How do you Control/Set the Pace of a Game?

[maddman75]

Why must everything be decided before play? I nearly never use modules, so focus on the GM both creating and running the game. If I'm making it up anyway, what difference could it possibly make? The might hear clues about it elsewhere? I could just make it up then, too. Its all just made up, so why is it better to make it up before the game starts?

Here's a scenario - the group progresses further in the dungeon than he anticipated. He'd thought the Ruined Dwarf Hall would keep them occupied all night, but they were smart and quick and got right through it. He needs to start on the Drow Hideout. He calls a break and makes some notes while everyone else goes to the john and orders pizza. They then continue playing, having a blast.

Is the GM cheating?

Also, I'd thought I was playing roleplaying games all these years, but apparently I was wrong and have just been playing storygames. Even when I played AD&D and the GM would make things up on the fly or decide that a rule was stupid on the spot and we worried about getting into our characters and having fun than pursuing any kind of 'win' condition.

Howandwhy, if you have any old game books, perhaps the old school D&D stuff or something similar, could you quote the parts about what the win conditions are for roleplaying games? All these cursed storytelling games have is talk about how RPGs don't have winners and losers.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I suspect you may be characterizing a campaign as a story to be followed rather than a group of modules meshed into a "campaign world". If true, I don't think that's what roleplaying games are. IMO, storygames are for folks getting together to tell stories. RPGs are more about players getting together to be challenged through roleplay.

You would suspect incorrectly. A homebrewed player driven campaign doesn't need to have any story planned whatsoever. I would say that a group of modules strung together is more of a forced type of story than a sandbox game created by the DM.

 

[howandwhy99]

But what if the whole party teleports? They've stepped outside the "module" (which by the way is not defined by a rigid boundary in any case; unless you're running it in complete isolation from the rest of the gameworld) and thrown the DM a curveball.

I disagree modules have no boundaries. They don't have an infinite page count. If you put it in campaign setting then you are simply expanding that boundary. What campaigns do though is collect a bunch of modules together and place them in a larger context.

So you question isn't possible to answer without breaking it down a little. What happens if the party teleports within the module? They change spatial positioning, perhaps time. What happens if they teleport out of the module, but into other parts of the campaign world? Then they are in those modules depending on where they went. What if they teleport outside of the campaign world? Game over. And I don't think this is unusual for most games.
PC1: I teleport us all to Darksun
DM: You can't. We're playing Forgotten Realms
Could the DM place a module in Darksun on the fly? I guess, but he may want to tell the players which one it is. But most DMs I know need to review material before running it.

By what you're saying, if I understand correctly, the DM is not even allowed to swing at that curveball never mind hit it.

Note: the following all assumes a campaign-style game. Tournaments and competitions are different animals.

The curve ball could be accounted for as I show above with Darksun.

The assumption of campaign-style gaming by definition changes what happens when the PCs leave a module. They enter another one. So most any answer I have for your other questions would be a repetition of that.

Here's a question for you: Why do you think consistency is needed in roleplaying games? Is this just a preference? Or is it central to you being able to roleplay?

 

[Armadillo]

A module must be completed before play. It's an unknown to what will or will not affect gameplay before the players directly interact with any particular element.

Two thoughts:

1 - In all my many years of gaming, you are the first person I've met who equated a module with the rules of the game.

2 - This is an impossible standard to meet.

 

[Obryn]

A module must be completed before play. It's an unknown to what will or will not affect gameplay before the players directly interact with any particular element. So every relevant element must be available to inform the DM as he responds to the players.

Where is the determination of relevance made. I understand you're saying that something "could" interfere or affect the rest of the module - I'm saying that it hasn't. How is changing something which has not affected play either between sessions or in the middle of a session "cheating"? How is this substantively different from setting it ahead of time.

I'm not debating whether or not it has. I'm saying it hasn't. For example, a hidden room unknown to the dungeon's denizens.

So yes, if the players decide to quit a module during a one-shot and that's all the DM has prepped, that particular game is over. I don't think this is unusual as almost every RPG is designed this same way.

So what you're saying is, yes, if the players decided to teleport away to a town you haven't detailed and do things you didn't prepare, the game is over for the night?

You see, that's different from every RPG I've ever played, going back to the early 80's.

Storygames are roleplaying games, they just don't relate to the vast majority of games created and played in the hobby. They use a different definition of roleplaying and I would never suspect them of being guessing games or using that design. They are primarily like games of Catch or Look What I Can Do! They aren't games in the sense that players need certain skills to win. This is getting award points in RPGs. I do understand many storygames incorprate many other non-role-related games exterior to their roleplaying. And, yeah, those games require some degree of skill and have measures of success or failure. But the playing of storygames in general are a whole different category of game and game design than what the roleplaying hobby is. Just looking at them makes this pretty obvious. I've played a few too and it seemed pretty clear each time success, "playing smart" as some call it, wasn't relevant to playing the game.

Spell it out for me, before we go further. Please name some storygames, and name some roleplaying games.

-O

 

[Barastrondo]

What campaigns do though is collect a bunch of modules together and place them in a larger context.

That's an interesting way to look at a campaign. I don't think I agree, though. It assumes a presence of "modules" that seems fairly specific to a given style of campaign but might be utterly irrelevant to another.

I'm curious what you're using "module" to mean. It's not a terribly common phrase outside old-school D&D. None of the WoD games refer to "modules," for instance, and neither does HERO System. Do you see most RPGs as possessing "modules" even if they have few to no pre-packaged adventures or setting books? Are people who make up their own settings (like doing their own city for a Vampire game, or a homebrew D&D world) doing "roleplaying games" or "story games"?

I'm also curious how you look at "story games" with no prepackaged plot. It is a very, very common method of play to create situations rather than plots, and to see what happens. For example, a game might have as its trigger the idea that crimelord A is attempting to expand his presence, or that there's a wedding going on between two feuding families and everyone has a stake in it, and so on. Story is something that's totally emergent in these games; each player essentially defines his or her own goals. Improvisation is key. The concept of "player skill" matters, but not as measured against prepackaged challenges that a designer has set up: the challenges emerge naturally, and the skills involved might be diplomacy, politics, and people sense.

I don't think most people roleplaying today think in terms of "modules." It's a style of play too reliant on prepackaged materials, be they purchased or created ahead of time in a vacuum. Improvisational play lends itself better to chat rooms and LARPs, to one-shots and changing game systems on a regular basis. People game a lot of ways. I think it would be considerably more accurate if you were to mark out "modular play" as a subset of roleplaying, and not the assumed default.

Where's Piratecat? Man needs to drop that story of the PCs collapsing a dungeon with an earthquake and still winding up having a fine adventure — just one that was extrapolated from his notes and information rather than directly programmed by them.

 

[howandwhy99]

Why must everything be decided before play? I nearly never use modules, so focus on the GM both creating and running the game. If I'm making it up anyway, what difference could it possibly make? The might hear clues about it elsewhere? I could just make it up then, too. Its all just made up, so why is it better to make it up before the game starts?

When I talk about indirect effect I mean everything is tied together that is written in the module, core rules, and setting. Like an hourglass of sand, when one particle slips out every single other one may change, only some, or none at all. I cannot know which or how many before that grain drops. In RPGs the degree and manner of that change, and further changes, is learned through continued interaction with the whole informing the players of how to roleplay well.

That whole is the game system. And how it defines successful roleplaying is what is being guessed at by the players. Without that measure of success being determined beforehand the players can effect no success whatsoever. They are merely up to the whim of the DM on whether their actions can lead to any preferred end. I'm reminded of a quote from Almost Famous where one band member says "just make us look cool, man". That may be what many people want, but I prefer games were the challenges are real.

Here's a scenario - the group progresses further in the dungeon than he anticipated. He'd thought the Ruined Dwarf Hall would keep them occupied all night, but they were smart and quick and got right through it. He needs to start on the Drow Hideout. He calls a break and makes some notes while everyone else goes to the john and orders pizza. They then continue playing, having a blast.

Is the GM cheating?

I'd say no. Remember, it's a guessing game. As long as he is determining the roleplaying to be guessed at and performed before the players begin with that approximation, then the DM is presenting a single riddle, or behavior in the case of RPGs.

Howandwhy, if you have any old game books, perhaps the old school D&D stuff or something similar, could you quote the parts about what the win conditions are for roleplaying games? All these cursed storytelling games have is talk about how RPGs don't have winners and losers.

It's in all the reward sections. You get XP for killing monsters. Some for stealing gold, or pretty much anything that has a monetary value. Etc. These are all roleplaying rewards.

Modules have the same. XP for completing certain tasks like delivering messages. Or uncovering clues. Or broken down depending upon the class the player is playing.

Playing the entire game typically means reaching a capstone level which proves how good a player one is: 10, 20, 30, 36, etc.

You would suspect incorrectly. A homebrewed player driven campaign doesn't need to have any story planned whatsoever. I would say that a group of modules strung together is more of a forced type of story than a sandbox game created by the DM.

I agree, but I wasn't sure by your previous response. You had said, "Winning and losing only have meaning if there is competition", which is something I normally hear from people who roleplay according to another definition, the one all about exploring what it means to be an elf or something similar. For traditional roleplaying games roleplaying well is measured by the amount of XP one earns. A high XP total typically means a player is a good roleplayer. Unless their DM cheated in giving out XP or the player's a munchkin thinking they can show up with a high level PC never worked up to that point and think somehow that's indicative of how good a player they are.

Note: I have to get some work done, so I'll be away for awhile.

 

[maddman75]

That whole is the game system. And how it defines successful roleplaying is what is being guessed at by the players. Without that measure of success being determined beforehand the players can effect no success whatsoever. They are merely up to the whim of the DM on whether their actions can lead to any preferred end. I'm reminded of a quote from Almost Famous where one band member says "just make us look cool, man". That may be what many people want, but I prefer games were the challenges are real.

I hate to break it to you, but nothing in RPGs is real. Its all smoke and mirrors man. There's no achievement to having a high level character, and having one doesn't make you a better player than someone with a level 1 character.

I agree with Obryn, name some names. What games are not, according to you, roleplaying games?

 

[Obryn]

You know, once again I think I'm done with this particular argument.

The type of zero-improvisation module-confined puzzle RPG howandwhy is discussing bears zero resemblance to any RPG I've ever played or run (or, honestly, even heard of). It's not sandbox play, where the DM's improvisational skills are key. And it's not conventional play with stricter plots. Even the defintion of what it means to role-play is subverted. It sounds a lot more like an elaborate board/puzzle game - more akin to DDM than D&D.

Frankly, I refuse to entertain the notion that I haven't actually been playing RPGs for 25+ years, or that I've somehow been cheating or playing them wrong. No matter how verbosely written or mildly-stated, I think I'm always going to find that line of argument inherently offensive. I also don't plan to debate using the fringe and/or archaic definitions of terms howandwhy is using, and apparently he won't debate using conventional definitions, which leads me to conclude we don't share enough of a common language to discuss this in any useful fashion.

-O

 

[ST]

Man, I was looking forward to seeing more advice for the OP's problem but instead we're off chasing something entirely different. I'm not sure if that counts as "improvisation" or "cheating".

howandwhy99, I don't really know where you're going with this. I mean I get your argument, and if you want to hold up module-style play with strictly defined prep as roleplaying, and the other stuff as "something else", well, okay, you're welcome to that definition, I just think you're seeing that not many other people share it. I've heard the "Those are story-games, not roleplaying games", or "Those are hack-and-slash games, not roleplaying games" so many times over the last few years that it's like, okay man, you're welcome to your opinion.

It just feels like too much of a stretch to try to limit roleplaying games to a particular definition of GM power and authority, when the games themselves define GM power and authority in a way that contradicts your definition.

When I used to work in a GMing group for Neverwinter Nights (the PC version with player and DM clients), I'd say that your particular definition of roleplaying games fit that fairly well. It was "module play" to the extent that because you're using previously prepared areas, objects and creatures, you can respond to player improvisation, but only along lines that were pre-prepped. For instance, in NWN if your players want to head into the Frozen Mountains but the loaded module doesn't contain areas you can use as a stand-in for the Frozen Mountains, then yeah, you can't go. But in tabletop I don't see these limitations applying the same way.

(And even in NWN, you could still "fake it". Take a rocky looking area, change the weather and fog to Snowy, and put some drifts on the ground, all doable in the DM client. So even then, the line between "running the game" and "designing the game" is blurred.)