Let's talk about "plot", "story", and "play to find out."

[pemerton]

That is fair - you have never had a time limit on an RPG. OK.

You have been in a privileged situation of:
"Hey, Jenn is moving next month. She is being deployed, and she wants closure on the campaign?"
or
"Hey, Jim really wants to run Daggerheart next, so he needs to know when your campaign will end so he can start prepping by buying minis, writing the campaign, printing maps, etc."
or
"Hey, Jean needs to start bringing her kids to the game or leave. Do you think you can add them? We know it will change the entire nature of the adultness of the campaign, but they will only be here six months?"

No one minds if you are in a privileged gaming spot. In fact, most people will applaud it (including me - lucky you). But there are tables out there that do have time limits and restrictions.

Huh? How did your claim about the comparison of running a session to a lesson-plan like outline suddenly turn into a licence to make fun of me for my "privilege"?

If you're trying to resolve a campaign before someone moves away, or whatever, sure, maybe that's different. Is that every session that you GM, though? You certainly didn't say or imply that in your post!

I also don't accept the implication that because I'm not working to a session outline, my game is running slowly. Based on my recent experience of comparing my Mythic Bastionland first session to someone else in a Mythic Bastionland campaign, I have the impression that my group gets through quite a bit of content in a given session. It's just not pre-planned content!

Most tables DO have time limits upon them, be it imposed through social constraints, work constraints, or family constraints. Therefore, to me, it is exactly like a lesson plan: Sometimes you need to get through this material by such-and-such a date in order to make the players happy.

Do they? I mean, maybe most tables are something like Let's do this Adventure Path in 6 months of weekly sessions. In that case, advice on "play to find out" doesn't have much relevance to them. What they need are a suite of good railroading techniques. I think both Justin Alexander and Eero Tuovinen have posted some useful blogs about that.

 

[Scott Christian]

That’s like, your opinion man that you’re casting as truth. My games with a sketch of potential at most have been far more engaging for my players and myself then any pre-scripted adventure I’ve seen. I know this because I’ve run highly prepped stuff and highly improved things with the same groups and we talk about play after. The latter consistently have higher player buy-in, engagement, and excitement on a constant basis.

If you’re now twisting to say that “oh a collaborative table (most conventional D&D is non-collaborative in the sense I mean) is just RPGing” then you’re running off some set of in-house definitions far outside the norm.

I never said they weren't engaging. In fact, I even declared they could be GREAT STORIES!

The only thing I said is that most tables that lean on improv are not as internally consistent as tables that do a "boatload of prep."

No offense, but I have such a hard time believing anyone if they can't express this truth. A GM (we'll call her Laura) spends 200 hours creating a town, dungeon, cosmology, and kingdom for her world. Notes, upon notes, upon NPCs, upon, magic items, upon ecosystems, and most of all, upon culture.

Now take Liam. He is improving the whole bit: NPCs, magic items, ecosystems, and culture.

On average, is Laura or Liam going to be more internally consistent?

 

[Scott Christian]

That said, I don't think the consistency issue is as big a one as you seem to.

And here, I will point you to what I said earlier:

The contradictory plot elements and terrible pacing is something that happens when it's more reliant on improvisation. And that does not mean a great story isn't being created! But, as a player who hyper-focuses on those two things (and never says anything about them), I can say that a lot of prep goes a long way in eliminating the messiness.

It isn't for some players. I secede that part of the argument. But for some (not just me, but others I have talked to), it is a VERY big deal. And it is spotted from a million miles away with someone who improvs, which makes it even harder to deal with.

 

[Scott Christian]

Huh? How did your claim about the comparison of running a session to a lesson-plan like outline suddenly turn into a licence to make fun of me for my "privilege"?

If you're trying to resolve a campaign before someone moves away, or whatever, sure, maybe that's different. Is that every session that you GM, though? You certainly didn't say or imply that in your post!

I also don't accept the implication that because I'm not working to a session outline, my game is running slowly. Based on my recent experience of comparing my Mythic Bastionland first session to someone else in a Mythic Bastionland campaign, I have the impression that my group gets through quite a bit of content in a given session. It's just not pre-planned content!

Huh? You literally just said this an hour ago:

I've also taught, for over 30 years, although in a higher education rather than school context.

I don't find the comparison between a lesson and a RPG session very apt. When I take a lesson, there is a certain amount of material that I have to get through, in order to deliver the prescribed curriculum within the timeframe allocated (X hours per less, Y lessons per week, Z weeks per semester). Therefore, planning how I will get through it, making room for dealing with student questions, handling student questions during the course of the lesson, etc are all important factors.

But a RPG session is not like that at all! As a GM, I'm not in a didactic relationship to the players at all. There's not some pre-established content that I "have" to get through. I look to the game system itself, and the unfolding events of play - and the way the former handles the latter - to ensure pacing.

The thought about lesson is lessons. A singular session. A unit implies greater restriction and concentration. Grades need to be in on time, as does sometimes a level. Rewards need to be given as do magic items. Spotlights need to be given (differential learning) as do scenes that highlight characters.

So, it is clear you don't need to do anything of these things on pre-established guidelines, they just happen when you want them to?

 

[pemerton]

Grades need to be in on time, as does sometimes a level. Rewards need to be given as do magic items. Spotlights need to be given (differential learning) as do scenes that highlight characters.

So, it is clear you don't need to do anything of these things on pre-established guidelines, they just happen when you want them to?

I follow the rules of the game I'm playing.

For instance, 4e D&D connects treasure parcels to levels. So when I was GMing 4e D&D, as the PCs accrued XP on their way to their next level, I would introduce treasure - most often in the form of gifts or "power ups" rather than loot - in accordance with the treasure parcel economy.

But levels were gained as the XP rules dictate, and XP were awarded as the rules for encounters (including skill challenges), quests, and free roleplaying dictate. There was no need for levels to be gained "on time".

When it comes to scenes, my approach again follows the game. When I GMed Wuthering Heights, I didn't have any scenes in mind until the players had generated their PCs. Then I framed the first scene, at the bookshop. The actual play post explains how I did that, and also how subsequent scenes followed on. None was planned in advance: they couldn't have been, given how the game works.

Burning Wheel is the same as Wuthering Heights in this respect, and this is also one way that I've approached Marvel Heroic RP.

When I was primarily GMing 4e D&D, I would often come up with ideas for scenes in advance of play: mostly either combat encounters or skill challenges. I would use them when the developing situation in the game made it appropriate to do so. (One result of that was that some of my prep - in particular, I remember a scene involving Scarecrows, a type of automaton from (I think) the 4e MM3 - never got used.)

I don't think about "spotlighting" when I think about scenes that I might run or prep. I rely on my players to take care of that!

And here, I will point you to what I said earlier:

It isn't for some players. I secede that part of the argument. But for some (not just me, but others I have talked to), it is a VERY big deal. And it is spotted from a million miles away with someone who improvs, which makes it even harder to deal with.

You read my Wuthering Height session report. Where was the inconsistency? (I mean, we even Googled the distance from Soho to the Thames to make sure we got that bit right.)

I never said they weren't engaging. In fact, I even declared they could be GREAT STORIES!

The only thing I said is that most tables that lean on improv are not as internally consistent as tables that do a "boatload of prep."

No offense, but I have such a hard time believing anyone if they can't express this truth. A GM (we'll call her Laura) spends 200 hours creating a town, dungeon, cosmology, and kingdom for her world. Notes, upon notes, upon NPCs, upon, magic items, upon ecosystems, and most of all, upon culture.

Now take Liam. He is improving the whole bit: NPCs, magic items, ecosystems, and culture.

On average, is Laura or Liam going to be more internally consistent?

I've got serious doubts that the typical GM's prepped culture is internally consistent at all, at least by my standards. I find most fantasy cultures very implausible.

As far as the town, kingdom etc are concerned, I think you're assuming a pretty specific approach to play. One to which "play to find out" techniques may not be well suited.

 

[zarionofarabel]

I never said they weren't engaging. In fact, I even declared they could be GREAT STORIES!

The only thing I said is that most tables that lean on improv are not as internally consistent as tables that do a "boatload of prep."

No offense, but I have such a hard time believing anyone if they can't express this truth. A GM (we'll call her Laura) spends 200 hours creating a town, dungeon, cosmology, and kingdom for her world. Notes, upon notes, upon NPCs, upon, magic items, upon ecosystems, and most of all, upon culture.

Now take Liam. He is improving the whole bit: NPCs, magic items, ecosystems, and culture.

On average, is Laura or Liam going to be more internally consistent?

In my personal experience (and observation as of late watching Actual Play videos) I 100% think it can go either way. Your universal declaration that prepped games offer more anything over improvised games is just your personal opinion backed up by nothing. Sorry mate, but I completely disagree that prepped games offer anything that an improvised game doesn't, and same the other way. I think there may be more common pitfalls, in that prepped games more often result in railroading, and improvised games more often result in meandering. As for some sort of consistent anything, absolutely not. Like I said earlier, I have been completely suprised by several AP I've watched for guessing it was a prepped game cause it was obviously railroaded. Or what I thought was a improvised game cause it seemed haphazard. Then, in the end, it turned out to be the opposite of what I had figured. Your personal opinion about how prepped games are "better" in any way means...well...you know what they say about opinions. Mine included!

 

[Fenris-77]

I never said they weren't engaging. In fact, I even declared they could be GREAT STORIES!

The only thing I said is that most tables that lean on improv are not as internally consistent as tables that do a "boatload of prep."

No offense, but I have such a hard time believing anyone if they can't express this truth. A GM (we'll call her Laura) spends 200 hours creating a town, dungeon, cosmology, and kingdom for her world. Notes, upon notes, upon NPCs, upon, magic items, upon ecosystems, and most of all, upon culture.

Now take Liam. He is improving the whole bit: NPCs, magic items, ecosystems, and culture.

On average, is Laura or Liam going to be more internally consistent?

Are we assuming that the boatload of prep is specifically relevant to play? Lots of prep isn't really. There's also the question of actual deployment at the table. Is Laura a good GM? Can she keep all that prep straight and deploy it at the optimum time? Is Liam a masterful GM who's played this game and thus setting hundreds of times and thus the improv isn't quite so improv-y? Can you even name three games where the GM does no prep whatsoever?

As you can see, the list of rapid-fire questions approach is both annoying, and revealing. Your extreme examples are bit wonky I think. I'm guessing you went extreme for emphasis, but I don't think it's that helpful.

I have three main points here. One is that prep, regardless of magnitude is useless without a skilled GM, and no guarantee of internal consistency. Second, that an experienced GM, and here I mean specifically experienced with the kind of setting at hand, is perfectly capable of managing high internal consistency with minimal prep. Third, that unless we unpack what you mean by prep we are missing some key information.

I agree that prep of magnitude X, generally, and in the hands of a capable GM, will lead to more consistency within the confines of that prep. If it's the right prep, it might even help when the players inevitably step off-piste. But's that's as far as it goes.

An exploration of what you mean when you say prep should prove interesting and fruitful (as there's a lot of different nuts in that particular bag).

 

[pemerton]

Can you even name three games where the GM does no prep whatsoever?

In A Wicked Age; Wuthering Heights' Cthulhu Dark (at least as I've played it).

Sorry, I couldn't help myself . . .

 

[Fenris-77]

In A Wicked Age; Wuthering Heights' Cthulhu Dark (at least as I've played it).

Sorry, I couldn't help myself . . .

Lol. I knew that was coming. I prep for Cthulhu Dark, and Wuthering Heights has that book by the same name...

More generally, you'll notice how niche those games are? To take the devil's advocate position here, what do you think the chances are that a GM who is unfamiliar with the Cthulhu mythos would choose to run Cthulhu Dark, and what are the chances of that game being any good if they did? Or the chances of someone who isn't already a Bronte fan and familiar with that sort of book running Wuthering Heights, or that game being good if they did?

There is a point here. I don't think you can run an improv Cthulhu game without knowing anything about Cthulhu. You might not need to do specifically RPG style prep to manage it, but all that means is that you've read a lot of the mythos books and have a solid understanding of how the setting and NPC characters fit together at least generally.

Edit - that habit of rapid fire questions sticks like treacle. Sorry.