptions about games with a heavilly structured plot. In my experience the more structure the better, and the best games I have run have always been those that I planned out from that start. My player's actions and the dice still determine how events play out, but usually I know what events will occur long before they do.

My players have never complained of railroading except when I want them to follow the plot instead of wandering around to "power up" their character somehow, usually just searching for magic items or robbing people. Any sandbox style games I have played usually result in people becoming bored and frustrated as they ignore even the most obvious hooks because nothing interests them.

jseah
2011-06-01, 02:44 PM
Any sandbox style games I have played usually result in people becoming bored and frustrated as they ignore even the most obvious hooks because nothing interests them.
That happened until in one of my games I said this:

Anyone playing an Evil character must plot to take over the world (set of win conditions).
Anyone playing a Good character must plot to save the world (in the sense of converting almost all NPCs to light side)

There's a set of starting conditions, cities and NPCs, I said go! And they went. Was pretty awesome until RL killed it.
Manipulation, deceit, politics, treasure hunting (artifact victory condition). All there. At the same time, everywhere across the world.


Hence, I learnt this: If your players get bored in a sandbox game, come up with an out-of-game objective and tell them to make characters that work towards it.

valadil
2011-06-01, 02:51 PM
Hence, I learnt this: If your players get bored in a sandbox game, come up with an out-of-game objective and tell them to make characters that work towards it.

I do this in games that aren't sandbox based too. Telling the players the premise of your game so they can pick characters who will be interested in that premise has only brought good to the tables I've played at. There's nothing quite so unsatisfying as playing an interesting character who doesn't fit in the game he's in.

Tvtyrant
2011-06-01, 02:57 PM
I ended up with old school/sandbox. I decided the flowchart was lying, and ended up with "your winging everything. Now what?" in a constant loop. :(

dsmiles
2011-06-01, 03:03 PM
I prefer relatively structured games, myself. Both as a DM, and as a Player. Having a plot, that leaves room to maneuver within an overall story arc, kind of provides unity to what might be an otherwise incompatible party. I don't really get that feel from a 'sandbox' style game. An incompatible party will just go their separate ways, and the DM has to keep up with each individual plot.

jmelesky
2011-06-01, 03:32 PM
There's plot, and then there's plot.

On the one hand, you have "encounter, encounter, cutscene, repeat", which is a pretty railroady way of having a plot. Not my thing, but i've known players who are quite pleased with that approach.

On the other hand, you have "campaign phases": phase 1- the PCs slowly figure out about BadThing, phase 2- PCs try to thwart/reverse BadThing, phase 3- it turns out BadThing was DifferentThing, and the remainder of the campaign is the PCs dealing with that. There's a plot there (a very specific one, presuming you actually fill in BadThing and DifferentThing intelligently), certainly. But the PCs are making decisions the entire way through, and those decisions have consequences (large, small, or otherwise). It's much harder to derail a campaign like that, because it's simply not as railroady.

Tengu_temp
2011-06-01, 03:38 PM
Participationism. Flowchart was disappointing - not silly enough to be funny, too general to give precise results, and it seems to me that it was written with a heavy bias.

Delwugor
2011-06-01, 04:44 PM
It hit the style I try to get the most often - collaberative improv. Not always the case but close enough to say it is what I try the most.
I liked the distinction between Railroading and Participationism as well as the different paths that lead to Participationism.

Swordguy
2011-06-01, 06:18 PM
I believe that this is wrong. All roads eventually lead to 'GM Burnout.' :smalltongue:

I'm actually having a really hard time arguing with this...

Ajadea
2011-06-01, 07:46 PM
This flowchart was definitely written with a heavy bias. My GMing style starts with a plot of some sort- the successes, failures, mistakes, manipulations, and goals of at least 6 but preferably about 20-24 major NPCs interacting with each other and the rest of the setting. I know how everything will end if the PCs never show up, and I know how everything began. I could probably pull a decent story out of it, if I tried.

You know the funny thing? Those NPCs never calculate the PCs into their initial plans. So all the carefully laid plans go to wreck, and everyone scrambles to redo their plans with varying amounts of efficiency and quailty, depending on personality and resources available.

It's a style that hasn't failed me yet.

Archwizard
2011-06-01, 10:03 PM
I always build a campaign world, complete with timelines and plots and events. I then provide the players with backgrounds for the area and initial setup events, as well as any major game element they need to factor in for their builds (e.g. my favorite example - undead heavy campaign).

The players get enough details to build characters with backstories and personalities that fit into the world to make RP easier, and their backstories help me build a better world.

I can definitely adjust events to account for PC actions, bad guys have secondary (tertiary, quaternary) plots, tactics, etc.

Katana_Geldar
2011-06-01, 11:08 PM
Illusionism? To give a choice, even if it's the illusion of choice.

Chris Perkins was right!

Lonely Tylenol
2011-06-02, 02:02 AM
I wound up with participationism, but feel that even though the initial premise that took me there (I have a plot with key points because this campaign was designed to be rewritten as a series because, surprise surprise, I'm a wannabe novel writer) was correct, I feel that DMs of all shapes and sizes were being pigeonholed into either "discard all pretenses of plot and direction" or "oppressive DMing". I'm never allowed to choose a happy middle ground.

In other words:

This flowchart is railroading!

dsmiles
2011-06-02, 07:51 AM
By the way, I ended up with "participationism," as well. But I drew a line from there to "GM Burnout."

Totally Guy
2011-06-02, 08:10 AM
I wonder what you need to do to modify it to get rid of the bias?

The left hand side seems to be the problem... What extra questions need to be asked?

Alchemistmerlin
2011-06-02, 08:13 AM
From my experience most roads lead to "Quit in a huff" and/or "Screw it, let's play Catan."

The Glyphstone
2011-06-02, 09:03 AM
Wow, I thnk that chart left bias stains on my screen even after I closed the browser window.

potatocubed
2011-06-02, 09:07 AM
I think something like that chart could be interesting if it was done without such an egregious dose of one-true-wayism.

Maybe I'll add it to my to-do list.

Just_Ice
2011-06-02, 09:31 AM
No matter what I do, whether I'm playing or DMing, with one of my groups it ends up in "chaotic stupid members of party fight rest of party". This has been consistent for the last like 5 campaigns.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-06-02, 09:36 AM
Before y'all break out the torches and pitchforks, you might want to read the post & comments (http://www.evilbrainjono.net/blog?showcomments=true&tag=rpg) that the chart was attached to :smalltongue:

Just do a "find" for "a flowchart" and you'll hop to the right post. Dude made the chart for this reason:

I was inspired to make this by re-reading the Forge threads on Bangs, Illusionism, Force, and Murk. If somebody is brand-new to role-playing theory I think these topics are a lot more helpful, in terms of actually finding a style of play that you enjoy, than the whole Creative Agenda G/N/S thing. And yet Bangs/Illusionsim/Force/Murk is buried, hidden away in Forge archive threads and old discussions from 2001/2002, while newbies invariably get sucked into arguing about G/N/S, which half the time turns them away from theory entirely.

As for plot, you should look at the very first branch. You can either write a game with a pre-determined ending (or conflict) or not - that's where the plot-side of the equation come in. Yes, it makes some assumptions about playing games such as "character motivations are important" but, IMHO, that's not the worst assumption to make.

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-06-02, 10:15 AM
Looks like I'm a participationist. That makes sense, after a fashion, but really this doesn't seem to have any "path" for GMs who prefer to use pre-made modules and adventures, such as Paizo's various Adventure Paths, both in Dragon and Dungeon Magazines and in Pathfinder.

jmelesky
2011-06-02, 10:38 AM
As for plot, you should look at the very first branch. You can either write a game with a pre-determined ending (or conflict) or not - that's where the plot-side of the equation come in.

The problem is immediately thereafter: "Yeah right. You've obviously never roleplayed." is contemptuously dismissive of a number of plot-driven scenarios that work in practice. "How do you react when the players wreck your plot?" is laden with assumptions about flexibility in setup and play.

"Look guys, the adventure is in the cave. Please go in, otherwise I got nothing." is a symptom of a specific, railroady plot campaign, but not all plot campaigns. Not by a long shot.


Yes, it makes some assumptions about playing games such as "character motivations are important" but, IMHO, that's not the worst assumption to make.

The chart, and this statement, makes some assumptions about playing games such as "character motivations and plot can never coexist without objection or metagaming", which is simply absurd.

edit: more simply put, the assumption is "plot can never be flexible or resilient enough to exist if people have free will".

Oracle_Hunter
2011-06-02, 10:48 AM
The problem is immediately thereafter: "Yeah right. You've obviously never roleplayed." is contemptuously dismissive of a number of plot-driven scenarios that work in practice. "How do you react when the players wreck your plot?" is laden with assumptions about flexibility in setup and play.
If you're able to to write a plot with a "beginning, middle and end" in which everything goes exactly according to plan in play then I salute you. I've never played with a group of Players that doesn't either deliberately or accidentally go "off the rails" at some point.

And, of course, if your games always go off without a hitch, why are you referring to this chart at all? You're God, right? :smalltongue:

I'm not going to spend my time defending a snarky Internet chart, but I don't think it's as bad as people are saying.

oxybe
2011-06-02, 10:51 AM
Story Now / Collab Improv fits me to a tee: get a basic outline of a story up, have a pre-game session to pitch it and find out where the PCs stand in relation to it then focus on their involvement.

as for the sandbox style, personally i find sandbox games to be boring since it's usually ends up in a :

GM : "in the horizon you see Las Vegas / Grayhawk / Waterdeep / Sharn / [insert big city in your campaign world]."
PC : "alrighty then... we go to town, resupply and keep wandering."
GM : "but it's a big town, don't you want to see the sights? meet people?"
PC : "not really. we've already set ourselves up as a group of traveling adventurers, so unless something the local authorities can't handle occurs during our resupply, we probably won't bother."
GM : "AAARGGHLEBLARGLEFRUMPETSTRUDELBERK!!!!"

then, after you drop a kraken on the PCs, you change up the sandbox scenario a bit and instead of being boring you end up with :

GM : "new game, new PCs! this time you're not traveling adventurers"
PC : "alright... so we have a base of operations in a town then?"
a few adventures later...
GM : "WHY IS THE TOWN ON FIRE?!"
PC : "You're new at this, aren't you?"

seriously, every "sandbox game" i've tried running usually follows this formula: "the longer PCs stay in a town without any clear indication of what they need to do next, the higher the chance of your town spontaneously erupting into flames happens."

seriously. one group put what... 3, maybe 4 of my towns up in flames in one campaign?

and that's my favorite group...

Oracle_Hunter
2011-06-02, 10:56 AM
seriously, every "sandbox game" i've tried running usually follows this formula: "the longer PCs stay in a town without any clear indication of what they need to do next, the higher the chance of your town spontaneously erupting into flames happens."
That's why the "making characters care about the situation" and "use those feelings to drive the plot" are essential to any Sandbox game. Without that, you end up with a bunch of bored Players with Characters in a fictional world they don't care about. Of course they're going to wreck stuff!

Choco
2011-06-02, 11:09 AM
That's why the "making characters care about the situation" and "use those feelings to drive the plot" are essential to any Sandbox game. Without that, you end up with a bunch of bored Players with Characters in a fictional world they don't care about. Of course they're going to wreck stuff!

This.

The players/PC's need to be driven by their own goals. Not all people are good at this or like it either. I have a 4e group now that, despite my prodding, is at a loss for what to do if they can't find the nearest train station....

jmelesky
2011-06-02, 11:11 AM
If you're able to to write a plot with a "beginning, middle and end" in which everything goes exactly according to plan in play then I salute you. I've never played with a group of Players that doesn't either deliberately or accidentally go "off the rails" at some point.

Let me go back to describing my usual setup: there's a bad thing. It might be a conflict, or imminent doom, or past doom, or whatever, but it exists. You write a very loose plot, that consists of: first the players find out about the bad thing, then they react to the bad thing, then there's a turn -- the bad thing is different than they expect -- and the rest of the campaign is the reaction to that turn.

There is now a plot, but there isn't much of a plan. Which is to say, you can now offer them a dozen separate adventure hooks, or let them wander off on their own, and the plot can proceed without anything needing to go "exactly according to plan". All that needs to happen is for the party to slowly figure out that the bad thing exists, and that can happen in myriad ways.


That's why the "making characters care about the situation" and "use those feelings to drive the plot" are essential to any Sandbox game. Without that, you end up with a bunch of bored Players with Characters in a fictional world they don't care about. Of course they're going to wreck stuff!

None of that is specific to Sandbox games.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-06-02, 11:21 AM
Let me go back to describing my usual setup: there's a bad thing. It might be a conflict, or imminent doom, or past doom, or whatever, but it exists. You write a very loose plot, that consists of: first the players find out about the bad thing, then they react to the bad thing, then there's a turn -- the bad thing is different than they expect -- and the rest of the campaign is the reaction to that turn.

There is now a plot, but there isn't much of a plan. Which is to say, you can now offer them a dozen separate adventure hooks, or let them wander off on their own, and the plot can proceed without anything needing to go "exactly according to plan". All that needs to happen is for the party to slowly figure out that the bad thing exists, and that can happen in myriad ways.
So... "bread-crumbs" then? :smalltongue:

I mean, what happens if the Players don't care about the bad thing - or if they don't think they should be the ones taking care of it? If that's never happened to you, then your Players might be in the "Participationism" corner of the chart because they're cool with whatever story the DM is set out to tell.

* * * *

For anyone interested, my most current game was designed as a "Story Now" game, but I flubbed it by not providing enough setting details to the Players so they got confused by the whole process. Over time I found out that folks were generally happy with a more "Participationism" game - which I maintain with pure Illusionism. I still throw in "Story Now" side-quests, but they don't really sustain the action.

Still, I've always secretly hoped to be able to run an "Old-School" game but I never write out enough of my setting to lay the groundwork for such a game. Ah well.

FMArthur
2011-06-02, 11:22 AM
Their complete inability to not wreck everything is how I generally drive my plots anyway.

It's a very risky game of 'predictive sandboxing', but generally if you just prepare a couple challenges in each likely direction, you'll fill up enough time to be able to end the session and prepare for next session's literary trainwreck. Most of the time, if they don't take a prepared path and veer off of all tracks, you can still retrofit some of the prepared challenges to suit the new situation regardless.

It's improvisation of the sort that the chart would lead into 'burnout', but it's sustainable and not too difficult the way I do it.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-06-02, 11:23 AM
Their complete inability to not wreck everything is how I generally drive my plots anyway.

It's a very risky game of 'predictive sandboxing', but generally if you just prepare a couple challenges in each likely direction, you'll fill up enough time to be able to end the session and prepare for next session's literary trainwreck. Most of the time, if they don't take a prepared path and veer off of all tracks, you can still retrofit some of the prepared challenges to suit the new situation regardless.
"Illusionism" then? :smalltongue:

FMArthur
2011-06-02, 11:25 AM
"Illusionism" then? :smalltongue:

What've you got against illusionism? Some of my best friends were illusions!

The Glyphstone
2011-06-02, 11:26 AM
"Illusionism" then? :smalltongue:

See - that's the issue with the chart, is that it phrases and labels everything in antagonistic terms if a plot is involved, and in flowery and friendly terms if it's sandbox style. If you follow this chart, you can only have a plot-driven game if your players are spineless worms without initiative or the ability to stand up for themselves against your petty tyranny.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-06-02, 11:37 AM
See - that's the issue with the chart, is that it phrases and labels everything in antagonistic terms if a plot is involved, and in flowery and friendly terms if it's sandbox style. If you follow this chart, you can only have a plot-driven game if your players are spineless worms without initiative or the ability to stand up for themselves against your petty tyranny.
No, no - it's using Terms of Art which are from The Forge and later defined in the post I linked to.

Here, I'll cut and paste a relevant portion:

Bangs are a technique described in Ron Edwards' game Sorcerer. The GM throws out a situation which a character can't ignore, without having any idea at all how the player will react. (Example from my last gaming session: the police chief whose favor I'm trying to curry gets really drunk and starts making lecherous passes at a woman I'm trying to protect. Uh-oh.)

They're different from plot hooks because you're not trying to hook the character into a planned plot, rather you're just trying to provoke some kind of interesting reaction, just to see what the character will do. The GM style encouraged by Sorcerer is for the GM to prepare lots of possible Bangs, and then throw one out during play whenever it fits.

Force is what I'm referring to in the box marked "Override their statements with brute force?". In Forge jargon it has the specific meaning of "taking a character's thematically relevant decisions away from the player who owns that character" i.e. taking away a decision that the player doesn't care about (What did your character have for breakfast?) isn't Force.

Illusionism is, well, I think I defined it pretty well in the flowchart: it's the style of play where the GM pretends to let the players do whatever they want, but manipulates things so they end up fulfilling the pre-planned plot. It's considered "covert" use of Force, because the relevance of the player's decisions is taken away. I.e. in an Illusionist sceneario it doesn't matter whether you try to reason with the mad scientist, or join his side, or kill him in his sleep or call in a nuclear strike on his lab -- the GM's already decided that you're going to have a showdown in his secret lab, you'll win, he'll get away, the lab will explode, and you'll barely escape.

Illusionism uses a whole parcel of sneaky techniques -- fudging die rolls behind the screen! rolling first and then deciding the difficulty number! "moving the clue" so the players just happen to find it no matter where they go! moving the dungeon entrance into their path so they just happen to stumble into it! secretly giving your plot-relevant bad guy extra hit points! etc. (I know lots of tricks; I played this way for YEARS.)

So a guy named Josh Roby in 2006 started a thread to ask "Explain to me how Bangs aren't just warmed-over Illusionism?" since, to his mind, even if the player has free choice of how to respond to the Bang, doesn't the GM have to use some Force (like the Illusionist trick of "moving the clue") to get the player to encounter the Bang?

This led to a Forge thread http://indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=21694.0 called "Bangs & Illusionism - in which Ron beats down Confusion". There's a ton of examples of Force, Bangs, and Illusionism, there's lots of good clarification from Ron, there's discussion of how this all relates to scene framing and the different kinds of authority that are given to different players, there's arguing over the definition of Force, and finally Ron realizes that Josh's issue isn't about Force at all, it's about Murk. Which he defines in this post: http://indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=21694.msg222848#msg222848

"Sure, a rules-set may well outline every permissible option during a sequence of fight mechanics. But how does one get to a fight? What's the fight for? How do the mechanically-permissible outcomes of a fight, in this game, lead to whatever it is that happens next? Individualized answers to these things exist, whether described in detail or implied very heavily or simply assumed. But cross-hobby, subculturally speaking, as a general understanding across this bunch of people, I think "murk" is a pretty good word for it."

So in toto, the thread and the other threads linked to from the archive post I linked, break down all the unquestioned assumptions about how do you actually play a roleplaying game, what you do, who gets to decide what, etc. This is some of the discussion that I think needs to be MUCH better explained and better known.
If the labels are problematic, note that they are derived from The Forge - a website noted for its preference for character-driven games and Player Autonomy. Besides, it's not like "Participationism" is portrayed as a bad thing: if your Players want their DM to control the story, then who exactly is being harmed?

EDIT: I'll like to note that I have no problem with "Illusionism" either. My quip before was merely to point out that the flow-chart does actually do a good job of sorting out various DMing styles into broad-yet-meaningful categories.

Hell, I use Illusionism all the time in games where the Players are Participationists. It's much less boring than "bread-crumbs" games :smalltongue:

Just_Ice
2011-06-02, 11:42 AM
Yeah, it's a pretty biased chart, and it ignores sandbox games that have the inclusion of a clear beginning, middle and end. Although the author has clearly DMed before, it seems like they've barely attempted a story whenever they've been the DM, and they've been suffering under one otherwise.

Participationalism is very much in degrees, and really most players focus on the little things rather than the big things. For instance, when playing a Chaotic Stupid campaign to appease the Chaotic Stupid players, they had no long-term goals because they didn't have to mess up the world to get what they wanted. They basically did nothing unless I gave them a tunnel to go down or people to rape/kill.

Kind of a skewed example, but you get the idea; the vast majority of players are not good character designers, and attempting to go to the right on that chart will often end in sadness, and necessitation the "authoritarian" style. Besides that, a lot of people are pretty indesicive and choice, particularly sandbox-esque choice, is poisonous. This is not even counting the type of player who's just there to smash imaginary stuff or just cast magic missle every turn.

It's right in that most plots will not go perfectly, and that when someone performs a very reasonable action your gut instinct is to say, "But that ruins everything!" you're in a lot of trouble.

jmelesky
2011-06-02, 12:03 PM
So... "bread-crumbs" then? :smalltongue:

No, because according to that chart, "bread-crumbs" requires "nothing interesting happens until they decide to follow your chain of clues".


I mean, what happens if the Players don't care about the bad thing - or if they don't think they should be the ones taking care of it? If that's never happened to you, then your Players might be in the "Participationism" corner of the chart because they're cool with whatever story the DM is set out to tell.

What happens when players in a Sandbox game don't care about the situation? Stuff goes haywire and you have to wing it. Only, with a plot, you have some ideas to fall back on for winging -- the world continues turning, etc, etc.

What happens if they take things in a completely different direction? You write a new plot. Since plots really are simple, that's easy. If you're good, you've paid attention to what the players are interested in, so you write the plot accordingly. If you're very good, that plot ties back in to the first major campaign plot (now modified), and everything moves back to the primary campaign seamlessly, once the new plot is over.

In the flowchart, i believe this is called "winging it" and turns into Sandboxing or Story Now. Which is incorrect, and a reason the chart doesn't work.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-06-02, 12:17 PM
What happens if they take things in a completely different direction? You write a new plot. Since plots really are simple, that's easy. If you're good, you've paid attention to what the players are interested in, so you write the plot accordingly. If you're very good, that plot ties back in to the first major campaign plot (now modified), and everything moves back to the primary campaign seamlessly, once the new plot is over.

In the flowchart, i believe this is called "winging it" and turns into Sandboxing or Story Now. Which is incorrect, and a reason the chart doesn't work.
Nah, that's pure Illusionism. The DM has decided to resolve this side-plot, but has every intention about returning to the "primary campaign" once it's done. It doesn't matter if the PCs want to, say, tell a story about rebuilding a lost civilization if the "primary campaign" is about stopping The Baron of Evil. At some point the PCs are going to discover that their attempt to rebuild the lost civilization brings them into conflict with The Baron of Evil even if they don't care about him at all.

It's only "winging it" when you've "thrown away your original plot" one way or another. This chart makes no distinction between Schrodinger's Gun (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ptitleocg6iflv079q) manipulations and "All Roads Lead Back To The Primary Campaign" because, ultimately, the Players aren't able to define the plot one way or another.

This chart is focusing on a specific view of Player Autonomy in which the Player's ability to define the story being told is key. If the DM determines the story being told (e.g. he has a "primary campaign" in mind) then it will invariably go left-wards on the chart. If the Players determine the story being told, then you go right-wards. There is nothing inherently good or bad about either route - except when the DM uses his powers to enforce one or the other against the will of his Players.

Note the "bad end" on the right-side where the DM refuses to write a story and the Players aren't interested in making up their own. Not all Players are interested in making up a whole story or defining a campaign. There is nothing wrong with that. Seriously.

The Glyphstone
2011-06-02, 12:46 PM
Nah, that's pure Illusionism. The DM has decided to resolve this side-plot, but has every intention about returning to the "primary campaign" once it's done. It doesn't matter if the PCs want to, say, tell a story about rebuilding a lost civilization if the "primary campaign" is about stopping The Baron of Evil. At some point the PCs are going to discover that their attempt to rebuild the lost civilization brings them into conflict with The Baron of Evil even if they don't care about him at all.


So what happens when the PCs successfully complete their plan to rebuild a lost civilization, elevate it to a new level of glory beyond its previous age, and do get to tell that story - and then the DM brings back the Baron of Evil, because the Baron is jealous of the restored civilization's power and desires to take it for himself, instead of his old plan involving collecting the Orbs of Dragonkind? That's not Illusionism or Participationism, because the players did make a definitive, permanent change on both the story and the world - but it can't be Sandbox or Collaborative Improv either, because the DM still has his plot - stopping the Baron of Evil, this time because he's directly threatening something that the players worked hard to accomplish (and thus will likely be invested in defending/saving). Plot can be dynamic, altering itself to include the players' actions - it's not a cold and hard divide between railroading and improv.

jmelesky
2011-06-02, 12:46 PM
Nah, that's pure Illusionism.

Not according to the chart, since i'm neither misleading my "friends", nor responsible for inventing all game content.

And that's my core problem with this chart: it's either PLAYERS DO WHAT THEY WANT or DM RAILROADS PLAYERS WILLINGLY OR OTHERWISE. That's a false dichotomy. It's a biased false dichotomy, not because of the terminology, but because the questions on one side are phrased "are you being a jerk? are you sure? don't you think that's a stupid idea?", while on the other side, they're "how awesome are you being? are your players awesome enough to keep up with you?"

A lovely example: it draws a distinction between "winging it" (i.e. adjusting setting and plot elements based on player interest) and "improvis[ing] new situations in reaction to [the players]" (i.e. adjusting setting and plot elements based on player interest).

What's the difference between "winging it" and "improvising new situations"? Whether or not you aim from the beginning for a "Story Now" campaign. That's it. But the phrasing indicates the bias.


This chart is focusing on a specific view of Player Autonomy in which the Player's ability to define the story being told is key. If the DM determines the story being told (e.g. he has a "primary campaign" in mind) then it will invariably go left-wards on the chart. If the Players determine the story being told, then you go right-wards. There is nothing inherently good or bad about either route - except when the DM uses his powers to enforce one or the other against the will of his Players.

You may believe, as i do, that there's nothing inherently bad or good about either route.

The chart does not share that belief.

This is why it is being criticized.


edit:

That's not Illusionism or Participationism, because the players did make a definitive, permanent change on both the story and the world - but it can't be Sandbox or Collaborative Improv either, because the DM still has his plot - stopping the Baron of Evil

Exactly. This is the false dichotomy i'm talking about, and very well illustrated. Thank you.

Shadowknight12
2011-06-02, 12:49 PM
So what happens when the PCs successfully complete their plan to rebuild a lost civilization, elevate it to a new level of glory beyond its previous age, and do get to tell that story - and then the DM brings back the Baron of Evil, because the Baron is jealous of the restored civilization's power and desires to take it for himself, instead of his old plan involving collecting the Orbs of Dragonkind? That's not Illusionism or Participationism, because the players did make a definitive, permanent change on both the story and the world - but it can't be Sandbox or Collaborative Improv either, because the DM still has his plot - stopping the Baron of Evil, this time because he's directly threatening something that the players worked hard to accomplish (and thus will likely be invested in defending/saving). Plot can be dynamic, altering itself to include the players' actions - it's not a cold and hard divide between railroading and improv.

I'd call that Collaborative Improv. The players got what they wanted and so did the DM. All's well.

The Glyphstone
2011-06-02, 12:50 PM
I'd call that Collaborative Improv. The players got what they wanted and so did the DM. All's well.

Yeah, but it still involves the 'plot' - the aforementioned Baron of Evil and his quest to rule the world, so if the chart has any value, it can't be collaborative improv. It's an outcome where everyone is happy that the chart can't allow for, because of the assumed conflict.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-06-02, 12:52 PM
So what happens when the PCs successfully complete their plan to rebuild a lost civilization, elevate it to a new level of glory beyond its previous age, and do get to tell that story - and then the DM brings back the Baron of Evil, because the Baron is jealous of the restored civilization's power and desires to take it for himself, instead of his old plan involving collecting the Orbs of Dragonkind? That's not Illusionism or Participationism, because the players did make a definitive, permanent change on both the story and the world - but it can't be Sandbox or Collaborative Improv either, because the DM still has his plot - stopping the Baron of Evil, this time because he's directly threatening something that the players worked hard to accomplish (and thus will likely be invested in defending/saving).
Like I said - it's still Illusionism. The Players didn't care about the Baron of Evil, so when they finish the story they wanted to tell, the campaign should be over.

The same scenario works in reverse. What do you call a campaign in which the DM sets up the Baron of Evil as the BBEG and the Players defeat him... and then the Players decide they're going to keep playing to revive an ancient civilization?

The focus here is whether the DM or the Players are defining the campaign, not the actual progression of the plot. Again, this is a sorting algorithm, not a morality meter. If both the DM and the Players are OK with who is defining the campaign, then everyone's happy. If they're not in agreement, you have problems.

The Glyphstone
2011-06-02, 12:57 PM
Like I said - it's still Illusionism. The Players didn't care about the Baron of Evil, so when they finish the story they wanted to tell, the campaign should be over.


They didn't care about him when they started their story. If he comes back threatening their city that they worked at, and they decide that 'now it's personal' and he needs to be taken down, who is "in control"? Has the DM tyrannically wrested control away from the players, have they meekly submitted control back to him, or have they taken something offered by the DM, integrated it into their own story arc, and provided for a continuation beyond "ok guys, game over"?

The Big Dice
2011-06-02, 12:57 PM
so I get to a loop fairly quickly. Do the players make characters with relationships and beliefs that make them care about this situation? No. Followed by a patronising comment about talking to your players before the campaign.

Except in my experience, people don't make characters with relationships and they almost never will unless you make them go through three drafts of a character and take a direct hand in making it for them. Then again, the whole thing is somewhat biased towards Forgisms. Which instantly makes me want to disregard it as being nothing more than a thought excercise that hasn't really got anything to do with the real world.

Shadowknight12
2011-06-02, 12:58 PM
Yeah, but it still involves the 'plot' - the aforementioned Baron of Evil and his quest to rule the world, so if the chart has any value, it can't be collaborative improv. It's an outcome where everyone is happy that the chart can't allow for, because of the assumed conflict.

Let's follow the chart.

"Plot with beginning, middle and end?" --> No.
"Setting, situation, backstory, plot, no end?" --> Yes.
"Players make relationships that make them care about the situation?" --> Yes.
"Those relationships drive the plot while you improvise a new situation in response?" --> Yes.

Collaborative Improv.

EDIT:



so I get to a loop fairly quickly. Do the players make characters with relationships and beliefs that make them care about this situation? No. Followed by a patronising comment about talking to your players before the campaign.

Except in my experience, people don't make characters with relationships and they almost never will unless you make them go through three drafts of a character and take a direct hand in making it for them. Then again, the whole thing is somewhat biased towards Forgisms. Which instantly makes me want to disregard it as being nothing more than a thought excercise that hasn't really got anything to do with the real world.

And my experience is the exact opposite, save one or two players that quickly saw they didn't fit with the rest and went off to find less demanding groups. I don't say that this chart is useful or unbiased (I consider it an amusing collection of anecdotes in the shape of a flowchart), but I wouldn't be so quick to say that anything that assumes players will make their own relationships "has nothing to do with the real world."

TheCountAlucard
2011-06-02, 01:05 PM
Story Now / Collab Improv fits me to a tee: get a basic outline of a story up, have a pre-game session to pitch it and find out where the PCs stand in relation to it then focus on their involvement.

as for the sandbox style, personally i find sandbox games to be boring since it's usually ends up in a :

GM : "in the horizon you see Las Vegas / Grayhawk / Waterdeep / Sharn / [insert big city in your campaign world]."
PC : "alrighty then... we go to town, resupply and keep wandering."
GM : "but it's a big town, don't you want to see the sights? meet people?"
PC : "not really. we've already set ourselves up as a group of traveling adventurers, so unless something the local authorities can't handle occurs during our resupply, we probably won't bother."
GM : "AAARGGHLEBLARGLEFRUMPETSTRUDELBERK!!!!"

then, after you drop a kraken on the PCs, you change up the sandbox scenario a bit and instead of being boring you end up with :

GM : "new game, new PCs! this time you're not traveling adventurers"
PC : "alright... so we have a base of operations in a town then?"
a few adventures later...
GM : "WHY IS THE TOWN ON FIRE?!"
PC : "You're new at this, aren't you?"

seriously, every "sandbox game" i've tried running usually follows this formula: "the longer PCs stay in a town without any clear indication of what they need to do next, the higher the chance of your town spontaneously erupting into flames happens."

seriously. one group put what... 3, maybe 4 of my towns up in flames in one campaign?

and that's my favorite group...Idunno, so far the PCs in my Infernal game have done a great job of not wrecking the Demon City. :smalltongue:

Then again, that might change soon enough. :smalltongue:

Oracle_Hunter
2011-06-02, 01:14 PM
They didn't care about him when they started their story. If he comes back threatening their city that they worked at, and they decide that 'now it's personal' and he needs to be taken down, who is "in control"? Has the DM tyrannically wrested control away from the players, have they meekly submitted control back to him, or have they taken something offered by the DM, integrated it into their own story arc, and provided for a continuation beyond "ok guys, game over"?
Again, it's not a question about the plot, but about defining the campaign.
The "Baron of Evil" campaign assumes the DM has set up the campaign in which the Baron of Evil is the BBEG. Dealing with the BBEG is the core, defining element of the campaign.

The "Lost Civilization" campaign assumes that the Players have set up a campaign in which rebuilding the lost civilization is the core, defining element of the campaign.

If the Players in the "Baron of Evil" campaign ignore the Baron of Evil, the DM has two choices: either he abandons the Baron of Evil as the core, defining element of the campaign or he figures out a way to get the Players to treat him as the core, defining element of the campaign. "Illusionism" is all about the latter, in which the Players will have to deal with the Baron one way or another because the DM has chosen the Baron as the core, defining feature of the campaign.

If the DM abandons the Baron of Evil as his core, defining feature of the campaign then he has entered the "winging it" section of the map. What is the game about now? I suppose the DM could draw up a new element and throw it at the Players to see if it sticks, but technically that brings us back to the "prep the game" step - for all intents and purposes, we're in a brand new campaign. More likely he turns to his Players and sees what it is they want the game to be about. If they want their character motivations to be the focus of the campaign, we end up in "Story Now" territory; if they would prefer to just explore the setting then you're in "Old School" territory.

The "boredom" Bad End only occurs when the DM has abandoned his position as campaign-definer but the Players wanted him to be the campaign-definer. This happens most often when a DM sets up a "sandbox" game but his Players aren't interested in writing their own story. These games tend to die with a whimper, or end up with the DM writing a story.
The point of the chart isn't to criticize anyone's method of running a game, but to figure out what kind of DM you are within the paradigm of "who defines the campaign." It's a mental exercise for DMs who care to think about the role of Player Autonomy and defining campaigns. It's not a paradigm that is relevant for all - or even most - groups, but it is an interesting one to consider if you run systems that don't assume that the DM automatically defines the campaign.

EDIT: I'd also like to note that the chart does not assume some sort of Dom/Sub relationship between Players and DMs, much less that Players who leave the storytelling to the DM are "weak" or morally inferior to other Players. Where are people finding this? :smallconfused:

The Big Dice
2011-06-02, 01:25 PM
And my experience is the exact opposite, save one or two players that quickly saw they didn't fit with the rest and went off to find less demanding groups. I don't say that this chart is useful or unbiased (I consider it an amusing collection of anecdotes in the shape of a flowchart), but I wouldn't be so quick to say that anything that assumes players will make their own relationships "has nothing to do with the real world."
It doesn't allow for players who make their characters and then bring them to the table, rather than players who make their characters in a collaborative effort with the GM. Therefore it doesn't allow for something that happens more often than not in the real world.

The logic is simple, really.

The point of the chart isn't to criticize anyone's method of running a game, but to figure out what kind of DM you are within the paradigm of "who defines the campaign." It's a mental exercise for DMs who care to think about the role of Player Autonomy and defining campaigns. It's not a paradigm that is relevant for all - or even most - groups, but it is an interesting one to consider if you run systems that don't assume that the DM automatically defines the campaign.
It assumes that the campaign will be defined in advance. And yet, in 25 years I've yet to participate in a campaign plan that survived contact with the other side of the GM screen.

It also takes words and adds "-ism" to the end of them, which is really quite a bad move. It's a pseudo-intellectual attempt to make whoever defined the terms on the chart, and by extension the people who agree with those terms, feel a sense of superiority over those who use language in a normal manner.

The way I see it, true player autonomy leads to the very loop I described. The player makes the character with minimal consideration for anything except the player and the character. I don't care what format of game you play, I don't care what system you play. If there isn't collaboration between player and GM during character creation, the player will make a character that is in the world, but not necessarily of the world.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-06-02, 01:33 PM
The way I see it, true player autonomy leads to the very loop I described. The player makes the character with minimal consideration for anything except the player and the character. I don't care what format of game you play, I don't care what system you play. If there isn't collaboration between player and GM during character creation, the player will make a character that is in the world, but not necessarily of the world.
If the Characters don't have any reason to care about the situation at hand, then why do they do anything about it? :smallconfused:

Just_Ice
2011-06-02, 01:40 PM
What about a story that has one beginning, and multiple pre-designed middles and ends, all based on world-wide/city-wide events? The players can choose what they do in-between these happenings, and how they deal with them, but besides that they're limited to semi-specific happenings, of which there are a finite number of possibilities?

For instance, I ran a game where the players were demon investigators in a city. They could choose to solve crimes multiple ways or join factions or go off on their own and amass power, but there wasn't really anywhere interesting for them to go besides the city (because of the lack of demonic influence elsewhere). The midpoint is a disaster that messes everything up, that's either brought on by them on purpose, or by other means (enough possibilities due to many parties attempting to cause a pseudo-apocalypse that it's going to happen pretty likely).

They can do whatever they want from then on out, the ending coming when they either leave and lose any persuers, or have defeated all major hostile groups + any others they think it's necessary to defeat. Or they die.

This blew up in three sessions because the players disagreed, but besides that, it's at best a variation on illusionism, because the players are headed to a semi-specific situation no matter what they do, but they sort of tailor it themselves. They can even delay or speed up the middle point, but it's bound to happen, because either someone else's method will work or they'll destroy everything trying to stop it anyways.

Shadowknight12
2011-06-02, 01:44 PM
It doesn't allow for players who make their characters and then bring them to the table, rather than players who make their characters in a collaborative effort with the GM. Therefore it doesn't allow for something that happens more often than not in the real world.

Again, in your experience. Perhaps it's the way I advertise my games and the games I join, but I don't think it's something so out of the ordinary. Also, do keep in mind that when a player says "My character has a girlfriend" and you, as a DM, acknowledge that girlfriend somehow in the story, or choose her to take part in a secondary role somewhere (hopefully as something other than damsel in distress), you're doing that collaborative improv thing. It's not something extreme, it can be as small as just mentioning the relationships they value in an off-hand description.

jmelesky
2011-06-02, 01:44 PM
I'd also like to note that the chart does not assume some sort of Dom/Sub relationship between Players and DMs, much less that Players who leave the storytelling to the DM are "weak" or morally inferior to other Players. Where are people finding this? :smallconfused:

Dom/sub (or at least in contention with eachother): "players wreck your plot", "Override with brute force", "misleading your friends", "I'll throw away my plot and let you do what you want", "Huh, maybe next time you and your players should talk to eachother before the game"...

Players who like GM plots are weaker than other players: "Are the players at least proactive enough to invent their own goals?", "Are the players OK with not having any real creative input?"...

potatocubed
2011-06-02, 02:06 PM
The focus here is whether the DM or the Players are defining the campaign, not the actual progression of the plot. Again, this is a sorting algorithm, not a morality meter. If both the DM and the Players are OK with who is defining the campaign, then everyone's happy. If they're not in agreement, you have problems.

The sorting algorithm fails because, as others have pointed out, it's a false dichotomy. Between the extremes of 'players demand story X and the GM gives it to them' and 'the GM demands story Y and imposes it on the players' there is a decent chunk of middle ground where everyone gets what they want. The players get a story about rebuilding civilisation, the GM gets to use the BBEG he dreamed up, everyone wins. A game does not have to be about just one thing.

TheCountAlucard
2011-06-02, 02:48 PM
Between the extremes of 'players demand story X and the GM gives it to them' and 'the GM demands story Y and imposes it on the players' there is a decent chunk of middle ground where everyone gets what they want. The players get a story about rebuilding civilisation, the GM gets to use the BBEG he dreamed up, everyone wins. A game does not have to be about just one thing.Very true; it tends to get problematic, of course, when said game is about ten things, but there's a nice, happy medium in there somewhere. :smallamused:

The Big Dice
2011-06-02, 03:35 PM
If the Characters don't have any reason to care about the situation at hand, then why do they do anything about it? :smallconfused:
Hmmm, get involved in the game or sit around talking about movies like every other night, except this time there are character sheets and books on the table? The social gamer is something that these kind of flowcharts, theories and other intellectual pursuits tend to ignore. And yet, talking to other gamers leads me to think they are the norm rather than the exception. Despite what The Internet and the -ism crowd would like to convince you.

In other words, people who play RPGs aren't that different from people who have other immersive, time consuming hobbies.

Again, in your experience. Perhaps it's the way I advertise my games and the games I join, but I don't think it's something so out of the ordinary. Also, do keep in mind that when a player says "My character has a girlfriend" and you, as a DM, acknowledge that girlfriend somehow in the story, or choose her to take part in a secondary role somewhere (hopefully as something other than damsel in distress), you're doing that collaborative improv thing. It's not something extreme, it can be as small as just mentioning the relationships they value in an off-hand description.
I'm assuming from the bolded parts that there's a thriving (or at least moderately diverse) roleplaying community in your area and players are spoiled for choice in which games they want to get involved with.

That's not always the case.

When a player in my area says "My character has a girlfriend" the general consensus is they are actually saying "I, being a slightly overweight and bearded gentleman want to roleplay out romantic scenes with you, a gentleman with thinning hair that is wearing glasses. Except I won't, because to do so is an uncomfortable experience for both of us."

What I find is, suggestions of improv or connotations with acting are pretentious and give false impression of what a roleplaying game is actually like. Now I'm sure that there are some groups who go in for that kind of freeform, totally character driven style of play. And more power to their elbows. But some of us need a game system to prop that up. And many of us don't actually speak in the voices of our characters as often as we'd like others to think.

In my more introspective moments, I like to think of it as the difference between playing a game and gaming a play. Unfortunately, the Forge doesn't allow for playing games. And when they do, they seem to be very condescending about it.

Talakeal
2011-06-02, 04:02 PM
When I played my most successful campaign it ran from early 2005 to late 2010 I took the following approach.

I tell the players their character must be the following:
Of good or group minded neutral alignment
Have a reason for being a member of their organization and a motive for remaining
Able to form a strong personal bond with the other PCs
A stoic survivor type who won't give up or go crazy when bad things happen

Then a played through a solo prologue with each PC to make sure their character fit the mold.

The first act of the game has the players as members of a secret organization who hunt down supernatural threats to humanity. They are given missions to accomplish and their actions are more or less railroaded, although hey are free to accomplish their goals however they like and pursue side projects that interest them.

The second act they find that the organization they belong to has been lying to them "for their own good" and they each have a potent destiny and secret in their background. One is a living spell cast by a dead god, another the lost heir to the kingdom, etc. They need to find several powerful artifacts to meet their destiny. I know who has these artifacts and where, and several time based events, so these were all planned events and a planned plot. I never told the players what to do, but they had their goals and would need to hit my plot points to accomplish them.

The third act involved them rebuilding their kingdom and destroying the enemies who where currently attacking or squatting in it. I had these enemies statted out and their lairs mapped, and again some timed events, but once again I never told the players what to do.

Both the second and third act worked worse than the first because the players could never make up their mind or agree on what to do, and several times the game almost broke up because it wasn't structured enough.


The fourth act they have reestablished themselves, have demi god powers and rule the largest kingdom in the known world. It is several years later and the world itself is falling apart in apocalyptic fashion, several ancient evils are waking and the gods of good and evil are engaging in all out war. The players are once again in a more structured setting because the plot comes to them, and if they don't respond everyone dies.

This worked less well because the players were more interested in power gaming than actually stopping the plot. For example, the demon god of destruction smashes a major city, and rather than stopping the god half the group wants to loot the ruins for any gold or magic items that might have been in the city, and I had to fight them on the cheesy magic loops that occur in high level play.

The campaign did finally end, although the epilogue ended up with 2 of the four players killing themselves because another 2 players chose to become gods, which infuriated and confused me but I already discussed to death on this forum at the time.

So that is an example of how I consider I did it right, at least for my group. Most of my other games are sandbox style, and they never last as long or work as well, although the one I was running at the beginning of this year before the group broke up was going ok, not great though.
Also, players, at least mind, HATE prefab modules, and consider them railroading of the worst sort and go out of their way to wreck them.

Alchemistmerlin
2011-06-02, 04:25 PM
GMing Flow Chart

Are you and your party having fun?
t-- :smallfurious: Stop, ask what they want to do, take a break, try again.
|
:smallbiggrin: Keep doing what you're doing.

averagejoe
2011-06-02, 04:46 PM
At the very least, the chart shows you how other people think about RPG's, which should be of very obvious use to anyone interested in GMing. I'm honestly unsure why everyone is so stuck on getting to a certain label, or finding exceptions. That's missing the point. The labels on your play styles have no value in and of themselves. I can think of two uses for a chart like this: 1) to help illustrate something that is too detailed/complex to represent on something like this (essentially, a big tl;dr), and it sounds like this might function in such a way based on some of the stuff that OH has said. In which case discussion of the chart by itself is pointless, since it's not really the whole story. 2) To get people to think about their own style of play and the assumptions of what you do, like having someone else view your GMing from the outside. This is useful to everyone who isn't a perfect GM. Even deciding that certain criticisms aren't relevant/are unimportant to you (and, more importantly, why) is a progressive step, but even beyond that, a lot of GM problems come from lack of honest self-examination.


GMing Flow Chart

Are you and your party having fun?
t-- :smallfurious: Stop, ask what they want to do, take a break, try again.
|
:smallbiggrin: Keep doing what you're doing.

:smallbiggrin: Very true as well.

Talakeal
2011-06-02, 04:50 PM
At the very least, the chart shows you how other people think about RPG's, which should be of very obvious use to anyone interested in GMing. I'm honestly unsure why everyone is so stuck on getting to a certain label, or finding exceptions. That's missing the point. The labels on your play styles have no value in and of themselves. I can think of two uses for a chart like this: 1) to help illustrate something that is too detailed/complex to represent on something like this (essentially, a big tl;dr), and it sounds like this might function in such a way based on some of the stuff that OH has said. In which case discussion of the chart by itself is pointless, since it's not really the whole story. 2) To get people to think about their own style of play and the assumptions of what you do, like having someone else view your GMing from the outside. This is useful to everyone who isn't a perfect GM. Even deciding that certain criticisms aren't relevant/are unimportant to you (and, more importantly, why) is a progressive step, but even beyond that, a lot of GM problems come from lack of honest self-examination.



:smallbiggrin: Very true as well.

The thing is, it insults most GMs right off the bat by telling them that if they want to tell a set story they would be better served by writing a novel, thereby implying they have no business GMing and should set down the dice and pick up a typewriter.

Ursus the Grim
2011-06-02, 04:54 PM
When I played my most successful campaign it ran from early 2005 to the end of late 2011 I took the following approach.


I like the idea of individual prologues to get characters interested. My question is, how did you manage to play in the future?

averagejoe
2011-06-02, 04:59 PM
The thing is, it insults most GMs right off the bat by telling them that if they want to tell a set story they would be better served by writing a novel, thereby implying they have no business GMing and should set down the dice and pick up a typewriter.

It insults you, so you decide to stop thinking about it? Then the author of this chart has already gotten the better of you, even though I doubt it was his goal.

Talakeal
2011-06-02, 05:18 PM
I like the idea of individual prologues to get characters interested. My question is, how did you manage to play in the future?

Doh! I started to type beginning of 2011, then changed it to end of 2010, but it got garbled, let me edit that.


It insults you, so you decide to stop thinking about it? Then the author of this chart has already gotten the better of you, even though I doubt it was his goal.

Generally people don't think clearly about things which are phrased in an insulting manner and will go into defensive mode and rebuff them, its basic human psychology. That said, it does keep my interest longer, and I do invest more time and thought in it than I would a chart that made no point or told me stuff I already know, that wouldn't have kept my interest at all and I probably wouldn't have even read the whole thing. Although a better approach than either is to be genuinly funny and / or insightful.

averagejoe
2011-06-02, 05:37 PM
Generally people don't think clearly about things which are phrased in an insulting manner and will go into defensive mode and rebuff them, its basic human psychology. That said, it does keep my interest longer, and I do invest more time and thought in it than I would a chart that made no point or told me stuff I already know, that wouldn't have kept my interest at all and I probably wouldn't have even read the whole thing. Although a better approach than either is to be genuinly funny and / or insightful.

Oh, I don't doubt it. In fact, I would speculate that so many people are reacting so negatively for similar reasons. I'm just arguing that one should actually take a look at it beyond the superficial details before going into how irrelevant it is.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-06-02, 06:51 PM
I'm just arguing that one should actually take a look at it beyond the superficial details before going into how irrelevant it is.
Indeed.

I mean, it's not like the author of the flowchart even posted it here in the forum to start a ruckus. A quick look at the relevant blog post shows that it was designed to illustrate some Forge concepts he found interesting.

* * * *

Honestly, I think that the chart has more to do with #1 (illustrating complicated points about game theory) but can be very useful in #2.

Me, I've always prided myself on my skill at Illusionism but looking at how the chart framed things made me reconsider whether Illusionism is the best - let alone the only - way to structure a game. The base assumptions in most mainstream RPGs does encourage DMs to think about games plot-first, but such an approach can be disastrous in character-first games like Burning Wheel or Bliss Stage.

Thinking about whether a character-first approach is feasible for mainstream games like D&D or Shadowrun - let alone whether it is a good idea - is something that every DM should at least spend some time on; particularly if the idea seems radical to you at first blush.

Titanium Fox
2011-06-02, 08:07 PM
I managed to complete a campaign in the illusionism loop. I feel talented now. :P

The Glyphstone
2011-06-02, 08:59 PM
I managed to complete a campaign in the illusionism loop. I feel talented now. :P

Yeah, that part also underestimates potential DM endurance.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-06-02, 09:28 PM
Yeah, that part also underestimates potential DM endurance.
This is true, actually.

While there is a philosophical point to be made about being honest with Players about how much their actions actually influence the course of the game, it's one I don't much agree with. The better point is that it is quite time-consuming to be solely responsible for inventing all game content; of course, that has been assumed to be the DM's Burden since the birth of the RPG. And it is quite the burden, leading to Burnout if sustained too vigorously and for too long.

Interestingly, it doesn't have to be, and that is one of the lessons that can be drawn from thinking about this chart.
For example, I ran a 4th Edition D&D game and a Bliss Stage game concurrently once. For the 4e game, I spend hours per week preparing for sessions: thinking up plotlines, writing up encounters, but also figuring out how to Illusion my Players into going down the paths that I had prepared. This required a nuanced understanding of my Players' motivations, their Characters' motivations, the interplay between the two, and the dynamics of the group as a whole. I consider myself to be pretty good at this, but even so I never expected to predict more than 75% of how the next session would go. In part this is because I don't do things like fudge dice or throw Broken Bridges (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BrokenBridge) and Insurmountable Waist-High Fences (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InsurmountableWaistHeightFence) in the way of my Players when they act outside of my plan. It's more difficult, but I always thought that was what good DMing was about.

Compare this to my Bliss Stage game. There, I would prepare minutes, not hours, per week and sometimes not even that much. The most I needed to do was think about what happened last session and then think of some interesting Bangs for the next one - with a little thought for such niceties like constructing consistent narratives along the chosen themes. And, unlike my 4e game, I never felt like I had prepared too little for a session, nor was it particularly stressful! Instead of being solely responsible all game content, I was able to rely on my Players for much of it; heck, it was explicitly part of the game.

I could not have run two 4e games at the same time, but I would have gladly run as many Bliss Stage games as I could find Players for. It was almost as relaxing as playing in a game, rather than DMing.
TL;DR - it has long been assumed that the DM is responsible for all content in the game. Modern RPGs have revealed that this does not have to be true - and that truth can set you free :smallcool:

Nachtritter
2011-06-02, 09:53 PM
I've always found that having a very general, loose plot structure that the characters can expand on as they go works best. For example:

The characters need to find NPC A for in a bad section of town. Questgiver A doesn't know exactly where NPC A is, however - he could be in any number of taverns/brothels/antique stores, and gives the characters a list of popular haunts. The characters rarely choose the right one off the bat, as per the rule of narrative causality. In my experience, this leads to what I call "opportunities for GM Fun."

Go into the Wounded Swan? That bugbear at the end of the bar is eyeballing you for some reason, and he doesn't look happy! Go into the Blinded Badger? Turns out you're the one millionth person to enter that bar, they've got a whole keg of dwarven ale ready for you, and everyone's screaming CHUG CHUG CHUG! Go into the Sultry Serpent? Oop, turns out it's cultist night at the Sultry Serpent, and the local church of the decadent temptress god has decided your paladin would make an excellent "consort" (read: sacrifice) to her seductive evilness, and play the old distraction game with the rest of the PCs as someone slips Charlemagne a roofie! These all lead into easily stopped mini-adventures (the bugbear starts a fight, cue a short-lived but massive bar brawl; the dwarven keg leads to the drunkeness of all the PCs, who must now complete their mission completely sloshed; the cultists manage to kidnap the paladin but didn't distract the other characters long enough, leading to a back-alley chase) that the characters can talk about and maybe even base further adventures on.

Eventually, they reach the right bar (which, as any GM knows, is any bar the GM wants NPC1 to show up in, even if he'd said it was another bar in his notes), meet the NPC, discover a double-cross, and heyo, time to get out of the city, either with or without the NPC, leading to more adventures. Either way, someone lets slip some useful nugget of information about the main plot along the way, the characters get their next clue, and then can act on it if they choose. In the end, the characters get some freedom, the GM can advance the plot and have some fun with the PCs at the same time, and everybody goes home happy.

... well, until someone rolls a one trying to punch out the bugbear. That never ends well.

The Big Dice
2011-06-03, 04:14 AM
TL;DR - it has long been assumed that the DM is responsible for all content in the game. Modern RPGs have revealed that this does not have to be true - and that truth can set you free :smallcool:
Actually, no. this is something we knew in the 80s. We just didn't need to be told it because we were too busy doing it. Games like Call of Cthulhu, Warhammer FRPG 1st edition, Cyberpunk, MegaTraveller and so on were all based around the idea of the players having characters that were part of rather than simply being shoved into a game world.

Then the idea that players can (and often should) take a hand in the world, resulting in a sybiosis between player and GM, got lost under the Storyteller movement. Which ultimately seemed to consist of 15 years of The Designer Knows Best, Follow Our Metaplot. Regardless of what the writers initially intended.

Then came the internet generation, who were often coming not from the angle of wanting to recreate their favourite book and movie experiences, but from the angle of liking the imagery from card games or feeling frustrated at the lack of real interaction that video games allow. And so once again, the feedback loop between player and GM gets lost.

Then comes the D20 movement, feeding the mindset I outlined in the last paragraph.

And finally we've come full circle, except rather than a "show not tell" mindset among game designers, we have the Forge with it's "Tell and don't show" approach to gaming.

Jay R
2011-06-03, 11:48 AM
Bored, bored, bored, bored, bored.

Like any attempt to model human behavior and reactions in a binary-choice flow chart, it's simplistic to the point of nonsense. It tells you more about the preferences of the author than about anything else.

joe
2011-06-06, 03:39 AM
I got GM Burnout, which is coincidentally exactly what I've been going through. There's more wisdom to this chart than I expected.