Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="zarionofarabel" data-source="post: 9774593" data-attributes="member: 7026405">So I looked it up on BGG and it reminds me of a game I played a couple of times where one player is Dracula and the others are Hunters trying to find him. It's called Fury Of Dracula, if you want to check it out. So, I do understand the idea you are going for, but I think that it only applies in specific situations. Sure, if the PCs are searching a city for a stealthy criminal, then having a map of the city could be beneficial. Of course, the existence of the map would also depend on other factors such as PCs being familiar with the city, or access to an actual physical map of the city. As for the location of the criminal, and how they move around the city, definitely doesn't need to be predetermined. In fact, the whole gist of the Dracula game (and the one you gave as an example) is the idea that the movement of the antagonist is NOT predetermined. As for the artificial restrictions on how Dracula/MrX can move about the map, is in the interests of making it gameable specifically as a board game. In a TTRPG such artificial restrictions need not apply as the terrain can conceivably be completely open. Looking at the map for Scotland Yard makes me wonder; why is MrX only able to move on roads? Why can't he sneak through an alley? Why can't he take some kind of shortcut between various locations? I think I understand what you are getting at with this game as an example of why you think prep is needed, but I don't think that level of artificial restriction is needed. Besides, if each intersection on the map would be considered a "decision point" then most of the time the players would be making meaningless decisions as they have no clue where MrX is until he appears for the first time (if it works similar to the Dracula game in that respect) which in the context of a TTRPG means a lot of wasted time for no payoff. Once MrX appears somewhere and the have an idea where to go, then they can make a meaningful choice. Honestly, I wouldn't run a Scotland Yard/Fury Of Dracula scenario as a chase, but instead as an investigation. Well, what I meant was the fact that any sort of investigation or chase or conflict in a TTRPG can be resolved mechanically. Most of the chase/investigation mechanics I have encountered in TTRPGs are either extended conflict mechanics (multiple opposed rolls) or countdown mechanics (score X number of successful rolls before Y amount of time elapses). The particular details of the conflict/clock do not need to be decided ahead of time, they can be decided on the spot, and the resolution system will still work as intended. The example you give in the your later example has a bike that MrX is going to use to escape, so that would be the end result if the PCs lose the conflict. The bike doesn't need to be preplanned. It could simply be improvised into existence once the conflict is concluded as a loss for the PCs.Well, considering how many folks in this thread alone admit to ad libbing alot of their game content, I don't think you can qualify your particular view as a general aspect of gaming. As for "Tomb Of Horrors" not being "Tomb Of Horrors" because something about the adventure was changed, all I can say is...what?!? Now I haven't read a lot of published adventures as they are not something I use, but the few that I have read always preface the entire work by advising the GM to change whatever they need to change, whenever they want to change it, for whatever reason. AKA, make the adventure your own, instead of thinking that the contents of the adventure are sacrosanct, because it isn't. In a way, all things are Schrodinger's Dungeon, even if someone wrote it down on a piece of paper, until the players have knowledge of it. Nothing in your notes is "real" until it is introduced into the shared narrative, simply due to the fact that your players have no knowledge of it, so it effectively doesn't exist. It's just as not real as an idea I make up on the spot right before I add it to the shared narrative. As for deciding what it true in the fiction, the metric is simple, it must be a part of the shared narrative. If it is only something the GM knows, then it is not true. As an example, I will ask a simple question; if a player decides a fact about their PC, but doesn't tell you or any of the other players about it, is it real? Does this fact have any bearing or affect the decision making process of anyone else at the table? It may be "real" for the player that decided it, but all other participants it simply doesn't exist. As for ensuring that players can make meaningful choices, it's quite simple, present them with choices that have consequences in the fiction afterwards. Neither the choices, nor their consequences, will exist until after they become part of the shared narrative, so both can easily be ad libbed into existence as needed. As long as I make sure to not invalidate the consequences of choices after they become part of the shared narrative, then player agency is maintained, and choices remain meaningful.Well, it's a matter of how the situation plays out I guess. In the scenario you described I don't need to have the traffic, or route, or semi, or fruit seller prepared, as their existence wouldn't be needed until it is. If the scenario is a chase, then the game's mechanics would dictate the flow of the chase. If the chase is a clock style (the style I usually use for chases) then it would be the individual rolls, and the success or failure thereof, that would inform what fiction I would adlib. So, say the moment the chase is started, I inform the players they have 10 turns to knock the MrX off his bike, or he escapes. In order to catch up to MrX they need to get three successes, they then need one success to maneuver alongside MrX's bike, and a final success to knock MrX off his bike. A successful roll would be ad libbed as there being an opening in traffic allowing the PCs to close distance, a blocked intersection forcing MrX to change direction which allows the PCs to cut the curb and gain more ground. Failed rolls would be the semi suddenly popping out of a side street causing the PCs to have to brake to avoid hitting it, thus preventing them from closing distance; or the fruit seller stall being in the way preventing the PCs from being able to cut the curb to gain ground. The entire scenario, including the details of what I ad lib, is decided by the system rules and players dice rolls, no preplanning needed. I'll be honest, I can't imagine a way to "play out" a chase without engaging mechanics unless the result of the chase is totally decided by GM fiat. I mean, I guess you could preplan the "correct way" to succeed at the chase, but that is definitely something I don't like doing as I think preplanned solutions to problems the GM presents is railroading-adjacent game play. I simply present situations for players to deal with, the solutions they devise are entirely up to them as no problem I create has a "correct" solution.As a side note, I recently acquired a bunch of secondhand TTRPG stuff, most of which was purchased more to help out the seller than personal interest. Thus I ended up with a with bunch of stuff I never would have normally. One of those products is a copy of Masks Of Nyarlathotep, the "greatest CoC sandbox adventure of all time" or so the interwebs informed me. So, I started reading it. I will admit that it is chock full of interesting things, and is well presented. However, it is very contingent on the players doing very specific things in order to work properly. There is a "sandbox" element to it in that the PCs are free to travel to the various "global locations" in whatever order they wish, but within those locations the events that transpire are very structured. If PCs fail to engage a great number of things in the predetermined "correct" way, the whole thing will fail. Simply put, if the players don't follow the path laid out for them, exactly the way it is planned out, the whole thing falls apart. There is very little opportunity for the players to have any real agency to affect the plot or manipulate events. By the time I finished the UK chapter I had already thought of a least a hundred ways the game could fail spectacularly unless I am willing to heavily railroad the players to force the narrative to conform to the prepared plotline. Something I refuse to do, so, oh well, no Masks campaign for me I guess.So yeah, I don't think you will be able to change my mind about the idea that a prepared game is better than an ad lib game in any real way. To put it simply, most of your underlying assumptions about how games work are simply false. Writing stuff down doesn't make it any more meaningful or real than ad libbed stuff. Only things that are actually added to the shared narrative are real and meaningful. Having prepared locations or events don't make for more agency or meaningful choices any more than ad lib things do. If player choices have actual consequences, whether the choices made are based on prepared decision points, or ad libbed ones, the effect is the same, players have real agency and can make meaningful choices. The quality of a game, IMHO, has almost nothing to do with whether or not the GM prepares stuff beforehand or ad libs everything on the fly. The methods differ, but ultimately, the result, good or bad, is dependent on far more than whether or not the GM preps a bunch of stuff. If a GM ad libs a bunch of crap, the game will be bad. If the GM prepares a bunch of crap, the game will be bad. If the GM ad libs a bunch of awesome, the game will be good. If the GM prepares a bunch of awesome, the game will be good.Simple. As. That.Cheers mate!</blockquote>

Verification