GMs: Guiding Morals in GMing

[hawkeyefan]

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.

It’s hard to say for sure what’s going on here. I would imagine that it’s mostly due to the fact that it’s a convention game, which will almost always have a higher level of prep.

But it’s also a case that Heart does generally involve more prep than Spire. That prep tends to be loosely structured in the form of Delves, as you mention, but these don’t require notebooks full of prep.

That doesn’t mean a GM can’t do that amount of prep, though. I’d say it goes against the spirit of the game a bit… but again, convention play is different.

The other big factor here is if you were using pregenerated characters of some sort, or did you make them at the start of the session? How were the Beats incorporated into play? How familiar were the players with the game? What kinds of classes and abilities were selected?

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

It’s pretty different, actually. It’s more structured for sure. There’s a basic loop in place of Domain-> Delve-> Domain. But that structure and the mechanics that support it are designed to allow details to be determined during play, in response to what the players do and what they’ve indicated they want to see in play.

It doesn’t prevent a GM from detailing everything ahead of time and prepping as much as possible. The principles in the GMing section tell GMs not to do that, but of course an individual GM can ignore that if they perceive a need.

Like running a convention game. Or being a control freak.

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 depends, I suppose, on what we think of as system. I don’t know if you’ve read the actual book for Heart, but the GMing advice it offers would lead me to believe otherwise. The GMing advice is an important element of the system, in my opinion.

But it’s more than that. Looking at the system itself and the way it’s designed… the synergy between the rules and the setting, like how the Heart tries to give people what they want in some weird way, and how players select Beats to cue the GM what they’d like to see in play… to the way Delves are structured, to class abilities… all of that stuff matters.

Comparing it to a classic dungeon delve and you would see a surface similarity in the overall course of play… but the preparation would most likely be very different.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

If the PCs' defeating Count Evil is a necessary thing for other things to happen then yes. If you have Count Evil placed in context and have a sense of what will happen if the PCs kill him then not necessarily. Anticipating possible actions or results needn't be deciding what play will be about before it's happened.

Its a slippery slope though. Once the GM begins to invest their time and energy into some expectation of what the next scene will bring, then their perceptions and judgments are inevitably colored by that, and they begin to shape the course of events 'knowing' that X, Y, and Z will follow from A. I mean, AW, DW, etc. all HAVE prep in the form of 'fronts' (I guess the most recent AW has a bit different scheme, haven't seen it). These fronts are developed by the GM after at least the first session of play has taken place. They are not related to anything the PCs do either! In DW these fronts, especially the 'campaign front', represent the world at large doing its thing. Because the GM knows about the PCs when they construct these, and about the player's preferences in terms of theme and genre elements, etc. these fronts SHOULD be fairly engaging for them, but maybe not.

So, translating into the lingo of the example. Count Evil will be a threat that was created with the PCs in mind, and his future actions in the absence of PCs changing the situation are mapped out as 'dooms'. We don't really know what will happen if the PCs kill him, ally with him, or drive him out of town. Presumably the action in those cases will be in keeping with DW's principles and agenda. In a BitD game Count Evil is some other faction within Doskvol, and you have just gained a change in relationship status with them. -3 and they go to war on you, have fun! +3 and they become your allies, cool! Obviously the implications of being allied with Count Evil WRT your PCs and whatnot is kind of the point of the game.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

I'm not sure why people spend time on this genre of comment. Of course nothing is absolutely binding on anyone, unless the WotC police show up at your door (I guess in the case of DW it would be Vince Baker, I can only wish!). 'Normative' thus cannot have the definition you give it here then, as it would be empty of practical meaning. Normative must therefor refer to the intent, or what we might call the 'proper rules' and might be recognized as what some sample of people who read it agreed on as a default interpretation. Maybe this becomes a bit less reasonable when nobody follows those rules, as they aren't establishing any substantive norms, but even then we should distinguish RAW from RAI (and gosh, look, we even have the terms needed!).

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.

Again, why do people post these statements? "The Sky is Blue!!!!" Yup, sure enough, it certainly is!

 

[Umbran]

TTRPGs and American Healthcare

Mod Note:
This thread isn't about healthcare. Please don't raise matters of political import to make points about how we pretend to be elves. Thanks.

 

[clearstream]

I'm not sure why people spend time on this genre of comment. Of course nothing is absolutely binding on anyone, unless the WotC police show up at your door (I guess in the case of DW it would be Vince Baker, I can only wish!). 'Normative' thus cannot have the definition you give it here then, as it would be empty of practical meaning.

This isn't right. Normally, people follow rules. There was earlier a discussion on whether folk treat rules as guidelines or laws. It's on surface reasonable to say then, that some people normally treat rules as either guidelines or laws. I refer back to my note that folk often start out by denying that such 'meta-norms' exist.

Normative must therefor refer to the intent, or what we might call the 'proper rules' and might be recognized as what some sample of people who read it agreed on as a default interpretation. Maybe this becomes a bit less reasonable when nobody follows those rules, as they aren't establishing any substantive norms, but even then we should distinguish RAW from RAI (and gosh, look, we even have the terms needed!).

As all rules in TTRPG are interpreted, the on surface simple distinction between RAW and RAI is not so simple. As you say, what might count as the "proper rules" is something recognised by a sample of people who have agreed on an interpretation. As you're defining it then, normative has local application... but what comes to bring that sample of people to all agree? What happens if whatever that is, is passed on to others? Wouldn't they then be foreseen to come into agreement with the sample?

Again, why do people post these statements? "The Sky is Blue!!!!" Yup, sure enough, it certainly is!

With one eyebrow raised, one might ask the very same thing of this statement. To expand on what I was saying, I occasionally read discussion that envisions that what the designer puts in "plain language" has the same meaning and weight to all readers. Debate on these boards are testimony to how very much any appeal to plain language stands on shaky ground.

In other threads, some very good reasons have been given for following the rules and accepting constraints. Those have almost always been framed in terms of principles that when upheld produce a (for the given advocates) preferred kind of play. They're absolutely fundamental.

 

[clearstream]

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.

Is it right then that you'd say one's guiding morals do not inform one's preferences for play?

 

[Umbran]

Is it right then that you'd say one's guiding morals do not inform one's preferences for play?

I have said several times now that I don't feel "morals" is an appropriate word to use in this context.

 

[pointofyou]

It depends on the manner in which it’s done, I’d say.

Having some ideas about possible outcomes is one thing. It makes sense to consider probable courses of action and their possible consequences.

But when you sequence events as is done in a published adventure? That’s more what I’m talking about here. Most of them are a sequence of events… the outline is already set, just some minor details to fill in.

It’s something I used to do all the time, and recognizing it was tough. Hell, it’s something I still struggle with when I GM D&D… there’s the comfortability of habit there and the game promotes it in so many ways, it can be difficult not to do it.

I should add there’s nothing wrong with playing that way… I just prefer something less pre-determined so it’s something I try to avoid. I’d not go as far as to categorize it as something like a moral, but it’s a guiding principle for me.

I did say it wasn't necessarily planning the course of what would happen. I didn't say it couldn't be. I haven't made those sorts of detailed plans as a GM in decades. I just need to know what the situation is. I never decide what the situation will become as the PCs interact with it.

Its a slippery slope though. Once the GM begins to invest their time and energy into some expectation of what the next scene will bring, then their perceptions and judgments are inevitably colored by that, and they begin to shape the course of events 'knowing' that X, Y, and Z will follow from A. I mean, AW, DW, etc. all HAVE prep in the form of 'fronts' (I guess the most recent AW has a bit different scheme, haven't seen it). These fronts are developed by the GM after at least the first session of play has taken place. They are not related to anything the PCs do either! In DW these fronts, especially the 'campaign front', represent the world at large doing its thing. Because the GM knows about the PCs when they construct these, and about the player's preferences in terms of theme and genre elements, etc. these fronts SHOULD be fairly engaging for them, but maybe not.

It's really not that slippery a slope. Just don't plan what will be. Plan what is and what might be. Internalize the situation the PCs are in and respond. If you know how the players are playing their PCs then anticipating their actions seems like a way to focus prep but only if you're willing to admit being wrong and let that prep lie fallow.

So, translating into the lingo of the example. Count Evil will be a threat that was created with the PCs in mind, and his future actions in the absence of PCs changing the situation are mapped out as 'dooms'. We don't really know what will happen if the PCs kill him, ally with him, or drive him out of town. Presumably the action in those cases will be in keeping with DW's principles and agenda. In a BitD game Count Evil is some other faction within Doskvol, and you have just gained a change in relationship status with them. -3 and they go to war on you, have fun! +3 and they become your allies, cool! Obviously the implications of being allied with Count Evil WRT your PCs and whatnot is kind of the point of the game.

Well in the games you mention much of what will happen as the PCs set out to kill Count Evil will be shaped by the extent to which their dice rolls tell the GM to add new looming threats or activate existing ones. Or tick on threat clocks. In principle as I understand those games the results of at least filling a threat clock should be knowable to the players. Whatever the outcome is of killing Count Evil the timing of how it affects play is not much in the GM's hands. Blades in the Dark does recommend that GMs have ideas for possible consequences and suchlike but it also recommends GMs keep in mind those are just possibilities.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I did say it wasn't necessarily planning the course of what would happen. I didn't say it couldn't be. I haven't made those sorts of detailed plans as a GM in decades. I just need to know what the situation is. I never decide what the situation will become as the PCs interact with it.

When I said “you” I meant the general form. Or, perhaps more accurately, I meant “me”.

It's really not that slippery a slope. Just don't plan what will be. Plan what is and what might be. Internalize the situation the PCs are in and respond. If you know how the players are playing their PCs then anticipating their actions seems like a way to focus prep but only if you're willing to admit being wrong and let that prep lie fallow.

I find it challenging to prepare D&D without plotting a course of some sort. I try to do that, and I think I pull it off sometimes… but the way the game works, it’s not as easy to do it as it is for other games.

This was brutally obvious when the pandemic hit and my face to face group decided to meet online for our D&D game. The format and its requirements were sufficiently different than the methods I use in face to face play, that it simply wasn’t tenable for me to run that way.

But shifting to other games, these challenges were far less significant.

 

[pointofyou]

When I said “you” I meant the general form. Or, perhaps more accurately, I meant “me”.

I wasn't offended and didn't mean to convey offense. Apologies.

I find it challenging to prepare D&D without plotting a course of some sort. I try to do that, and I think I pull it off sometimes… but the way the game works, it’s not as easy to do it as it is for other games.

This was brutally obvious when the pandemic hit and my face to face group decided to meet online for our D&D game. The format and its requirements were sufficiently different than the methods I use in face to face play, that it simply wasn’t tenable for me to run that way.

But shifting to other games, these challenges were far less significant.

Different approaches to prep will suit different people even if they're putatively prepping the same game. This is neither a surprise to me nor a problem. As I said I haven't "plotted a course" as GM for any game in more than a decade and the games I run are mostly games with authority structures similar to D&D.