GMs: Guiding Morals in GMing

[soviet]

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.

Clearly the 'pays off years later' aspect is not central to the point I made. Let's say 'pays off five sessions later'. What's different?

 

[hawkeyefan]

Clearly the 'pays off years later' aspect is not central to the point I made. Let's say 'pays off five sessions later'. What's different?

I don't see how that would preclude story now or no-myth type games. Pays off five sessions later doesn't require the level of forethought that I'm thinking of.

 

[soviet]

I don't see how that would preclude story now or no-myth type games. Pays off five sessions later doesn't require the level of forethought that I'm thinking of.

???
I didn't say that it would preclude story now.

 

[Celebrim]

Perhaps you’re not being as clear as you think? I’m reading what you write.

Ok, giving you the benefit of the doubt, you asserted: "From a player perspective, I’m discovering what’s in a dungeon as I make my way through it, whether it’s generated ahead of time by the GM or whether it’s generated though some procedure of play."

So back up in post #194 (GMs: Guiding Morals in GMing) I wrote:

"Well, that "generated through some procedure of play" is pretty darn broad. I concede that there are some procedures of play that are in fact equal to being pregenerated. An example of this would be purely "procedural generation" in a game like Nethack..."

I then went on to explain why, even though it was theoretically possible that some continuous procedure of play could in theory replicate the experience of pregenerated myth, it was highly unlikely in practice.

Then, after I had explained that, you then wrote in response to my post: "So what if I use multiple tables to generate a dungeon and its inhabitants and their possessions? If I use this method a week before play and write down the results, then that allows for discovery… but if I follow the same method at the time of play, that doesn’t?"

Now, that's baffling, because if you'd actually read my post you would have known the answer to your question. If you use multiple tables to generate a dungeon through a strictly procedurally process, then - as I already explained- it doesn't matter whether you generate the content ahead of time or at play time because in both cases you the GM have reduced your ability to choose down to zero. In fact, I spelled this out as specific example of a procedure of play that was theoretically equal to pregenerated myth before you first raised the question. You can go back to the above post and read my discussion of it.

In the larger context, what the GM has done here is replace some of the shackles on GM agency in the form of established myth with one of the other shackles on GM agency - fortune - so that ultimately the GM is still reducing their ability as a GM to influence the setting according to their own wishes and thus giving space for the player to have agency. And in both cases, you've also provided for Discovery because the players doing the discovering still have something to discover that is real, which is in this case the intricate tables and processes you are using to simulate human creativity and the concrete setting that those tables ultimately produce.

Now as a practical matter, as someone who has used random tables as a prompt to the imagination, I think you'll find if you try to do this as a continuous process with something like generating the room after the door is opened or the corridor is traversed, it doesn't actually work to replicate pregenerated myth because you end up generating content which should have influenced prior rooms. Content "leaks" between locations through things like sound, water flows, scent, light, and influence (monsters living in "A" probably know something about what is in "B" and act accordingly). And because this random process is more suited to a computer than a human rolling a dice, you find that you can't do it seamlessly unless you pregenerate sufficiently large sections (as for example Nethack does by generating whole levels at a time).

 

[hawkeyefan]

???
I didn't say that it would preclude story now.

That's how I interpreted the below post. Is that not what you meant? A mystery must be predetermined in order to not be "yolo it's whatever the GM decides at the second of revalation"?

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.

 

[soviet]

That's how I interpreted the below post. Is that not what you meant? A mystery must be predetermined in order to not be "yolo it's whatever the GM decides at the second of revalation"?

You can play story now with predetermined answers to mysteries.

 

[hawkeyefan]

You can play story now with predetermined answers to mysteries.

Or you can play without them.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Ok, giving you the benefit of the doubt, you asserted: "From a player perspective, I’m discovering what’s in a dungeon as I make my way through it, whether it’s generated ahead of time by the GM or whether it’s generated though some procedure of play."

So back up in post #194 (GMs: Guiding Morals in GMing) I wrote:

"Well, that "generated through some procedure of play" is pretty darn broad. I concede that there are some procedures of play that are in fact equal to being pregenerated. An example of this would be purely "procedural generation" in a game like Nethack..."

I then went on to explain why, even though it was theoretically possible that some continuous procedure of play could in theory replicate the experience of pregenerated myth, it was highly unlikely in practice.

Then, after I had explained that, you then wrote in response to my post: "So what if I use multiple tables to generate a dungeon and its inhabitants and their possessions? If I use this method a week before play and write down the results, then that allows for discovery… but if I follow the same method at the time of play, that doesn’t?"

Now, that's baffling, because if you'd actually read my post you would have known the answer to your question. If you use multiple tables to generate a dungeon through a strictly procedurally process, then - as I already explained- it doesn't matter whether you generate the content ahead of time or at play time because in both cases you the GM have reduced your ability to choose down to zero. In fact, I spelled this out as specific example of a procedure of play that was theoretically equal to pregenerated myth before you first raised the question. You can go back to the above post and read my discussion of it.

In the larger context, what the GM has done here is replace some of the shackles on GM agency in the form of established myth with one of the other shackles on GM agency - fortune - so that ultimately the GM is still reducing their ability as a GM to influence the setting according to their own wishes and thus giving space for the player to have agency. And in both cases, you've also provided for Discovery because the players doing the discovering still have something to discover that is real, which is in this case the intricate tables and processes you are using to simulate human creativity and the concrete setting that those tables ultimately produce.

Now as a practical matter, as someone who has used random tables as a prompt to the imagination, I think you'll find if you try to do this as a continuous process with something like generating the room after the door is opened or the corridor is traversed, it doesn't actually work to replicate pregenerated myth because you end up generating content which should have influenced prior rooms. Content "leaks" between locations through things like sound, water flows, scent, light, and influence (monsters living in "A" probably know something about what is in "B" and act accordingly). And because this random process is more suited to a computer than a human rolling a dice, you find that you can't do it seamlessly unless you pregenerate sufficiently large sections (as for example Nethack does by generating whole levels at a time).

Do you mean where you said "Yes, it's possible.... except it's not possible" except with a lot more words? I read that. I was asking you to commit to an answer.

But either way, I don't think the reasons you've cited really prevent what we're talking about. You don't need to be a computer to perform the job.

Nor do I think that every instance of improv will somehow fall short compared to every instance of using prep. I don't even think it's more likely... in my experience, prepping so much ahead of time is what tends to lead to more contradictions. The persistent nature of the fiction that you mention is at less risk when something's not determined ahead of time. There's nothing to contradict.

 

[Umbran]

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

Mod Note:
Could you please try to handle such things without accusatory snark? Like, maybe by just not responding to them going forward?

Because this doesn't generally de-escalate things, and it makes the discussion about the other poster, rather than the topic the two of you are supposed to be talking about.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

While I get where you're coming from, you have to admit that if you never get to unleash your creation on some poor unsuspecting PCs it's just not quite as satisfying.