"Lazy GM" Style- How to convey in a written format?

[Easy e]

I have really been pushing my GM style and trying out new "techniques". This one involves moving more load from the GM to the players. This is using "Player Fiat" to help build a more collaborative story/adventure scenario. It is also highly improvisational. I am having a hard time explaining the technique, but my players have jokingly started referring to it as "Lazy GM".

Here are some core elements of the "Technique" (which I am using loosely):

1. The GM does not plan an adventure, they only plan a single opening scene. The rest of the adventure flows from the decisions of the players in this scene.

2. The GM uses questions to propel the adventure/game forward. So, if the players try something, the roll dictates a pass/fail and then the GM has the player narrate what happens with the result.

3. As players meet with NPCs, the GM asks the players about the connections and relationship they have/or had with the NPC.

4. The GM only sets guide rails by using "Yes, and....", "Yes, but....", "...and also", "No, but...." or similar words to build off of or trim down what the PC describes as the new shared reality.

5. The GM has players determine their relationship with events, items, details, and history by using questions.

6. The GMs job is to add complications via NPC reactions, changes in the scene, and reactions to player actions. That is about it.

7. There is no defined solution, nodes, or path from the adventure hook.


Here is how it played out in a recent game:

1. The adventure hook was some bad guys try to steal a McGuffin in the PCs vicinity
2. The PCs decide to intervene and stop the theft.
3. The PCs determined it was an ancient scroll, and they had helped the current owners recover it from Mob bosses after it was sold. The money used to pay for the mortgage on an orphanage- type thing that was linked to a PC.
4. To discover why the mob was still after it, they investigated. They decided and described that the scroll had a secret message encoded on it.
5. The PCs also decided that the last time they saw the scroll, one of their back story rivals was involved with the purchase.
6. The PCs decided the secret message was related to an ancient prophecy, that the scroll gave hints on setting in motion.
7. The PCs then investigated the local environment to see what could help trigger the prophecy.
8. This led them to a mutually agreed location and a confrontation with the BBEG and his goons, that were linked to their own back stories.
9. In the end, the BBEG was thwarted; but the nature of the prophecy was never fully revealed. It is also important to note that the PCs allowed the BBEG to survive.

Now, as the GM I had walked into the session with only Point 1 in my head. The rest all developed from the PCs collaborative efforts. I had initially thought the story was going to go a completely different direction than it did and had a vague villain in my mind in case it was needed. It was not needed as the PCs filled in all the details with their success/failures.

The players had a blast and want to continue the story. None of us have any idea where it will lead.


Now, here is the issue. I am having a hard time conveying this style of GM technique to others. My prep is simply a list of vague, open-ended questions that I can ask the PCs. I also have a vague idea about how to set the pace, when to add complications, and managing PC narration. However, I am challenged with how to write it up in an intelligible way.

Has anyone else used this technique, and how do you teach or share this style to others, especially in written format? Thanks.

[Batcathat]

Has anyone else used this technique, and how do you teach or share this style to others, especially in written format? Thanks.

Those seven core elements you've written up seems like a decent way of explaining it, I'd say. Or did you mean sharing it in greater detail? At the very least, it seems like you've got a good start.

As for the other part of the question, I've never used it to this "extreme" but I've always been a pretty improvisational GM (especially when I started out) and I'm not adverse to player suggestions, so my "style" probably has at least some things in common with what you're talking about.

[Lacco]

Not directly used this for a game, but we did play the "Yes, but..." game every time we went to a rented weekend house for a weekend gaming session. It was our road-trip car game of choice. We built characters, game and the starting situation/plot/environment/opposition this way.

Some of the results were unusable. Some were extremely cool (e.g. the one where first question was "Am I aiming at {the other player's character}?"... which ended up with a crazy mexican standoff between the "good guys" - a succubus assassin, dwarven bladeslinger, elven pyromancer and a golem - and the bad guys).

But we never used it for a game.

[MoiMagnus]

how do you teach or share this style to others, especially in written format? Thanks.

While I never did so, your 7 points remind me of things that are well known outside of RPGs.

Points 1,3,4,6,7 are common advices in the realm of improvisation theatre (except that there is usually no "GM" and "Player" so the situation is more symmetrical). I unfortunately don't have any good resources to point you toward, as I've never read a book about improvisation theatre.

Points 2 and 5 remind me of the Socratic method (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method), though with less emphasis on challenging peoples' belief, instead focussing on helping them to form one through questioning.

[Jedaii]

Okay Wow. You have a long railroad going here with sparks flying off the tracks as the characters move.

Stop planning for what the characters do: you have "the characters do X" and "the characters do Y".

You can't predict that. They might do X when you have planned Y. So don't plan anything.

As a GM plan 15-20 scenes YOU find enjoyable. That's your fun. In those scenes you can drop clues and certain NPCs to deliver information. But never expect the PCs to react to NPC info as you want.

Just run the scenes you like and drop clues/info there. Then allow the PCs to use or not use that info as they like. If they get a clue that reveals the city blows up in 24 hours okay. The PCs might not like the city and it blowing up works for them. At that point introduce a new scene. Just keep things moving. How the Player-Characters react is their own business.

I keep things moving despite what the PCs do and if they ignore the major threat then THEY IGNORE THE MAJOR THREAT. Let 'em. Give them their highly-demanded Agency. Give them their freedom and only occasionally remind them of how "doing what they want" has its consequences. You demonstrate that via what the NPCs are doing.

If they decide to start a tavern let them see orcs & goblins invading the town. Let them deal with those invaders into their tavern. Force a decision because without decision it isn't an rpg.

"Railroads" are childish adventures with little or no choice. Don't do that. Designs fun scenes you like and drop choices into them so the players have something meaningful to do. Let their characters chase Nymphs into the wilderness. But keep the "deadly plot" going so as long as they ignore it they face an even greater danger.

[Tanarii]

Now, here is the issue. I am having a hard time conveying this style of GM technique to others. My prep is simply a list of vague, open-ended questions that I can ask the PCs. I also have a vague idea about how to set the pace, when to add complications, and managing PC narration. However, I am challenged with how to write it up in an intelligible way.

Has anyone else used this technique, and how do you teach or share this style to others, especially in written format? Thanks.
Hand them a copy of Apocalypse World? Or maybe Dungeon World. Any PbtA really.

[LecternOfJasper]

Okay Wow. You have a long railroad going here with sparks flying off the tracks as the characters move.

Stop planning for what the characters do: you have "the characters do X" and "the characters do Y".

You can't predict that. They might do X when you have planned Y. So don't plan anything.

As a GM plan 15-20 scenes YOU find enjoyable. That's your fun. In those scenes you can drop clues and certain NPCs to deliver information. But never expect the PCs to react to NPC info as you want.

Just run the scenes you like and drop clues/info there. Then allow the PCs to use or not use that info as they like. If they get a clue that reveals the city blows up in 24 hours okay. The PCs might not like the city and it blowing up works for them. At that point introduce a new scene. Just keep things moving. How the Player-Characters react is their own business.

I keep things moving despite what the PCs do and if they ignore the major threat then THEY IGNORE THE MAJOR THREAT. Let 'em. Give them their highly-demanded Agency. Give them their freedom and only occasionally remind them of how "doing what they want" has its consequences. You demonstrate that via what the NPCs are doing.

If they decide to start a tavern let them see orcs & goblins invading the town. Let them deal with those invaders into their tavern. Force a decision because without decision it isn't an rpg.

"Railroads" are childish adventures with little or no choice. Don't do that. Designs fun scenes you like and drop choices into them so the players have something meaningful to do. Let their characters chase Nymphs into the wilderness. But keep the "deadly plot" going so as long as they ignore it they face an even greater danger.

I'm sorry, I can't for the life of me figure out what this has to do with the post :smallconfused: I can only assume you only read the second list of things that have already happened, and confused that with a plan of action. It's possible you think the generic guidelines are also problematic, as they assume the players interact with NPCs and add pertinent information when asked to, but I would assume anyone showing up to play the game would try to do that, so I'm terribly confused as to what you are trying to say here :smalltongue: While what your describing is a very doable way of playing the game, it certainly isn't the only way that will work. What the OP posted seems to be literally rolling with however the PC's react to things, including making up new threads to interact with wholesale.

To OP, I haven't ever tried to write this sort of style down, and the times I have tried it have been primarily with PbtA games as already mentioned. It's definitely something that needs to be explained before the game begins, as I've learned, to give people time to prepare ideas and hooks to introduce that are related to their character. Maybe Apocalypse World or associated games will have a good starting point for spelling it out.

[Lacco]

Stop planning for what the characters do: you have "the characters do X" and "the characters do Y".

You can't predict that. They might do X when you have planned Y. So don't plan anything.

As a GM plan 15-20 scenes YOU find enjoyable. That's your fun. In those scenes you can drop clues and certain NPCs to deliver information. But never expect the PCs to react to NPC info as you want.

I second LecternOfJasper: this has little to do with the actual thing the OP was talking about.

On the other hand: "as a GM plan 15-20 scenes YOU find enjoyable"... smells of iron, coal and sounds could easily start to sound like "choo choo".

[Vahnavoi]

This is closer to what I do in freeform than in my tabletop games - with the difference that in freeform games, either there is no game master or players effectively take turns being one, and no dice are used for anything.

When no dice are used for determining success or failure, the rule followed is typically "initiator describes action, receiver descrives result", with most common specific example being "offender describes attack, defender describes if it hits". In addition to formulating suggestions as questions, if-then-structures are used in suggestions: "if X, then Y, what is your characters response?"

[Easy e]

Okay Wow. You have a long railroad going here with sparks flying off the tracks as the characters move.

Stop planning for what the characters do: you have "the characters do X" and "the characters do Y".

You can't predict that. They might do X when you have planned Y. So don't plan anything.

As a GM plan 15-20 scenes YOU find enjoyable. That's your fun. In those scenes you can drop clues and certain NPCs to deliver information. But never expect the PCs to react to NPC info as you want.

Just run the scenes you like and drop clues/info there. Then allow the PCs to use or not use that info as they like. If they get a clue that reveals the city blows up in 24 hours okay. The PCs might not like the city and it blowing up works for them. At that point introduce a new scene. Just keep things moving. How the Player-Characters react is their own business.

I keep things moving despite what the PCs do and if they ignore the major threat then THEY IGNORE THE MAJOR THREAT. Let 'em. Give them their highly-demanded Agency. Give them their freedom and only occasionally remind them of how "doing what they want" has its consequences. You demonstrate that via what the NPCs are doing.

If they decide to start a tavern let them see orcs & goblins invading the town. Let them deal with those invaders into their tavern. Force a decision because without decision it isn't an rpg.

"Railroads" are childish adventures with little or no choice. Don't do that. Designs fun scenes you like and drop choices into them so the players have something meaningful to do. Let their characters chase Nymphs into the wilderness. But keep the "deadly plot" going so as long as they ignore it they face an even greater danger.

I think you may want to re-read what I wrote. All I do is drop a hook, and then react to where the players go with that hook, even having players fill in details and twists. That is about as un-railroad as it gets, since there isn't even a track bed at that point.

However, I will admit that I used to use a hook, some logical encounters, and a "big finish" approach, where I as the GM had to fill in the connective tissue by reacting to players. This approach is even more player fiat focused and discards the encounters and finale as no longer being a GM task.

I blame PTS for the great railroad wars across the internet for the confusion. :)

[kyoryu]

While I do go for a mostly lazy style, I do find many players don't like the "okay, so what do you find?" approach.

Even in that case, I'll come up with more results than not. Often this is prompted by the players when I ask "okay, so what are you trying to accomplish here? How does this go well for you?" It's just more implicit than explicit.

I'll still do some prep work - the major NPCs, their goals and agendas, but I won't plan out specific scenes. But it's fairly minimal, and a little goes a long way.