Freeform GMing

[Rel]

I've been moving in the direction of more "improvisational gaming" for the last few years. Definitely with the Con/Game Day games I run and, to a slightly lesser extent, with my weekly campaigns.

My opinion on the matter is this: System matters.

Some game systems lend themselves much more easily to on the fly GMing than others. This is of course going to vary by individual. For example I easily run Basic D&D as an improvised game but I don't like to run 3eD&D as an improv game.

I think there is a distinction to be made between having a sort of vague "session outline" and full on improv GMing. Most of my weekly campaign games fall into the former category. I have a pretty good idea of what's likely to happen and I've browsed through the books, perhaps written down a line or two of monster stats and a magic item I may hand out, but other than that I can adapt to whatever twists and turns the sessions take. Then there are games where I step up to the game table having absolutely no idea who the characters will be or what the adventure will be like.

My favorite game to do this with is Old School Hack and I got a chance to do so again on Sunday. I also played Fiasco on Saturday, which is entirely improvisational for all participants (there is no GM for that game). I've found that all this exercise of the improv muscles in my brain has really aided my ability to roll with the unusual turns that my weekly games sometimes take. I recommend that people give it a shot.

 

[Umbran]

I think there is a distinction to be made between having a sort of vague "session outline" and full on improv GMing.

Full-on improv has one basic issue a GM has to deal with - collectively, the players have more brains than the GM.

In more pre-planned gaming, this isn't much of a problem. What the GM lacks in all-out processing power is made up for in prep time. The GM has time to think through what he or she is setting up - logical holes get patched, strategy and tactics get planned ahead of time, stats get tweaked, physical layouts get more thorough design, and so forth.

In full-on improv, the GM loses much of that strength. The GM doesn't have time to polish things up, so the players will uncover more logical and physical inconsistencies. The players will now generally be tactically superior to the GM as well.

All of these things can be managed, but they do present a challenge to a GM trying to improvise when they're used to doing a lot of planning ahead of time.

Full on improv also has a whole lot of what some folks would consider "fudging" of NPC and monster stats and abilities - the things you face are likely not written down or set in stone when you roll for initiative. If you don't like the GM making up monsters as you fight them, improv sessions may not be for you.

 

[Rugsrat]

I've pretty much given up on planning anything concrete for my sessions. The only things I have are my NPC's names and motivations, and then I drop the players in and say "go."

I think this is because the first session of the first game I've ever run was supposed to be a super cheesy Superhero game using the Marvel Universe RPG engine. Started off easy: Bank robbery with a powerhouse NPC. They capture him, yay! Then they torture him... yeesh. So my plans for hijinks pretty much became more gritty than Frank Miller comics. Though I must say, I'm still incredibly happy with how that game went.

The game I'm running now I basically started as improv. Get off the slave plantation, then what? There's a city that was in ruins until about a month ago. Now its magically rebuilt itself.

So now they're on a quest for the ghostly rulers of this city. I have no idea what I'm going to tell them on Sunday (my next session). But I think whatever it is will be fun.

But I do agree that there needs to be a certain level of maturity from both the players and the GM to make it work out. I was there for a one-shot Zombie-horror game that devolved into slapstick because the players were just out of control. I'm very fortunate that my player base is both active and mature enough to not run my game into the ground.

 

[Rel]

In full-on improv, the GM loses much of that strength. The GM doesn't have time to polish things up, so the players will uncover more logical and physical inconsistencies. The players will now generally be tactically superior to the GM as well.

All of these things can be managed, but they do present a challenge to a GM trying to improvise when they're used to doing a lot of planning ahead of time.

Full on improv also has a whole lot of what some folks would consider "fudging" of NPC and monster stats and abilities - the things you face are likely not written down or set in stone when you roll for initiative. If you don't like the GM making up monsters as you fight them, improv sessions may not be for you.

The game that I've been doing this with primarily has been Old School Hack and it handles this stuff beautifully. The setting is meant to be fairly stereotypical "old school fantasy" that isn't taken too seriously and thus any inconsistencies are easy to gloss over.

Monster and NPC stats and abilities are so abbreviated (you basically just assign them Hit Points, a weapon type and an armor type and you're done) that it's incredibly simple to do on the fly. All all monster special abilities are fueled by Awesome Points, which are paid to the player's pool as you go and so you don't need stats for that either.

For example my adventure on Sunday included a sea monster they were fighting. I decided it would be fun for the Fighter to get swallowed so, after a successful hit on the Fighter I paid three Awesome Points into the bowl and put the Fighter inside the sea monster.

It's a system that requires a lot of GM/Player trust but my experiences running it free form have been consistently fun and hilarious.

 

[Mark CMG]

Full-on improv has one basic issue a GM has to deal with - collectively, the players have more brains than the GM.

(. . .)

Full on improv also has a whole lot of what some folks would consider "fudging" of NPC and monster stats and abilities - the things you face are likely not written down or set in stone when you roll for initiative. If you don't like the GM making up monsters as you fight them, improv sessions may not be for you.

GMs who allow their players to work from the misconception that RPGing (or even improv) is a competition (and GMs who approach RPGing as a competition themselves) will find this style of gaming of problematic.

 

[Thasmodious]

Full-on improv has one basic issue a GM has to deal with - collectively, the players have more brains than the GM.

Not my players. I think that's the real key to improv play - dumb players.

I'm kidding, of course, I have a great group of players and the two points you raise are valid criticisms of the style. The first issue (the potential increase in logical inconsistencies and the like) is mitigated with players who don't mind a bit of ret-conning should the GM forget something or on-the-fly a detail that doesn't make sense. In my group, we just talk it out if someone sees a problem. Now, if they find it funny and embarrassing that same group will never let something go, but that just adds to the fun.

Another mitigating issue is good note-taking, both during game and in prep as I mentioned before.

On the second issue, encounters on the fly, I find that as long as the players don't think you are outright trying to screw them over, they don't mind this and don't really see it, anyway.

I agree with Rel that system matters here and system tempers expectations. A system like 3e, where everyone is built from the same frame, players notice when a fudged NPC or monster has cool abilities or combinations that they don't have access to. And players are a jealous lot. One accidental benefit with my particular group is that none of them are the system mastery types. I had to practically force them to make a build plan in 3e, and they hated having to do it, and none of them are overly proficient with the rules. Even when I'm not the DM, I'm still the rules guy. As a player, this presents a minor problem in that they think I always have the ability to get one over on them because I know the rules. And that's usually true, but they can pick up a book, too.

 

[Umbran]

T
It's a system that requires a lot of GM/Player trust but my experiences running it free form have been consistently fun and hilarious.

No doubt. My critique in no way is saying it is bad to improvise. I improv a lot in my own game. However, it is good to know what you're getting into.

Improv works well for things like you've described - hilarity is easy in improv. Trying to improv a serious murder mystery, however, may not be the best choice.

I typically use an outline format, probably much like yours - I plan the details that matter, the things that require forethought on my part to make them work, but as little beyond that as possible.

GMs who allow their players to work from the misconception that RPGing (or even improv) is a competition (and GMs who approach RPGing as a competition themselves) will find this style of gaming of problematic.

I was more thinking of the sort who want to view the GM as a "neutral arbiter of rules". Those folks, too, will have issues, as the GM's creation process can't be cleanly separated from the game play in improv. If you aren't the sort who likes the GM altering an encounter while he or she is resolving it, improv will be problematic.

So, as Rel notes - trust is key. Even more, being trustworthy is key - you have to be the sort of GM who will add (or take away) things because they make the game more fun for them, not because you're annoyed that they killed off your BBEG.

 

[Mark CMG]

I was more thinking of the sort who want to view the GM as a "neutral arbiter of rules".

The first sentence of your previous post seemed to suggest you were posting about a competitive situation.

Full-on improv has one basic issue a GM has to deal with - collectively, the players have more brains than the GM.

As does the last sentence of your more recent post.

Even more, being trustworthy is key - you have to be the sort of GM who will add (or take away) things because they make the game more fun for them, not because you're annoyed that they killed off your BBEG.

It's everyone's BBEG, really, in an RPG where the GM is "neutral" and acting as a facilitator. But it is also true that trust needs to exist in any game situation where one person acts as facilitator/referee/GM etc. However, I generally post from a POV where trust is a given and games without trust are aberrant. One of the mottos of improvisation is "Let's go somewhere, anywhere, together" which allows for as many brains as are participating and, even when one takes on a facilitator role, there is no distinction regarding sides that would cause someone to tally up players versus GM (and potentially co- or assistant GM) brains.

 

[Guest 85555]

I'm talking about freedom, man. Puttin' your conceptions aside and just experience RPG life, man. Let the players do the heavy lifting, just kick back and take it all in, roll some dice, and see what happens, man.

Ok, so not quite like that, but the last couple of years, my GM style has become increasingly freeform to the point where I plan next to nothing narratively or structurally and run a game where the players really dictate the action. It's not the same thing as sandbox, with its site-based adventuring (if the PCs go here, this happens or they encounter this) although some elements of sandbox show up. And it's pretty far removed from narrative GMing, although the PCs manage to get involved in plenty of plot lines.

What I most enjoy about the form is the freedom (both for the GM and the players) and challenge of thinking on my feet and focusing prep on tools that allow me to do so as fluidly as possible. I'm curious how many others GM in a similar vein and what they see as the strengths and weaknesses of this style (could we call it GMing Commando, or Freeballin'?). And any tips, tricks and tools they'd like to share? Critical discussion of the merits or demerits of the style are very welcome as well.

I am not sure if this is quite what you mean, but generally run what I call "living adventures" where I insert NPCs and Events, and just let the players react. So I may have a set of NPCs (or powergroups) all trying to achieve a particular object, and I may have a general sense of things that will occur as a result of that along a particular timeline. But once I introduce the PCs, everything can change. That means the event timeline can be altered in response to PC actions, and the NPCs adapt to PC behavior.

Here is how I like to think of it: before I used to sit down and come up with my plan for the adventure as a GM. Now I sit down and come up with my NPCs plans. I don't worry about adventure structure at all.

 

[scourger]

I can't do total freeform, but the improvisational moments of my GMing have presented me some of the most fun. I find a framework for me to work within then gives me the flexibility to improvise when & as needed. I need a map but not necessarily a prescribed route.