A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life

[Bedrockgames]

Numudius' corner: another boring actual play.

In the last group I played, the party took a pause of rest in an ancient settlement built around a health-regenerating thermal pool, after an almost lethal fight against a giant monster in the haunted forest surrounding it.
What I thought ought to be just a brief downtime, became soon a whole session of jokes, embarassing moments, relaxed roleplay, casual spent of money for "services" by the locals, all while having a day long regenerating bath.

Rinse. Repeat. Next session same thing. I already split from them earlier to follow an investigation in town on my own. I had my scene but nothing more happened. The others still having the rejuveneting bath.

Third session of bathing. I try to hire some guides to take me to the infamous settlement, the Gm fiddles for ages about costs, wages, timing, distance, preparation and takes me by exaustion. Nothing dramatic happens.

On the fourth session I roll a new Pc to be present in the settlement to hurry the party up and move on. Half a session later we are eventually out: one random encounter in the forest and the evening of play ends.

Then I quit the group, sadly.

The key thing to ask here is whether you were the only person bored, or if the other players were also having a bad time. If the latter, then the GM, in my view, wasn't running the game well. If the former, he or she may just have had difficulty connecting your preferences with the rest of the group's.

 

[Numidius]

The key thing to ask here is whether you were the only person bored, or if the other players were also having a bad time. If the latter, then the GM, in my view, wasn't running the game well. If the former, he or she may just have had difficulty connecting your preferences with the rest of the group's.

The former. We then separated consensually. The Gm actually told me later that he was doing that on purpose: that's the way they like to play.

 

[Aldarc]

And if you watch the series over multiple seasons, each season tries to top the last in order to keep going, but that tactic only stretches it out a few seasons and then the series dies a usually sudden death with either no ending, or a rushed and crappy ending.

Sometimes. Not always. And certaintly not a universal rule or maxim. We are easily swimming in examples where this is not the case. This is also ignoring how some series have preset lengths. E.g., Babylon 5 was planned for five seasons, though the narrative structure had a major hiccup due to TNT. Avatar the Last Airbender was planned for three seasons: Book 1, Water; Book 2, Earth; Book 3, Fire.

So I quote:

In your opinion. You shouldn't be presenting your opinion as if it were fact, because it's not.

That is some good advice that you should live by too.

This is a False Equivalence. A vampire being more powerful than a zombie, or a dragon being more powerful than a large lizard is not at all the same as one season of a drama trying to outdo the last to stay marketable. C'mon man! You can do better than that.

Calling it a False Equivalence doesn't make it so. This is generally how D&D uses monsters for artifically escalating drama -- at least through the common D&D lens of equating dramatic moments to PCs overcoming challenging foes -- to the point where you eventually fight demon princes and gods or become ones yourself. And drama in a number of fantasy/sci-fi series often likewise involves escalating foes. This is even one reason why people wanted something akin to "bounded accuracy" so that lower-tiered monsters of the week would remain dramatically relevant in later gameplay.

That he has found people that enjoy ridiculous levels of drama doesn't mean that in general, ridiculous levels of drama are not sustainable. T.V. Dramas routinely die, because of that unsustainability.

Shows regularly die regardless of their dramatic content for a variety of reasons (production costs, ratings, network marketing and rebranding, actors, writer fatigue, etc.) so that is a red herring. How many episodes does Bold and the Beautiful have? How many episodes did the original CSI have? Or how about Law & Order? Or how about Doctor Who? There are plenty of shows where this is false. And likewise there are plenty of "non-drama-driven" D&D campaigns that are lucky to get past 10 sessions.

Maxperson: Lanefan is saying uniequivocally that the dramatic-drive play that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and others describe is unsustainable for 100+ sessions. This is demonstrably false. Your defending of this falsehood seems rooted more in a desire to bicker and win points than to ascertain the truth of the proposition. I sometimes think that if I casually said that the earth was round, you would go out of your way to become a flat earther. If you are interested in the truth of things, then why would you defend Lanefan's assertion here if you know this to be false? (Pemerton's chronicled story now sessions are hardly esoteric gnosis. And he is hardly alone in long campaigns in story now games.) Is this really an argument you want to be making with any shred of good faith?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Numudius' corner: another boring actual play.

In the last group I played, the party took a pause of rest in an ancient settlement built around a health-regenerating thermal pool, after an almost lethal fight against a giant monster in the haunted forest surrounding it.
What I thought ought to be just a brief downtime, became soon a whole session of jokes, embarassing moments, relaxed roleplay, casual spent of money for "services" by the locals, all while having a day long regenerating bath.

Rinse. Repeat. Next session same thing. I already split from them earlier to follow an investigation in town on my own. I had my scene but nothing more happened. The others still having the rejuveneting bath.

Third session of bathing. I try to hire some guides to take me to the infamous settlement, the Gm fiddles for ages about costs, wages, timing, distance, preparation and takes me by exaustion. Nothing dramatic happens.

On the fourth session I roll a new Pc to be present in the settlement to hurry the party up and move on. Half a session later we are eventually out: one random encounter in the forest and the evening of play ends.

Then I quit the group, sadly.

This stuff is cool, and happens in player-centered games as well. When the GM is framing scenes and action is occurring, the GM has a role to make things challenge the characters and to up the ante. That isn't to say that every moment in game is in such a scene. Free play, where the GM is pretty much not involved, also occurs.

Take Blades in the Dark, which is a game that uses the drive to drama approach in play. It has three large "phases" -- the score, where most play happens and the GM is actively challenging players; downtime, where there are some codified interactions that allow players to further long term goals, heal, indulge in their vice, try to recruit for the Crew, etc.; and free play, where the players do things that aren't in the above but are related to it -- ie, scout out the next score, have some diplomacy with another gang, interact among themselves, etc.

 

[Numidius]

The former. We then separated consensually. The Gm actually told me later that he was doing that on purpose: that's the way they like to play.

But I'm convinced that if that Gm sped up things a bit, all the table would have enjoyed.

 

[Numidius]

This stuff is cool, and happens in player-centered games as well. When the GM is framing scenes and action is occurring, the GM has a role to make things challenge the characters and to up the ante. That isn't to say that every moment in game is in such a scene. Free play, where the GM is pretty much not involved, also occurs.

Take Blades in the Dark, which is a game that uses the drive to drama approach in play. It has three large "phases" -- the score, where most play happens and the GM is actively challenging players; downtime, where there are some codified interactions that allow players to further long term goals, heal, indulge in their vice, try to recruit for the Crew, etc.; and free play, where the players do things that aren't in the above but are related to it -- ie, scout out the next score, have some diplomacy with another gang, interact among themselves, etc.

The funny thing is, I accepted to play in that game because the Gm wanted to try Blades in the Dark, next...

 

[Bedrockgames]

Maxperson: Lanefan is saying uniequivocally that the dramatic-drive play that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and others describe is unsustainable for 100+ sessions. This is demonstrably false. Your defending of this falsehood seems rooted more in a desire to bicker and win points than to ascertain the truth of the proposition. I sometimes think that if I casually said that the earth was round, you would go out of your way to become a flat earther. If you are interested in the truth of things, then why would you defend Lanefan's assertion here if you know this to be false? (Pemerton's chronicled story now sessions are hardly esoteric gnosis. And he is hardly alone in long campaigns in story now games.) Is this really an argument you want to be making with any shred of good faith?

If Pemerton is getting 100 plus sessions, then he is getting 100+ sessions using the style. I think this is one of those areas where everyone has a harder or easier time running games using certain methods. I know some GMs who can only do a long term campaign using adventure paths (that structure just works for them, even though I really don't enjoy them myself). I will say, I game with some folks who do go more toward the dramatic angle, and they seem to prefer shorter campaigns (simply because a good story can be told in a 6-10 session campaign). I think that is just a preference on their part though. And obviously it depends on how you do it. For me, I find the approach I've talked about (the dramatic sandbox) works well for me, over the long term (and running long term campaigns is important to me when I run a system or choose my campaign approach). Personally, I think most of the problems on this thread, tend to come down to people being overly skeptical of what other people are saying about their experience at the table. You can pull out a word a person says, an assertion they make while trying to defend a style, and dissect it until it seems like you've disproven their experience. But again I think really most of this just boils down people on these threads are very good at making arguments: that doesn't make them right.

 

[Aldarc]

If Pemerton is getting 100 plus sessions, then he is getting 100+ sessions using the style. I think this is one of those areas where everyone has a harder or easier time running games using certain methods.

Personally, I think most of the problems on this thread, tend to come down to people being overly skeptical of what other people are saying about their experience at the table. You can pull out a word a person says, an assertion they make while trying to defend a style, and dissect it until it seems like you've disproven their experience. But again I think really most of this just boils down people on these threads are very good at making arguments: that doesn't make them right.

You make a good observation with the statement in bold. This seems like this line of debate would have been easily avoidable had an alternate argumentation had been originally adopted: "Given my play preferences, I would personally find it chellenging to sustain a 100+ session campaign using this dramatic-driven approach." This seems far less controversial and indisputable than asserting that something is inherently unsustainable or that dramatic-play will necessarily plateau.

 

[Manbearcat]

I strongly suggest that you closely read [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s hypothetical example of the poltergeist upthread, and what he says about using soft moves vs hard moves.

One point that follows from what is said in that post is that the question you ask can't be answered in the abstract. When is it proper to use a hard rather than a soft move? How much foreshadowing/prefiguring is the right amount? What would count as a GM squib; and what would count as heavy-handed GMing that is in "rocks fall" territory?

Reverse engineering the scenario with the poltergeist.

The player fails their Discern Realities move, but made a soft move as of yet to Reveal an Unwelcome Truth. So, instead of having the poltergeist manifest and dealing damage (a hard move), I make the soft move when the character says they want to investigate the area behind the bar for a trap door to a cellar:

"Viscous pink skid-marks on the floor cut a jagged path in the floorboards to the area behind the bar where the ceiling has collapsed as a pair of load-bearing pillars have been upended. Desperate scratches and a pair of fingernails ripped from their bed accompany the disgusting trail of soupy ichor which appears to be blood and some other, thicker, clear substance."

 

[hawkeyefan]

I have to admit that the whole "you can't have exciting play without boring play" argument to be really odd. I don't think that's remotely true, even with long running campaigns. I don't expect every session to be super meaningful, but every session should move things forward. Bookkeeping and maintenance are not why I roleplay, so that stuff has no appeal to me, and is certainly not necessary.

And while I think every game should have some free play type scenes, I can't help but wince at [MENTION=6972053]Numidius[/MENTION]'s description above where free play went on for four sessions. I'd make it about halfway through the second one before I started smashing my face into the table.

My goal when I GM, regardless of system, is to keep things interesting, and to keep things moving toward points of interest, where exciting things can happen, and the players will have meaningful decisions to make for their characters.

Yes, there may be times where we fail to achieve this. But I would have to expect that those times are fewer than such times in a game that seems to expect, or even embrace, such lulls.