GMs: Guiding Morals in GMing

[Bagpuss]

There really can’t be because of the way Spire works as a game. It eschews heavy prep and encourages improv during play. It actively involves improv in the rules of the game.

Weirdly I played Heart (the follow up to Spire) at a convention recently and the GM, had a notebook full of stuff prepped for the four hour slot. The characters had a mission to do, and they were certain challenges on the Delve we needed to over come all were prepped.

The whole game seemed pretty my on railroads... in fact it was literally as we were following the magic abandoned underground system which was part of the game.

The system absolutely matters in this regard.

Unless Heart is vastly different in prep regards to Spire, (they guy was using Spire supplements, with his Heart game so I doubt it).

Then I don't think system matters as much as you think it does, it is much more down to the GM's style.

 

[Manbearcat]

Weirdly I played Heart (the follow up to Spire) at a convention recently and the GM, had a notebook full of stuff prepped for the four hour slot. The characters had a mission to do, and they were certain challenges on the Delve we needed to over come all were prepped.

The whole game seemed pretty my on railroads... in fact it was literally as we were following the magic abandoned underground system which was part of the game.



Unless Heart is vastly different in prep regards to Spire, (they guy was using Spire supplements, with his Heart game so I doubt it).

Then I don't think system matters as much as you think it does, it is much more down to the GM's style.

I'd say what you're giving expression to is a pair of things:

1) Convention gaming is its own thing removed from actual live play at a table (or virtually). Its more the experiential quality and camaraderie of convention play where (a) players often/typically have absolutely no idea about the ruleset in question nor the meta of the particular game (and thereby can be little more than passive participants captured by the orbit of GM-directed story) and (b) GMs who may not have mastery of system.

(a) is enough to kill a player + system directed game stone dead...and if it isn't, well a GM who is constrained by time and their own inexperience, while being commissioned to deliver some kind of interesting play, is the coup de grace.

2) Someone tells you they played a game of soccer and then goes on to describe a game that did indeed involve a soccer-style pitch, and offsides, and fouls...except described a basketball hoop to defend rather than an 8 x 24 horizontal goal and had a few designated areas of play where you had to use your hands to pass the ball to each other rather than feet...and someone named Calvin who was allowed to, on a whim when scoring was lagging, put boxing gloves on everyone at their discretion and tell two people FIGHT OK WINNER SCORES A GOAL FOR THEIR TEAM!

You aren't going to go..."cool. Soccer."

You go to a steak joint and order a medium rare ribeye and they bring you out a pizza, you aren't going to look at your meal and go..."cool. steak."

TTRPGs and American Healthcare are about the only things in the world where the provider can give us something entirely decoupled from any normative expectations or what was written on the tin and we can shrug and go "yeah...20 minute drive...1.25 hour wait, 12 minute consult with the PA rather than the DR, they didn't order my MRI, oh that is my fault is it(?!), reschedule for 6 weeks out after I waited 6 weeks for this specialist appointment already, $185 bill...Healthcare!"

 

[clearstream]

So something in another threat got me thinking.
So many GM style arguments come down to clashes of what can be called "Guiding Morals." What I mean is, having a few key principles of how a game should be run, priorities of play, that you are willing to bend other considerations to serve.
So these could include such things as "Challenge my players" or "Everyone has fun" or perhaps "Safety First."

What sorts of guiding moral principles govern how you run your games?

Not to derail this thread, but I wondered also about guiding moral principles in how folk play their games. Seeing as this line of question was generally your idea, would you like to create a parallel thread for that? Or shall I?

 

[clearstream]

My agenda is the thing I want to get.

My precepts guide how I reach my agendas.

The distinction has blurred somewhat. I suppose one's morals inform what one wants to get.

 

[clearstream]

There is no category of things which should/must be done in all RPGs, except to obey ordinary moral principles. So I have to interpret the OP as being a question about agenda and principles of play for GMs. I'd point out that Dungeon World and Apocalypse World SPECIFICALLY state these in plain language.

There are some background or higher level principles that can change how folk grasp and uphold anything a designer writes down. For instance, a designer can write down "follow the rules" and a given GM might have the principle "change whatever game text I like." The latter would authorise that GM to erase or revise "follow the rules". Thus plain language alone is not conclusively normative.

As I have said elsewhere, the principle of following the rules can't be captured in the rules. Possibly this kind of consideration implies that norms relating to how one approaches play can indeed be differentiated from norms one upholds within any given circle of play. I think these meta-norms produce some of the most difficult and fractious debates. Ranging from disbelief that they exist, to assumptions that they must be categorical, and sometimes an inability to even see what others might mean.

In the end, the designer can only advise how they believe others might achieve the play they had in mind.

 

[clearstream]

Unless Heart is vastly different in prep regards to Spire, (they guy was using Spire supplements, with his Heart game so I doubt it).

Then I don't think system matters as much as you think it does, it is much more down to the GM's style.

It's often overlooked that the possibility of "playing in the wrong way" implies that there is more than one way to play.

 

[aco175]

In the end, the designer can only advise how they believe others might achieve the play they had in mind.

I agree to a certain extent. If I design a large adventure, I need to plan that certain things will happen. I predict that the good guys defeat count evil and get the magic sword to return to fight the dragon and save the not-so-young-duke who may inherit the throne from his uncle's cousin's roommate. Fine. I am now done and print it for others to use and make their own.

At someone else's table things unfold different than mine or anyone else's table. One group may not defeat count evil and charm him or make a bargain with him. They may not get the sword and need to design another means to kill the dragon. The paths split each time the group makes a decision.

It is not badwrongfun if one group murder-hobos the future king or if the DM takes only one part of the adventure and adds it to his campaign. Designers certainly cannot predict every choice. I do think they need to give some plan and option for how things may have been intended.

 

[Professor Murder]

Not to derail this thread, but I wondered also about guiding moral principles in how folk play their games. Seeing as this line of question was generally your idea, would you like to create a parallel thread for that? Or shall I?

Feel free

 

[Umbran]

The distinction has blurred somewhat. I suppose one's morals inform what one wants to get.

I am not comfortable using the term "morals" in that form. This is more like a choice between chocolate and vanilla than a choice between right and wrong.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Maybe. You're guessing what play will be about, as a guide to what to prep, but nothing stops the players from doing something unexpected.

I think the problems arise only when a GM starts forcing the sequence of events and-or and not allowing the unexpected to happen.

Perhaps a better way to write it, when banging out a GM-side storyboard (which ideally would end up resembling a flowchart with all sorts of splits and branches), would be "If the PCs defeat Count Evil, then...", along with another branch starting with "If the PCs do not defeat Count Evil, then...", etc.

I think it depends. I think even the act of writing something down takes it one step closer to being influential on how the GM runs the game and what happens in it.

But I think your next point also matters quite a lot.

I think a big factor here is the level of detail/granularity required and-or expected in the prep.

For sure. The more granular, the more likely a GM is committing to the prepared material. And a lot of prep for D&D can get pretty granular… maps, stat blocks, keyed locations, treasure placement, DCs for probable actions… and so on.

The way the game is meant to work requires some amount of commitment to what will happen next. We need look no further than the classic representation of play… a dungeon map. Very much like the kind of flow chart you mention.