GMs: Guiding Morals in GMing

[GrahamWills]

I'm not so sure about that. Having both run and played in campaigns where the plotline payoff was years in the making and highly satisfying when it finally arrived, I posit they can - if done well - in fact be what makes RPGs special.

I'm going to second this -- and also amplify it. The phrase "the plotline payoff" makes it sound a little like the GM has managed to force the players into a scene they had envisaged from the start, whereas in my experience (and I expect Lanefan's also), it's a resolution that was envisaged and developed by the GM, but substantially modified by player input over time.

I am a big fan of this style of campaign design; in fact just yesterday I finished off a 30ish session 13th Age campaign EYES OF THE STONE THIEF. For session zero I asked players to come up with characters who hated the Stone Thief enough to devote their lives to destroying it. Absolutely everyone, in the whole campaign, knew what the final plotline payoff was going to be -- and it made for great fun. The way they planned to destroy it and the decisions they made to make that so (they destroyed Horizon and started an empire wide war between icons) were all player driven. It was a great end.

I've run the DRACULA DOSSIER which was a fantastic campaign. It's all about hunting down and killing Dracula, so again, final plotline payoff was obvious from the start. But, as a GM, I noticed a couple of the players had an interest in magic, so I developed a sub-plot of Bathory as a magician-vampire opposed to Dracula, and defeating her was part of the payoff. I planned that general outcome about a year out, but exactly how it worked (romancing Dracula's human magician and converting them to their side; tracking down Bathory's mentors; subverting a large section of Romanian air forces) was player input.

I am now running THE GREAT PENDRAGON CAMPAIGN. There's a lot of known plot in the story, but the players have strong input. They healed the Fisher King after a year, preventing the wasteland and freeing Dolorous Garde years before Lancelot even showed up. I strongly suspect one player is going to try and woo Gwenhyvar instead of Lancelot doing so. We know how the story will end, but the details of that end are more important than the facts of it.

Strongly supporting Lanefan's comments -- my observation is that campaigns that have no even vague end goal simply have been less fun to play and run. If it is an explicit end goal, the GM and players have an improved shared understanding of the world and are better able to create together. If the GM has a hidden ending (like the Bathory plot in DD) the players get to realize how their input has been changing the world in subtle ways -- it's not that the GM suddenly inserts a pre-planned ending on you; it's that they show you the ending that you have been unknowingly co-creating! And that's pretty cool!

 

[pointofyou]

Strongly supporting Lanefan's comments -- my observation is that campaigns that have no even vague end goal simply have been less fun to play and run. If it is an explicit end goal, the GM and players have an improved shared understanding of the world and are better able to create together. If the GM has a hidden ending (like the Bathory plot in DD) the players get to realize how their input has been changing the world in subtle ways -- it's not that the GM suddenly inserts a pre-planned ending on you; it's that they show you the ending that you have been unknowingly co-creating! And that's pretty cool!

My experience has been that campaigns that do not start out with any sort of end goal can be the best campaigns of all if an end goal is allowed to emerge from play. I strongly prefer campaigns where the players/characters choose their goals overall and I see no reason why an end goal cannot be similarly chosen.

 

[Celebrim]

It was a serious question. There have been a lot of somewhat vague descriptions in this thread of what does and does not fit the bill. Some people (both you and I btw) draw the line at that last bit in your post, but others have seemed to cast a much wider definitional net. If we are specifically talking about that list above then you and I agree.

So, I'm not sure if I'm one of the others with the wider definitional net. I don't think however I have a position at odds with @Lanefan, and if you agree with that statement by him, I suspect I can widen the definition in ways that won't offend you. Afterall, Lanefan put an "and so on" in his definition that made it clear that he was giving an example and not being all encompassing.

The two important points are first that the GM is making a fiat ruling that contradicts myth, rules, or fortune mechanics ("fudging") even if and especially if the myth, rules, or fortune aren't revealed to the player. And secondly, that the GM is put in a situation where his whim or desires are given free reign. In such a situation the GM is likely to consciously or unconsciously make decisions to get the game to turn out the way he wants it to turn out, and that the GM is consciously or unconsciously metagaming and making his decision based on his knowledge now of player action and what that action's outcome is likely to be. Note that if the GM is using the myth, rules, or fortune mechanics to make his decision on the basis of the player's action this is a very different process than deliberately forgoing the use of the myth, rules, or fortune mechanics. Following the process of applying the rules to the situation and rolling a dice to determine the outcome of anything that is indefinite results in outcomes that the GM may not desire. But almost by definition, if the GM is not constrained by the situation, the rules, or the fortune mechanic then it becomes impossible for anything to happen that the GM does not want to happen. If the GM isn't consciously limiting his own power over the situation, then the GM gets what the GM wants.

Running the game by fiat while pretending to be applying the situation, the rules, and the fortune mechanics is how I define "Illusionism", and for the last few pages I've been trying to answer the question, "But what's wrong with illusionism?"

My answer is, "Well, not necessarily anything, but if it is overused and over relied on then there are consequences most groups probably won't like."

And my not so hidden motivation behind this is that there are systems, designers and influencers out there that have been preaching a gospel of high illusionism as the secret to being a good GM. And I don't think it's as simple as that. If high illusionism were all it took to be a good GM, what did we ever develop rules and adventures for?

 

[Celebrim]

I've run and played in such games, as well. And while I wouldn't say that such a revelation can't be enjoyable, as we've already established, they're not unique to RPGs. And I think they come at a cost of something that is unique to RPGs.... player input.

We both care a lot about player input. We just have very different ideas about how to empower players so that they have real agency.

Pre-existing or not is perhaps binary, but that's not the same as pre-existing or existing only on a whim.

Agreed, and have always agreed with this claim. But I think you need to pay a lot more attention to your counter-example, because while I agree your counter-example is real, I think the nature of your counter-example utterly destroys the larger argument you are trying to construct.

There can be procedures in place to determine these things, and principles to guide any decisions involved so that nothing is happening on a whim.

Agreed. There can be procedures in place such that a GM that finds themself in the precarious situation of not having preexisting myth to guide them can still as much as possible reduce the metagaming that is inevitable at that point and which reduces the amount of whim that goes into their GM's ruling. And what's important about your counter-example is that it involves there being an alternative to pre-existing myth that is also preexisting and constrains the choices of the GM in a way similar to what preexisting myth would do. For example, you've brought up the use of random tables to fall back on when doing myth creation such that the GM's whim is constrained by fortune.

In my own play I tend to rely on preexisting myth (my notes) and if my notes are silent then I tend to fall back onto a random table if one exists, and if no table exists or is practical to use at the time, then I tend to fall back onto baseline demographics that I preestablished for the setting as representative of the average thing in the setting. For example, in my current Star Wars game, I outlined what default normal NPCs would be like so that if the PC's randomly get into combat or conflict with something or someone unexpectedly, then I just utilize a generic stat block for whatever they've gotten in combat with. And over time as I'm running the game, the number of stat blocks just builds up through all the prep I've done, so that I have more and more examples of what a generic X is probably like.

But notice that the sort of games and processes of play that are encouraging illusionism as the duct tape of gaming are not also big on things like random encounter tables and simulationist demographics and braining storming out "how the world works" and applying a uniform game rules as physics type simulation to everything and everyone uniformly. Games that have open ended "success with complications" or "fail forward" type mechanics and where GMs are encouraged to go "no myth" aren't instructing the GM to fall back on random tables or on demographics, but to explicitly utilize their own whim and own notions about what is best for the story to riff on the situation freely. And yes, there are advantages to doing that, and I'm not saying that that is always wrong, but I am saying it's not a panacea and doesn't fulfill all the aesthetics play, and notably does not in fact empower player agency in the way that is often claimed by that same system.

Likewise the influencers and authors pushing Illusionism as the solution to the burden of GM preparation are not coming forward with the fact that the process they are outlining is how to manage a well-run railroad. They aren't really getting into what you are trading away when you adopt their process of play, and as such IMO, aren't teaching GMs how to manage these different concerns using different techniques. They are just pretending the only tool you need in the toolbox is illusionism, which is probably true if the only thing you care about is the GM staying in full control of the story at all times.

 

[hawkeyefan]

We both care a lot about player input. We just have very different ideas about how to empower players so that they have real agency.

My point here was that, when it comes to long-term payoffs, a variety of media can achieve that kind of thing. But most media don't allow for the kind of input that players have in an RPG. So, no matter what, that's something more unique to RPGs than a long-term payoff.

I don't think that every instance of a long-term payoff is an instance of subverting player agency, but I think it's very likely. I mean, it's almost a given... if you plan thing X to happen in year 4 of a campaign, then you very likely have to steer toward that event.

Is long term payoff a quality of preparation or of play? If it's a quality of preparation, then it's predetermined. It's self-evident.

Agreed. There can be procedures in place such that a GM that finds themself in the precarious situation of not having preexisting myth to guide them can still as much as possible reduce the metagaming that is inevitable at that point and which reduces the amount of whim that goes into their GM's ruling. And what's important about your counter-example is that it involves there being an alternative to pre-existing myth that is also preexisting and constrains the choices of the GM in a way similar to what preexisting myth would do. For example, you've brought up the use of random tables to fall back on when doing myth creation such that the GM's whim is constrained by fortune.

I don't agree with your use of metagaming here. I think it's the game.

My counter-example was more about procedures, with tables being only one such example. You complained that it was too broad, so I offered a more specific example, but there are of course other procedures besides random tables.

There are also going to be elements that help constrain the GM's decision making... the setting, genre, what's already been established in play, and so on... these things are always going to impact play, unless a given game actively tries to eschew that kind of thing. This is not at all unique to traditional games.

In my own play I tend to rely on preexisting myth (my notes) and if my notes are silent then I tend to fall back onto a random table if one exists, and if no table exists or is practical to use at the time, then I tend to fall back onto baseline demographics that I preestablished for the setting as representative of the average thing in the setting. For example, in my current Star Wars game, I outlined what default normal NPCs would be like so that if the PC's randomly get into combat or conflict with something or someone unexpectedly, then I just utilize a generic stat block for whatever they've gotten in combat with. And over time as I'm running the game, the number of stat blocks just builds up through all the prep I've done, so that I have more and more examples of what a generic X is probably like.
But notice that the sort of games and processes of play that are encouraging illusionism as the duct tape of gaming are not also big on things like random encounter tables and simulationist demographics and braining storming out "how the world works" and applying a uniform game rules as physics type simulation to everything and everyone uniformly. Games that have open ended "success with complications" or "fail forward" type mechanics and where GMs are encouraged to go "no myth" aren't instructing the GM to fall back on random tables or on demographics, but to explicitly utilize their own whim and own notions about what is best for the story to riff on the situation freely. And yes, there are advantages to doing that, and I'm not saying that that is always wrong, but I am saying it's not a panacea and doesn't fulfill all the aesthetics play, and notably does not in fact empower player agency in the way that is often claimed by that same system.

What games do you mean here specifically? Can you provide any examples?

Likewise the influencers and authors pushing Illusionism as the solution to the burden of GM preparation are not coming forward with the fact that the process they are outlining is how to manage a well-run railroad. They aren't really getting into what you are trading away when you adopt their process of play, and as such IMO, aren't teaching GMs how to manage these different concerns using different techniques. They are just pretending the only tool you need in the toolbox is illusionism, which is probably true if the only thing you care about is the GM staying in full control of the story at all times.

I reject your use of "illusionism" here. I don't think the criticism you're making is all that rational. You're basically claiming that improvisational means of play like story-now or no-myth are always GM controlled railroads, and that high prep trad play is the only way to grant player agency. It seems... skewed.

Again, offer some examples.

 

[GrahamWills]

My experience has been that campaigns that do not start out with any sort of end goal can be the best campaigns of all if an end goal is allowed to emerge from play. I strongly prefer campaigns where the players/characters choose their goals overall and I see no reason why an end goal cannot be similarly chosen.

Oh absolutely. It’s just riskier. If you have no common goal, sometimes one player’s goal conflicts with another and the campaign suffers. Or people just get fed up with a meandering campaign.

But it’s mostly a preference thing.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm not @hawkeyefan, but one obvious third possibility is deciding during the course of play other than on a whim.

The two bolded bits above are, to me, synonymous.

If the GM is making these decisions in reaction to what the players/PCs do, rather than before the PCs even get there, that's decision-making on a whim.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Oh absolutely. It’s just riskier. If you have no common goal, sometimes one player’s goal conflicts with another and the campaign suffers. Or people just get fed up with a meandering campaign.

But it’s mostly a preference thing.

Or the goal can be less specific, allowing for a wider variety of outcomes. Like the Dracula Dossier need not be about destroying Dracula, although I think that's a very likely goal for the campaign. But it can instead be about destroying EDOM. Or somehow resuming/realizing the original mission of using vampires as tools of espionage.

Or look at a game like Blades in the Dark... there are common goals in the form of a Crew that the PCs want to advance in the echelons of power in the city. But how they do so and why is up to them. Or look at Spire, where the PCs are members of a clandestine revolutionary organization trying to subvert the rule of the city, but how they do so is entirely up to them; the book even says to avoid liberating the city as a goal in most games. Likewise, Stonetop has a common goal in keeping the steading safe and secure and trying to prosper. That goal is far less specific than "destroy the big bad monster", although it can actually become that.

I'd say the looser such long term goals are, the less likely the need to steer things by the GM.

 

[Lanefan]

Pre-existing or not is perhaps binary, but that's not the same as pre-existing or existing only on a whim. There can be procedures in place to determine these things, and principles to guide any decisions involved so that nothing is happening on a whim.

A decision made on the spur of the moment, whether guided by principles or not, is still a whim in my view.

But I think this also brings up an interesting question... when the GM decides a week or a month or a year ahead of time that there is a trap on door X in the dungeon... is he deciding that on a whim? Are there considerations he gives to that decision? Do those considerations take a significant amount of mental effort and/or time? Do they require complicated computations beyond human ability?

Valid questions all. For me (and maybe only me?) if the decision is made neutrally by any means - whim, prep, deep thought, random tables, whatever - before the GM knows anything about which PCs (or maybe even which players) will potentially meet that scenario, that's good enough.

Once the GM knows more about which players and-or PCs are likely to meet the scenario, that (IME anyway) can really disrupt the thought process, in that bias toward or against those particular PCs/players can all too easily creep in (e.g. [anti-PC] they have a Ranger, so I'd better make the floors stone to prevent tracking, or [pro-PC] they have flight capability so I'd better put a rooftop entrance up there for them to find if they look).

And suddenly I'm not neutral any more. Not good enough.

 

[Lanefan]

My experience has been that campaigns that do not start out with any sort of end goal can be the best campaigns of all if an end goal is allowed to emerge from play. I strongly prefer campaigns where the players/characters choose their goals overall and I see no reason why an end goal cannot be similarly chosen.

Why not have - or allow for - both?

There can (and IMO should) be a potential end goal put in place before the campaign even begins, which the campaign then may or may not ever get to as other end goals arise from play and take precedence and-or things happen during the campaign to make that original end goal redundant or irrelevant.