GMs: Guiding Morals in GMing

[hawkeyefan]

The act of creation is of value in and of itself, for one. It's actually the most enjoyment I get out of the hobby; as much as I like running and playing, worldbuilding is my true love in gaming. What it seems you're saying is that all of that is meaningless unless and until you sit around a table and unleash your creation on some PCs. I cannot accept that, and while I'm sure you don't mean that opinion to be insulting, that is how it feels to me.

No, that’s not what I mean. All of that is perfectly fine as far as your personal enjoyment goes, and what you like about RPGing. I would in no way say what you’re doing is pointless if you find it fun.

But we were talking specifically about players discovering things during play. So my comments were all with that in mind.

I don’t think the method you prefer is necessary for discovery to take place, that’s all.

 

[soviet]

The point is, when my character tries to figure out who the murderer is, or why there's a polar bear and a smoke monster on the island, is there a pre-existing answer that I can discern, or is it just 'yolo it's whatever the GM decides at the second of revelation'? These are very different playstyles.

Whether the pre-existing answer was written down is less important than whether or not it existed at all.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, that’s not what I mean. All of that is perfectly fine as far as your personal enjoyment goes, and what you like about RPGing. I would in no way say what you’re doing is pointless if you find it fun.

But we were talking specifically about players discovering things during play. So my comments were all with that in mind.

I don’t think the method you prefer is necessary for discovery to take place, that’s all.

Fair enough. As has been said, however, the issue for some of us is not how long before the PCs encounter something that is created, but rather whether or not we can be confident that whatever is created doesn't take into account the actions and desires of the players and their PCs at the moment. The easiest way to do that, and make something vivid and complete enough to feel fully interactive and verisimilitudinous, is to create these world details ahead of time, and stick with them. That means that when you decided that there are 10 goblins in that room, when the PC enter those 10 goblins are there, regardless of how well-prepared (or not) the PCs are to deal with them at the moment.

If you as a GM are confident you can make those decisions fairly without prep, go for it (although it still wouldn't be to my taste from either side of the screen). But otherwise, the game loses something important, at least to me.

 

[soviet]

Something I've taken to doing recently is, if the group have gone off piste in some way and I'm outside my prep, I'll take a minute to decide what's there just while the players are chatting between themselves etc. Just so there is an underlying objective reality to be discovered or interacted with.

 

[soviet]

In a recent session I had an NPC complain about howling at night from round the abandoned tower, which is where the players were already planning to explore. The NPC was just an excited villager and said it was probably werewolves. I knew that it was a foxhound belonging to a burglar who had been killed by a trap in the entrance to the tower. The players however accepted the werewolf theory at face value and ran with it, spending another day and most of their money to get their weapons silvered.

I knew this wasn't needed, and they could have easily found that out for themselves if they'd asked more questions or done some scouting, so it was kind of amusing to see them first take the precautions and then later realise for themselves they'd been mistaken when a friendly foxhound approached them rather than a savage werewolf. But this all relied on the predefined fact of what was at the tower. If I'd left the decision of what was there until that moment of discovery - werewolf or foxhound? - it would have felt like either pandering or a gotcha.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The point is, when my character tries to figure out who the murderer is, or why there's a polar bear and a smoke monster on the island, is there a pre-existing answer that I can discern, or is it just 'yolo it's whatever the GM decides at the second of revelation'? These are very different playstyles.

Whether the pre-existing answer was written down is less important than whether or not it existed at all.

I think this is one of those times where authored fiction like Babylon 5 and Lost are probably not the best comparison to RPGs. Talking about plotlines that pay off years later… that requires a level of craft that would run counter to what many would say is a big part of what makes RPGs special.

Unless by discovery we’re talking purely about discovering what the GM has already decided.

 

[Celebrim]

So what about the question I posed? If I use a bunch of tables to generate a random dungeon and record it all a week before play, is that different (as it pertains to your take on discovery) than if I did so at the moment of play?

Well, I guess that answers my question: you aren't reading anything I write.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well, I guess that answers my question: you aren't reading anything I write.

Perhaps you’re not being as clear as you think? I’m reading what you write. Mostly it seems to be about certain types of play having an imagined shortcoming.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Perhaps you’re not being as clear as you think? I’m reading what you write. Mostly it seems to be about certain types of play having an imagined shortcoming.

It's not imagined. It's just that, for your style It's not a shortcoming. No one is going to be convinced here.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It's not imagined. It's just that, for your style It's not a shortcoming. No one is going to be convinced here.

I’m not talking about two different preferences here. Preferences are what they are, and that’s fine.

I’m talking about the insistence that if a GM doesn’t write down or otherwise strongly commit to things ahead of time, that he’s simply deciding things on a whim.

That’s simply incorrect. But the insistence that it’s not shows a pretty big blind spot in @Celebrim ‘s reasoning.