GMs: Guiding Morals in GMing

[hawkeyefan]

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.

I don't think they're synonymous at all. Whim implies lack of thought or consideration.

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

But the moment that the decision was made during prep need not be any more considered. It can be just as much of a whim. The moment of the decision can be just as sudden.

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.

But certainly many decisions rely on the characters interacting with the game world in some way, right? A lot of times a GM is prompted to make a decision in response to what the players do. Are all such decisions whims, in your opinion?

As for neutrality, I think its importance is greatly overstated. Or more broadly applied than I think is useful. I think fairness is relevant, and that GMs should honor the fiction or the game world and follow through with what makes sense. I think all of that kind of falls under the umbrella of neutrality as you're using it. But I also think the GM should be trying to make the game interesting. Certainly that has to be the case? And with that in mind, I think neutrality can go kick rocks.... make things interesting, make them challenging, put the characters in situations that can be sticky or costly.

 

[pointofyou]

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.

Eh. Having an end goal in place that doesn't take into consideration the players at the table and the characters they choose to play doesn't seem to me to be about seeing what happens as those characters engage the world. It seems to me more like seeing if those characters can get to the end goal. I very much prefer the former.

 

[GrahamWills]

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.

Very much agree. I made a good faith effort (as EDOM) to convert the players to the original mission; it was the players' choice as to which way to go.

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

Yup. Although I should add that I do less steering in a goal-oriented campaign than in a sandbox style one. In a goal-oriented campaign the players drive to the goal. If they lose focus or get swamped by other stories, it's something they can come back to. So, for me, setting a campaign goal is a way to give control to the players.

In contrast, when running sandbox games, it's very easy for the extrovert players to dominate the way the campaign goes. And it's also very common for things to grid to a halt and the GM is forced to intercede to set at least a short-term goal. So, although it may seem paradoxical, my experience is that setting clear (loose) goals actually increases player agency for the players overall, rather than decreasing it. It may reduce agency for the loud extrovert player who likes to lead the group, but for the players as a whole, I really think it helps.

 

[pemerton]

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.

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?

Vincent Baker says the following about how to author Fronts (from AW p 136):

[W]hen you create a front, follow your own inspiration. Choose the things that are suggestive to you, that put you in mind of apocalyptica, romance, violence, gore, danger, trauma. Choose the things you’d just <expletive deleted> kill to see well done on the big screen, and skip the things that don’t spark your interest.​

That said, he also says this (on the same page):

Creating a front means making decisions about backstory and about NPC motivations. Real decisions, binding ones, that call for creativity, attention and care. You do it outside of play, between sessions, so that you have the time and space to think.​

So whim ("inspiration") is expected to play a role, but not be all of it. Attention and care are also important, because this stuff is binding.

Of course, you're absolutely correct that decision-making during the course of play need not be on a whim. Whim is not synonymous with improvised or unprepared or spontaneous. The OED gives "whim" as meaning "A capricious notion or fancy; a fantastic or freakish idea; an odd fancy." That seems about right to me. Not everything that is improvised or spontaneous need be capricious. Given my day job, I have two models of highly serious spontaneous decision-making: how to answer a question when giving a paper (or even a lecture, seminar etc); and a judicial decision made during the course of a hearing. Both require decision-making on the spur of the moment. Neither, when done well, involves acting on a whim.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Vincent Baker says the following about how to author Fronts (from AW p 136):

[W]hen you create a front, follow your own inspiration. Choose the things that are suggestive to you, that put you in mind of apocalyptica, romance, violence, gore, danger, trauma. Choose the things you’d just <expletive deleted> kill to see well done on the big screen, and skip the things that don’t spark your interest.​

That said, he also says this (on the same page):

Creating a front means making decisions about backstory and about NPC motivations. Real decisions, binding ones, that call for creativity, attention and care. You do it outside of play, between sessions, so that you have the time and space to think.​

So whim ("inspiration") is expected to play a role, but not be all of it. Attention and care are also important, because this stuff is binding.

Of course, you're absolutely correct that decision-making during the course of play need not be on a whim. Whim is not synonymous with improvised or unprepared or spontaneous. The OED gives "whim" as meaning "A capricious notion or fancy; a fantastic or freakish idea; an odd fancy." That seems about right to me. Not everything that is improvised or spontaneous need be capricious. Given my day job, I have two models of highly serious spontaneous decision-making: how to answer a question when giving a paper (or even a lecture, seminar etc); and a judicial decision made during the course of a hearing. Both require decision-making on the spur of the moment. Neither, when done well, involves acting on a whim.

Yeah, to me, a whim is something that has no reason… no explanation. If a GM can say “I made this decision based on x, y, and z” then he’s not making his decision on a whim.

I think the idea that a decision made in the moment must be in some way inferior to a decision made ahead of time is bunk. Especially considering just as much thought goes into plenty of prepared material, and any RPG I can think of requires at least some decisions in the moment.

 

[clearstream]

I think the idea that a decision made in the moment must be in some way inferior to a decision made ahead of time is bunk. Especially considering just as much thought goes into plenty of prepared material, and any RPG I can think of requires at least some decisions in the moment.

I'd put it that they have differentiable virtues.

In the moment, one can be responsive to the moment. Who's involved and what's going on right now.

In advance, one can try ideas on for size. Review them against whatever qualities matter to you. Winnow them down.

The two interplay. That's what VB is envisioning. He's not saying make decisions in advance so that you don't have to make any in the moment. He's saying make some kinds of decisions in advance so that what you say in the moment is more powerful.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'd put it that they have differentiable virtues.

In the moment, one can be responsive to the moment. Who's involved and what's going on right now.

In advance, one can try ideas on for size. Review them against whatever qualities matter to you. Winnow them down.

The two interplay. That's what VB is envisioning. He's not saying make decisions in advance so that you don't have to make any in the moment. He's saying make some kinds of decisions in advance so that what you say in the moment is more powerful.

Sure, I don’t disagree. My point is simply that prep can also be decided on a whim. I know this because I’ve certainly done so.

It would be silly for me to conclude that all prep is on a whim.

 

[Celebrim]

Eh. Having an end goal in place that doesn't take into consideration the players at the table and the characters they choose to play doesn't seem to me to be about seeing what happens as those characters engage the world. It seems to me more like seeing if those characters can get to the end goal. I very much prefer the former.

In my experience, what is best depends on how many players you have. The more players you have the more you need some obvious in the setting goal for the group to achieve and a hook to get them started. The fewer players you have, the more you can serve the individual goals of players as the primary focus of the campaign. To me the cut off is at 4 players. Below 4 players and individual goals can dominate. If you have only 1 player, you don't need to impose any structure. Two or three players can usually negotiate their own group goals. But at 4 players and up, you really need to have some larger structure to bring the group together, make sure everyone has something to do, make sure that the group doesn't break up into several campaigns simultaneously, make sure that the most extroverted player at the table doesn't dominate the play, make sure that the group doesn't fight over spotlight, reduce the chance of intraparty conflict due to conflicting goals, and so forth. By the time you get up to 8 players, individual goals have to be basically abandoned as there just isn't enough spotlight time to share across all the disparate goals and you need ensure everyone has something to work towards collectively. By the time you get up to 12 players, you need a Caller and all the other artifacts of Gygaxian play as outlined in the 1e DMG including Haven and Delve formats so that a player missing that week doesn't stop play from happening.

 

[pointofyou]

In my experience, what is best depends on how many players you have. The more players you have the more you need some obvious in the setting goal for the group to achieve and a hook to get them started. The fewer players you have, the more you can serve the individual goals of players as the primary focus of the campaign. To me the cut off is at 4 players. Below 4 players and individual goals can dominate. If you have only 1 player, you don't need to impose any structure. Two or three players can usually negotiate their own group goals. But at 4 players and up, you really need to have some larger structure to bring the group together, make sure everyone has something to do, make sure that the group doesn't break up into several campaigns simultaneously, make sure that the most extroverted player at the table doesn't dominate the play, make sure that the group doesn't fight over spotlight, reduce the chance of intraparty conflict due to conflicting goals, and so forth. By the time you get up to 8 players, individual goals have to be basically abandoned as there just isn't enough spotlight time to share across all the disparate goals and you need ensure everyone has something to work towards collectively. By the time you get up to 12 players, you need a Caller and all the other artifacts of Gygaxian play as outlined in the 1e DMG including Haven and Delve formats so that a player missing that week doesn't stop play from happening.

What is best on this axis depends at least as much on who your players are as on how many there are. I've recently run D&D-ish games for parties of three and five and six and I've never needed to start the campaign any sort of "obvious in-the-setting goal" for the parties to achieve in mind. All the goals have emerged from play. Different experiences are of course different.

 

[Celebrim]

What is best on this axis depends at least as much on who your players are as on how many there are. I've recently run D&D-ish games for parties of three and five and six and I've never needed to start the campaign any sort of "obvious in-the-setting goal" for the parties to achieve in mind. All the goals have emerged from play. Different experiences are of course different.

Maybe it should be a thread fork, but I'd love to have a more detailed description of how you go about achieving that. What is your prep like? Do you have a setting or sandbox you are initially drawing from? How do you hook players into possible attractions so that they aren't flailing about in a rowboat and getting bored? Do you have an initial introductory adventure and then once some momentum is going you let the players figure out what to do next? Do you describe initial fronts and forces and their plans? Do you work adventures up from backstories or in session zero discuss player character goals or conflicts and go from there? What sort of pressure do you place on player character creation to ensure you have a cohesive group, if any? Do your groups lean heavily on thespian play where people act out their characters in first person? I'd love to know more about how you make this work.