My DM'ing has gotten worse over the years, not better

[pawsplay]

To give an opposite perspective: leaning on the three-act structure has helped every single RPG session I have ever run.

I think that glosses over an essential difference, though. I think the three act structure is a powerful tool (see my 3-5 things suggestion, above). However, in an RPG, it works best if the GM does not decide in advance what is going to happen in those three acts. Instead, the GM should be looking at the situation on the ground and read the best setup for the action as it is occuring, for the players involved, based on their instincts, etc. and they would be best served by letting go of the outcome.

 

[Kzach]

Two things. First, planning is not the enemy of spontaneity. Far from it. However, in planning, it sounds like you are overthinking and overplanning. You have realized that when you improvise, your confidence level is higher and your ideas are less tethered to your preceonceptions.

It's hard to put into words but I'll try. If I come to a session with anything planned or anything prepared, I find that I automatically flick on some sort of internal mental switch that makes me rely on those things. I don't know why that is, exactly, but if I have an item description, I'll end up reading that out rather than describing it. The description could be exactly the same as when I do it on the fly, but the delivery is... cold? Mechanical?

"Here is your item. Read it. It's cool."

Now, by all means, this is a failing on my part. I'm not sure why I do this but it's definitely a habit I can't seem to break. But when I do something on the fly, I automatically get passionate and excited about it and that shows in the delivery of that information. I go into detail and describe things so that everyone has a really good image of it in their minds-eye. Everyone is THERE with me, in their imaginations. They see what I see, and I dream in HD colour

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think that glosses over an essential difference, though. I think the three act structure is a powerful tool (see my 3-5 things suggestion, above). However, in an RPG, it works best if the GM does not decide in advance what is going to happen in those three acts. Instead, the GM should be looking at the situation on the ground and read the best setup for the action as it is occuring, for the players involved, based on their instincts, etc. and they would be best served by letting go of the outcome.

Well, let me quote you back to you:

First, planning is not the enemy of spontaneity.

"Decide in advance"? Nah. "Plan for a likely situation?" Yup.

A DM who spends a session or two or three or six or whatever getting to know the players and the characters should have a pretty good idea of his audience -- he should know what is likely to be a climactic situation, and can steer the game in that direction with the understanding that the players want to come along for the ride.

There are even elements you can use to help you do this kind of planning. A bit of character background or a quick question of motive can go a long way toward fueling this kind of narrative arc from the get-go.

Gameplay drives a basic narrative conflict toward resolution almost automatically. To "tell a good story" without limiting player freedom isn't that difficult to do.

 

[Kzach]

As an addendum to the above, the best sessions I've ran have had people begging to keep playing even after six or so hours and people having to go to work the next day and it being well past midnight.

In these sessions I get to a point where I am emotionally, physically and mentally drained and have to stop simply because the tank is empty. I think that is a direct result of having used my brain, my creativity and imagination and also acting skills, to my fullest capability.

I haven't felt like that after a session in years.

 

[pawsplay]

A DM who spends a session or two or three or six or whatever getting to know the players and the characters should have a pretty good idea of his audience -- he should know what is likely to be a climactic situation, and can steer the game in that direction with the understanding that the players want to come along for the ride.

I've gamed with some of my players for over 18 years. I can certainly steer them, manipulate them, trick them, excite them... but I never do so with the intention of bringing about a specific story resolution. I think doing so is an unqualified negative choice. It's like always taking your spouse to the same restaurant for your anniversary. It's not bad, and if you know your audience, it's likely good. But it's not likely to be fantastic unless this visit has some element that makes it additive to your last visit.

There are even elements you can use to help you do this kind of planning. A bit of character background or a quick question of motive can go a long way toward fueling this kind of narrative arc from the get-go.

Gameplay drives a basic narrative conflict toward resolution almost automatically. To "tell a good story" without limiting player freedom isn't that difficult to do.

That's true. So why should I even impose my preferences?

Just as an example, I close my last campaign with a scene in a desecrated temple. At the heart of the temple is an ancient artifact that served as the prison of a monstrous demigod. After having defeated the demigod and imprisoned him, the PCs are faced with a choice. While imprisoned, the demigod can still be theoretically freed by mortal means, and his followers might even be able to contact him. Inside his prison, he is still scheming. To truly imprison him, the PCs must re-enact the ritual used to bind him centuries ago. In order to accomplish this, one living, sapient being must willingly choose to enter the gate, also becoming trapped in eternity, their spirit steadily ground down into nothingness until they evaporate and their eternal essence moves on, to whatever state of being beyond the reach of gods and magic from whence the universe arises. If the person entering the gate has any hesitation whatsoever about choosing oblivion, the ritual fails. For instance, anyone who schemes even momentarily to have someone else take their place cannot fulfill the sacrifice. As the ritual unfolds, they experience something more dread than the act of suicide. Hence, the ritual fails if even a willing person tries to fulfill the ritual but does so with regret.

Now, there are a number of possible endgames.
1. One of the PCs chooses to sacrifice themselves. This could ultimately fail if the PCs try to convince each other not to do it, and succeed at any level.
2. There is an NPC, a villainous henchman but also someone who has made overtures to the PCs in the past of friendship. He hates the demigod, but feels he belongs entirely to him. If he were subjected to the ritual, he would actually go along with it, simultaneously fulfulling his need to be with his master for eternity and achieving a release from the suffering of being an evil creature.
3. There is a friendly NPC, a young person the PCs have previously rescued. She has seen such terrible things she would not hesitate to give her life to prevent worse, if the PCs would let her.
4. The PCs say "good enough" and walk away. Mind you, that makes them notorious foes of an ancient and powerful cult, but they never exactly planned to die in bed anyway.
5. One of the PCs willingly becomes one of the demigod's minions. This could be a "choose the Dark Side" moment, or it could be a lesser of two evils kind of situation. The PC could betray their master, continuing to keep him imprisoned for the time being; as long as the fulfulls some of the demigod's purposes, this situation might be stable for a long time, particularly if the PCs manage to kill off the one remaining other minion. As a plus, they potentially gain the service of the NPC described in scenario #2, who could provide them the information they need to stall the dark god's return for decades. Sure, the PC group might fracture along alignment lines, but there's the end of the campaign for you.

Note also that this situation was not scripted; I simply noted the location of the temple on the map (the same temple they encountered at Level 1, actually), and over time, the PCs overcame various of the demigod's servants and gradually acquired the pieces of the puzzle needed to trap their foe.

This whole thing played out over 20 levels, with little to no insistence by me as to how the scenario would play out. I kicked off the campaing with three pages of notes and about a dozen prepped NPCs.

 

[pawsplay]

It's hard to put into words but I'll try. If I come to a session with anything planned or anything prepared, I find that I automatically flick on some sort of internal mental switch that makes me rely on those things. I don't know why that is, exactly, but if I have an item description, I'll end up reading that out rather than describing it. The description could be exactly the same as when I do it on the fly, but the delivery is... cold? Mechanical?

"Here is your item. Read it. It's cool."

Now, by all means, this is a failing on my part. I'm not sure why I do this but it's definitely a habit I can't seem to break. But when I do something on the fly, I automatically get passionate and excited about it and that shows in the delivery of that information. I go into detail and describe things so that everyone has a really good image of it in their minds-eye. Everyone is THERE with me, in their imaginations. They see what I see, and I dream in HD colour

Maybe it just feels better. Maybe the players are responding to your energy level rather than the quality of your performance. Just a thought I had.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think doing so is an unqualified negative choice. It's like always taking your spouse to the same restaurant for your anniversary. It's not bad, and if you know your audience, it's likely good. But it's not likely to be fantastic unless this visit has some element that makes it additive to your last visit.

It's repetitive? I'm afraid I don't follow. If I know Bill's dwarf is the last surviving member of his clan after a giant war because Bill told me so, how is adding an element of narrative to the game by saying something like "The giants that eliminated your clan are rampaging in the mountains to the north!" at all repetitive? It guides the player, it guides the character, and it provides an instant narrative arc (Intro: "Burin the Dwarf is the last member of his clan after a giant war." Rising Action: "The giants who killed your clan are rampaging in the hills to the north!" And you fight a few battles. Climax: Fight the giant king. Resolution: Burin is a badass. Or dead. Whichever.).

That's the three act structure doing the heavy listing there for Bill's dwarf.

Later in the campaign, I use a different PC's goal of becoming a Great Illusionist and introduce a rival illusionist who is also secretly working for a thieves' guild. I have the NPC rival come along and antagonize the PC in a few early scenes, dropping a few hints, and then have him pop up again in a battle of lies with the PC. Again, a three-act structure jumps up: There's a character (PC), a conflict (NPC rival), and a resolution (one of 'em tricks the other). Totally a different kind of gameplay.

Maybe I even link them together by letting the giants be paid off by the guild to rampage in the mountains and disrupt trade routes, creating a chronology.

Note also that this situation was not scripted; I simply noted the location of the temple on the map (the same temple they encountered at Level 1, actually), and over time, the PCs overcame various of the demigod's servants and gradually acquired the pieces of the puzzle needed to trap their foe.

I don't understand how your example is dramatically different from the ones above, except that in your example, the temple was part of the world and it didn't matter who the characters were, and in my example, I use character motivations to drive character arcs.

I don't really see how one is objectively better or worse than the other.

 

[pawsplay]

It's repetitive? I'm afraid I don't follow. If I know Bill's dwarf is the last surviving member of his clan after a giant war because Bill told me so, how is adding an element of narrative to the game by saying something like "The giants that eliminated your clan are rampaging in the mountains to the north!" at all repetitive? It guides the player, it guides the character, and it provides an instant narrative arc (Intro: "Burin the Dwarf is the last member of his clan after a giant war." Rising Action: "The giants who killed your clan are rampaging in the hills to the north!" And you fight a few battles. Climax: Fight the giant king. Resolution: Burin is a badass. Or dead. Whichever.).

What if the player doesn't want to fight giants in the north? It may be that Burin is motivated by a sense of rootlessness since the loss of his clan. The stereotypical dwarf is revenge-bent, but perhaps Burin is a forlorn sort. I might very well use "The giants who killed your clan are rampaging" as a spur, but I would be very cautious about scripting your second act.

I don't understand how your example is dramatically different from the ones above, except that in your example, the temple was part of the world and it didn't matter who the characters were, and in my example, I use character motivations to drive character arcs.

You're assuming that knowing a player's motivation well enough to predict their choice is interchangeable with their having already made that choice. It's a small difference made, but a potentially dramatic difference in play.

I don't really see how one is objectively better or worse than the other.

What is an RPG? I believe that RPGs are about making decisions. The more meanginful the decisions, the more objectively better the RPG is. Two GMS can play out the same scenarios with the same elements, but the the one who genuinely respects his player's choices is running the better game. "Fun" is entirely subjective, but within the framework of an RPG, it is quite possible to discern certain elements being more or less congruent with adventure gaming.

 

[Kzach]

What if the player doesn't want to fight giants in the north?

No offence, but if a player doesn't want to 'fight giants in the north', then they should take up another hobby

I've always been baffled by players that make characters that do nothing but sit around in a tavern and run in the opposite direction of adventure.

 

[I'm A Banana]

What if the player doesn't want to fight giants in the north? It may be that Burin is motivated by a sense of rootlessness since the loss of his clan. The stereotypical dwarf is revenge-bent, but perhaps Burin is a forlorn sort. I might very well use "The giants who killed your clan are rampaging" as a spur, but I would be very cautious about scripting your second act.

If the player doesn't want to do that, then it will be an interesting choice. The giants that ended your clan are on the rampage, what do you do? Perhaps he will put aside his own sadness to deal with the problem. Perhaps he will become paralyzed with fear that they will kill him, too. Perhaps he will do nothing, taking an unheroic track, complaining that the fools deserved their fate. What happens with the giants after that? It's up to me. Either way, we have conflict and resolution. I see it as my job as DM to introduce the former, and move on from the latter.

The same problem comes up without a narrative focus, though. What if the party decides not to care about the demigod in his temple? What if the party decides to retire from adventuring and become turnip farmers? What if one party member decides to go on a rampage through the village of Hommlet? What if the party chooses to negotiate with the goblin mercenaries rather than kill them? DMs of all types and stripes always have to learn how to deal with the unexpected.

The narrative focus at least sticks the hooks right in the character, so that, choose fight or choose flight, something is at least revealed about that character's goals and ideas. If Burin ignores the giants, maybe the thieves' guild manages to dismantle the trade routes, making the Grand Illusionist's challenge all the harder.

You're assuming that knowing a player's motivation well enough to predict their choice is interchangeable with their having already made that choice. It's a small difference made, but a potentially dramatic difference in play.

I don't think it's functionally any different from saying "There is treasure in the dungeon" (assuming characters want treasure) or "There are orcs in the hills" (assuming characters will want to stop orcs) or "There is an evil cult under the city" (assuming characters will want to stop an evil cult).

You can't plan for every contingency, so you direct the action by motivating the characters. This is true regardless of how story-heavy or story-light your game is.

Presumably, D&D being a game of heroic adventure, PCs will be inclined to heroic adventure. Giants rampaging in the mountains could be any game, but the giants that killed Burin's clanmates is something unique to this game, and Burin's reaction will likewise be unique.

What is an RPG? I believe that RPGs are about making decisions. The more meanginful the decisions, the more objectively better the RPG is. Two GMS can play out the same scenarios with the same elements, but the the one who genuinely respects his player's choices is running the better game. "Fun" is entirely subjective, but within the framework of an RPG, it is quite possible to discern certain elements being more or less congruent with adventure gaming.

Neither situation dictates a character's actions. One just uses a character's goals and motives specifically. The other uses them generally (adventurers presumably want to Stop Evil, so they will want to get involved with this demigod plotline). They have pretty much the same amount of choice, as far as I can see.