Scripting and Improvising

[drcpunk.livejournal.com]

I find that if I am preparing an adventure, the more I script, the easier time I have of it when the players break the script.

This I understand. What I'm doing when I prepare isn't saying "This is what will happen, no matter what those pesky players do." Instead, I'm getting a feel for the setting and characters, what might happen and what NPCs might do in reaction to PC decisions.

I'm not quite sure how this works with the generally good advice of "no play before playing". I think it may be a matter of moderation. So, if I prepare carefully, I know what I have to cover, I write it all out, and maybe I go over it and rewrite so that I'm cutting stuff that's unnecessary or unworkable, and also so that I'm condensing my notes. Notes that fit on one side of one page are good, but this isn't always possible.

I think part of why this may work for me is that I've trained myself to use writing as a way to get it all out of my system. Okay, it's out there, it's on the paper, I've got a couple of tropes, scenes, ideas, even lines of dialogue I may want to use if opportunity arises. It's all written down, so I don't have to worry about it. I don't have to keep repeating it all over and over to myself, which would be play-before-playing.

I've seen that sort of thing, usually coming from a player. For example, in an impromptu session of a Changeling larp some years ago, one player kept repeating a line she'd planned to use, which meant that by the time she used it, it had lost its punch. For me, the writing prepwork reassures me that I don't have to go over things in my head.

But, why do this prepwork at all? First, I am relatively traditional. That is, I'm the GM, I'm creating the scenario, and I'm not usually saying, "Okay, what happens here is 100% up to what the players decide to do today." Second, I've found that a little too much gm preparation and guidance is better for my groups that too little. I once ran a session where I gave the players too little guidance, trying to let them decide what to do, followed by a session where I overcompensated and did a little too much guiding. The first session was significantly weaker than the second. That is, in the first, the players were floundering. In the second, they noted that I was a little heavy handed, but they had fun.

Another factor is that I was gming an ongoing campaign for people I'd known for years, so part of the prep work included, "Okay, if I throw this in, Avram will notice and appreciate it, and Beth will like this part. Toss this in so that Matt's character can be effective, and have this person approach Josh's character with an offer." If you know your players, and you know what their characters are doing, this gives you some idea of how to give them a decent game. And, if you're not sure, ask them. My Sorcerer campaign was definitely mixed, but to the degree it worked, it worked because I sat down and reevaluated after each session, figuring out what was important to each player and how to work it in. To the degree I did not do this, the next session suffered.

As a player, I think it is probably useful to me to spend a couple of hours after a game session, maybe the next day or a couple of days later, figuring out what my character wants to do and what's important to him or her. I generally don't need to write that down, but if I do, that's okay. After that? Time to stop.

This does not take into account play by email dynamics, nor does it take into account campaigns that don't have regular sessions, but are "play when there's at least two people who want to play".

Scripting and Improvising

[drcpunk.livejournal.com]

I find that if I am preparing an adventure, the more I script, the easier time I have of it when the players break the script.

This I understand. What I'm doing when I prepare isn't saying "This is what will happen, no matter what those pesky players do." Instead, I'm getting a feel for the setting and characters, what might happen and what NPCs might do in reaction to PC decisions.

I'm not quite sure how this works with the generally good advice of "no play before playing". I think it may be a matter of moderation. So, if I prepare carefully, I know what I have to cover, I write it all out, and maybe I go over it and rewrite so that I'm cutting stuff that's unnecessary or unworkable, and also so that I'm condensing my notes. Notes that fit on one side of one page are good, but this isn't always possible.

I think part of why this may work for me is that I've trained myself to use writing as a way to get it all out of my system. Okay, it's out there, it's on the paper, I've got a couple of tropes, scenes, ideas, even lines of dialogue I may want to use if opportunity arises. It's all written down, so I don't have to worry about it. I don't have to keep repeating it all over and over to myself, which would be play-before-playing.

I've seen that sort of thing, usually coming from a player. For example, in an impromptu session of a Changeling larp some years ago, one player kept repeating a line she'd planned to use, which meant that by the time she used it, it had lost its punch. For me, the writing prepwork reassures me that I don't have to go over things in my head.

But, why do this prepwork at all? First, I am relatively traditional. That is, I'm the GM, I'm creating the scenario, and I'm not usually saying, "Okay, what happens here is 100% up to what the players decide to do today." Second, I've found that a little too much gm preparation and guidance is better for my groups that too little. I once ran a session where I gave the players too little guidance, trying to let them decide what to do, followed by a session where I overcompensated and did a little too much guiding. The first session was significantly weaker than the second. That is, in the first, the players were floundering. In the second, they noted that I was a little heavy handed, but they had fun.

Another factor is that I was gming an ongoing campaign for people I'd known for years, so part of the prep work included, "Okay, if I throw this in, Avram will notice and appreciate it, and Beth will like this part. Toss this in so that Matt's character can be effective, and have this person approach Josh's character with an offer." If you know your players, and you know what their characters are doing, this gives you some idea of how to give them a decent game. And, if you're not sure, ask them. My Sorcerer campaign was definitely mixed, but to the degree it worked, it worked because I sat down and reevaluated after each session, figuring out what was important to each player and how to work it in. To the degree I did not do this, the next session suffered.

As a player, I think it is probably useful to me to spend a couple of hours after a game session, maybe the next day or a couple of days later, figuring out what my character wants to do and what's important to him or her. I generally don't need to write that down, but if I do, that's okay. After that? Time to stop.

This does not take into account play by email dynamics, nor does it take into account campaigns that don't have regular sessions, but are "play when there's at least two people who want to play".

Identifying the Problem Can Be Half the Battle

[drcpunk.livejournal.com]

Recently, I sent a post which was a cut scene between two NPCs to the play by email game that I run. This is the kind of game where good writing really helps.

And it was well written. I knew where it should go, and I got the rhythm. Now, what had preceded this was a scene where one of the PCs had said to NPC 1, "I'm having this problem with NPC 2, and this has the following unpleasant repercussions."

The two NPCs talked, and, as I said, the scene was well written. The player said, "But, it doesn't actually resolve my PC's problem."

Now, this is true, but after some thought, I have come to the conclusion that this is actually a good thing, because the actual problem with the scene is not the apparent problem.

The actual problem is that the coolness was coming from NPC 1, not from the PC. NPCs can be cool, and often should -- but PCs have to be cool. GMs need to give them opportunities for cool, or, if you prefer, for awesomeness.

Knowing this, I think I can nudge things back where they should be, i.e., into the player's hands.

Until I figured it out, I was trying to explain that NPC 1 couldn't be expected to work miracles overnight with NPC 2, but that isn't the issue. NPC 1 shouldn't be working the miracles.

It isn't necessarily a problem that the two NPCs had their conversation. To a certain degree, NPC 2 will take correction from NPC 1 far better than from the PC, as the NPCs are teachers and the PC is a high school student. To that degree, the PC is being cool by saying, "I will go to the right person to fix this."

But, it would be cooler if the PC got to do more, if the player has more opportunities for awesomeness. Knowing this, I realize that, actually, I must not let NPC 1 make the problem go away. Make it better, sure. Predispose NPC 2 to listen to the PC the next time, perhaps. But the tension should not be resolved in a PC-less scene.

TANGENT: Except when it should. Sometimes, a player wants to play the diplomatic game and solve problems by getting the NPCs to work things out. I do not think that this is the case here. END TANGENT.

Also, the player was trying to stretch things in a direction that we both liked because it was mildly uncomfortable, but which we ultimately agreed just did not work for the actual situation to hand. The lack of a complete resolution gives us the opportunity to look for situations that work better. And, given the probable specifics of where things are likely to go, I realized that there is an additional factor to rachet up the tension. I want to bounce that off the player to see if sounds like a good idea.

Identifying the Problem Can Be Half the Battle

[drcpunk.livejournal.com]

Recently, I sent a post which was a cut scene between two NPCs to the play by email game that I run. This is the kind of game where good writing really helps.

And it was well written. I knew where it should go, and I got the rhythm. Now, what had preceded this was a scene where one of the PCs had said to NPC 1, "I'm having this problem with NPC 2, and this has the following unpleasant repercussions."

The two NPCs talked, and, as I said, the scene was well written. The player said, "But, it doesn't actually resolve my PC's problem."

Now, this is true, but after some thought, I have come to the conclusion that this is actually a good thing, because the actual problem with the scene is not the apparent problem.

The actual problem is that the coolness was coming from NPC 1, not from the PC. NPCs can be cool, and often should -- but PCs have to be cool. GMs need to give them opportunities for cool, or, if you prefer, for awesomeness.

Knowing this, I think I can nudge things back where they should be, i.e., into the player's hands.

Until I figured it out, I was trying to explain that NPC 1 couldn't be expected to work miracles overnight with NPC 2, but that isn't the issue. NPC 1 shouldn't be working the miracles.

It isn't necessarily a problem that the two NPCs had their conversation. To a certain degree, NPC 2 will take correction from NPC 1 far better than from the PC, as the NPCs are teachers and the PC is a high school student. To that degree, the PC is being cool by saying, "I will go to the right person to fix this."

But, it would be cooler if the PC got to do more, if the player has more opportunities for awesomeness. Knowing this, I realize that, actually, I must not let NPC 1 make the problem go away. Make it better, sure. Predispose NPC 2 to listen to the PC the next time, perhaps. But the tension should not be resolved in a PC-less scene.

TANGENT: Except when it should. Sometimes, a player wants to play the diplomatic game and solve problems by getting the NPCs to work things out. I do not think that this is the case here. END TANGENT.

Also, the player was trying to stretch things in a direction that we both liked because it was mildly uncomfortable, but which we ultimately agreed just did not work for the actual situation to hand. The lack of a complete resolution gives us the opportunity to look for situations that work better. And, given the probable specifics of where things are likely to go, I realized that there is an additional factor to rachet up the tension. I want to bounce that off the player to see if sounds like a good idea.