Plotlines, Railroading, and Sandbox Games – Part II

The Dreaded Railroad

The problem, in some cases, with attempting to run plots and plotlines in the world is that players feel railroaded.  Fair enough.  There is a positive dearth of advice for GMs on the inclusion of plotlines without railroading players.

In order to offer some advice in this regard, I would like to make use of a well-known example:  The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings.  Anyone who has read the very funny web comic, DM of the Rings, knows the expected pitfalls of running a game in Middle Earth. 

For the purposes of this discussion, I am going to pretend that these novels are an independent creation of the GM.  This is not because it affects railroading, but because I do not want to deal with the obvious question of the players “gaming the novels”.  I.e., if the players know where Bilbo will be with the Ring on such-and-such a day, they could presumably use that knowledge to kill Bilbo and take the Ring.  Unless you are actually running a game where the fictional timeline can be known to your players ahead of time, this is simply not going to occur.  

Because there are a few circumstances where this might be relevant to the average GM, I will revisit “Gaming the Plotline” below.

Well Met in Bree

Imagine that, as a perspective GM, I have access to The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and The Silmarillion, from which I am going to devise the background of a campaign milieu.  Because there is the best information available during the Third Age, I decide to set my campaign during that period.  After all, I have an exacting timeline of events from around the period of The Hobbit to far past the War of the Ring.

The first thing that I want to avoid is having the PCs be anyone depicted in the novels.  Why?  Because plotlines are what happens without the PCs’ actions being taken into account.  The PCs actions cannot and must not be scripted beforehand. 

The second thing I must avoid is believing that anything that occurs in the novels must happen.  The novels are nothing more than a guide as to what may happen if the PCs take no action.  If the PCs act upon the world, even in ways that do not directly impact the events in the novels, things may change.

For instance, imagine what would happen if a dwarf PC became involved in aiding the Elfking of Mirkwood to reclaim a section of the forest from the spiders.  Do the dwarves and Bilbo then receive the same cold welcome they did in The Hobbit?  And, if friendship is fostered here, what happens after the dragon is slain?  Without the “barrel-rider” events and comment, does Smaug even destroy Esgaroth?

Remembering that a role-playing game hinges on a cycle of context-choice-consequence, where the consequences create the new context for further choices, the discerning GM will consider carefully how the PCs’ choices affect the entire milieu.  The goal is not to limit the consequences of those choices, so as to remain true to a predetermined storyline.  Rather, the goal is to highlight the effects that player choices have on the game milieu.  Therefore, nothing in the novels is sacred, and the GM can and should feel free to make any changes that accentuate the PCs’ impact on the setting.

If you recall earlier, how I suggested the GM attempt to gain 2 hours of play out of every hour’s work, it will make sense that you limit how far into the future you extend any plotlines – the odds increase exponentially with time that campaign events will render your work inapplicable.  If there is a choice to be made between that work, though, and allowing the natural consequences of the players’ choices to occur, always go with the natural consequences.  These are fairly easy rules of thumb.

Does this mean that the PCs can try to take the Ring and set themselves up as the new rulers of Middle Earth?  Yes.  Does this mean that they can curry Sauron’s favour by seeking the Ring for him?  Yes.  Does this mean that they can defeat the Necromancer soundly, thus pushing Sauron’s return into the unknown future?  Yes.  Can they kill Aragorn?  Yes.  Can they explore Far Harad?  Yes.  Can they ignore the War of the Ring, and seek to adventure in the North while great events, of which they hear only rumour, occur in the South?  Yes. 

Does this mean that the focus of the game may be completely different than the focus of the novels?  No.  It means that the focus of the game will be completely different.  There is no “may” about it. 

This is a good thing.

Gaming the Plotline

In some cases, the PCs may be travelling into a well-known fictional world as a form of planar travel.  In some cases, the PCs may even be aware of this world as fiction.  Anyone familiar with the Harold Shea stories will know what I mean here.  What to do then?

I recommend that you take the Harold Shea stories as your inspiration.  Not only was Harold Shea able to alter events in those stories, but he was able to use his knowledge of the natural progression of events in the story worlds he visited to his advantage.  Side trips like this can be very cool and very fun – but they are probably best in small doses.  Dipping into a fictional world for a single adventure, and then getting out.

Nor do these fictional worlds need to be exactly like their real-world fictional counterparts.  Good examples of “almost” copies are found in Dungeonland and The Land Beyond the Magic Mirror, which are 1^st edition AD&D modules loosely based on Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass.

Historical Games

Using real historical periods for your games?  I would suggest that the same rules apply.

If the game is not about time travel, then you might as well assume that your milieu occupies a parallel reality from Game Day 1.  From now on, things may or may not proceed according to historical precedent.

If the game is about time travel, then you have two fun options to choose from, both of which are worth using in the same campaign:

(1) History Resists Alteration:  As the PCs deal with known historical events, actually changing history is an adventure in itself, and the players must work through the puzzle of how to overcome this resistance.  It needs to be clear that PC choices matter – the game is about determining which choices allow you to reach a desired goal.

(2) The More Things Change:  Changing known historical events changes the rest of the universe to conform to the new reality.  Only the PCs (and maybe some time-sensitive NPCSs) know both timelines exist.  In some cases, the changes really are for the better.  In other cases, not, and the game may well become about attempts to undo previous changes.

Again, the important thing is to understand the interplay between context, choice, and consequence, and then to allow PC choices to matter.  A PC choice that does not matter has no consequence, and does not impact the context of future choices.  In a word, it is boring.  In two words, it is a false choice. 

Some GMs pride themselves on their ability to present “an illusion of choice” while only presenting false choices.  I think that these illusions are often not as successful as the GM imagines, and that it is only decades of consuming other passive entertainments that make these “games” playable.  But that’s just me.  Your mileage may vary.

Conclusion

Plots and plotlines are important to create a world that seems to live and breathe on its own.  They are important to allow the GM to have information to impart from the world’s innkeepers, barmaids, and enemy prisoners.  They are important to keep the world from feeling static, or driven by the PCs only.  They are part of the context of the game milieu.

On the other hand, there is a limit to their importance.  The interplay of context-choice-consequence trumps the importance of any future events.  The world can turn on a dime.  The world must be able to turn on a dime, or there is no game.

Another way to say this is that plotlines exist to serve the game, not the other way around.  If you ever find yourself limiting the impact of the PCs on the world to preserve a plotline – DragonLance, I am looking you dead in the eye – you are wrong.  Stop what you are doing.  Glory in the PCs’ impact.  Treasure it.  Use it as a springboard to your own imagination, and draw new plotlines that follow rationally from the new context.

It really is that simple.

IMHO.

YMMV.

Plotlines, Railroading, and Sandbox Games – Part I

I have been having some weird conversations lately with a self-imposed Arbiter of the One True Way^TM.  I had heard that there were people on the InterWebs whose hubris exceeded my own, but I hadn’t actually expected to meet one.  I mean, really.  What are the odds?

In any event, the discussion raised some interesting points that I decided to expand on here.  If you are interested in how I run a game (as I assure you, it is not the One True Way), then read on.  If not, then not.

When I started this blog, I was careful to note that, while I was not going to write “IMHO” and "YMMV" repeatedly, I expected that the reader would understand that what I was writing was my opinion.  Your mileage may indeed vary.  I can (and do!) make claims about what I have seen work, and what I have seen fail, and how often.  But where my experience is at variance with your experience, you should take whatever I say with a big grain of salt.  It is my expectation that, if you are reading this blog, you are smart enough to “get” what I am saying here.

If not, well, that may be my fault.  I have never been one to use two words where twenty will suffice, but, even so, sometimes I may fail to explain an idea thoroughly enough.

So, here’s the thing.  You’ve decided to run a sandbox game, but you’ve been told that the sandbox should (or must) remain static until the players interact with it.  If you follow my advice, you will disregard any such notion.  IMHO, and IME, a sandbox game is at its best when the game milieu is in constant motion.  This motion affects the context of the players’ decisions, and in turn is affected by the outcome (or consequences) of those decisions. 

Plots and Plotlines

There are two types of plots that are of interest to the GM of a sandbox game.  The first is the machinations of various NPCs as they struggle to achieve their goals.  The second is a sequence of events in the fictional milieu that affects the context of that milieu.  To make things simpler, I am going to call the first a plot, and the second a plotline. 

There is obviously some potential overlap.  I.e., “King Baddaz wants to annex the neighbouring Duchy of Wheatfields, which causes him to hire mercenaries; when the mercenaries are later disbanded, some take to robbery” contains elements of both.

It is important that a plotline be logically connected, cause-to-effect, if the players are to have a chance of unravelling it.  This is especially true of complex plotlines.  Remembering that the more information the players can gain, the more context they have for their choices, the prospective GM will want to make these things possible to unravel. 

Other plotlines might be far simpler:  Princess Zelda is captured by a dragon.  If not rescued by the new moon, the dragon will eat her.

Now, some might object that this is not in strict accordance to dictionary.com.   To them I say, “Get a grip on reality.  No one goes to dictionary.com for an in-depth analysis of anything.”  Context is of critical importance when discussing any topic.  The definitions of plot or plotline given in dictionary.com do not take the context of a role-playing game into consideration.  Webster’s Unabridged might; I don’t know.  Frankly, I don’t care.  If you are happier discussing the same using newly minted terms, “buglub” and “buglublines” it changes the conversation not a whit.

Yes, definitions are sometimes important, because they are being used to shift or limit what types of conversations can be had.  Sometimes, though, the point is merely to allow a conversation to be had.  In either event, using terms consistently – even if only for the purpose of a particular argument – makes it possible to render a position clearly.  Were I to use the word “trout” for “plotline”, so long as I define the term, and I do not then conflate it with the fish, it matters not at all.

Finally, anyone interested in the genesis of this usage is directed to the Writer’s Digest website (http://www.writersdigestshop.com/), where you can find many books which have in-depth discussions of plot.  I am sorry to say, however, that you won’t find anything specific to role-playing games.  You will have to extrapolate.

Similarly, when I refer to a major plotline, it is a plotline that either (1) has a large effect on the context of the setting (i.e., a zombie apocalypse) or (2) is focused on by the players (i.e., if the PC’s favourite innkeep has money troubles, and the players care, it can become a major plotline simply because it influences them in play, and thus has contextual meaning to the players which is much greater than its influence on the game milieu as a whole).

Why Plots and Plotlines?

Because without them, the characters are operating in a vacuum. 

It is possible to imagine a world in which nothing ever happens except that which is initiated by the PCs, but it is difficult, for me at least, to imagine why one would want to engage in such a world.  A living, breathing world – or any world which is to feel like one – requires motion.  And that motion cannot always be the result of player activity, unless the goal is to feel stale and artificial.

To some degree, plots and plotlines are just “what’s going on”.  When the PCs stop at the Green Dragon in Bywater to share a pint with Sam Gamgee and Ted Sandyman, they can hear talk of folk crossing the Shire, of walking trees seen in the Northfarthing, and of elves going West.  Why?  Because it is good for the game.  It gives the players context in which to make decisions.  It increases verisimilitude.

At the same time, Saruman is watching the Shire, as are the Rangers of the North.  Saruman hopes to get the Ring.  He has stationed agents in Bree.  He has begun to establish trade with the South Farthing.  Why is this important?  Because it increases context, and it increases consequences.  It gives the players something to worry about……or to think about if they storm Orthanc before discovering Saruman’s purchase of Longbottom Leaf in any other way.  It increases the feeling that the world is a vibrant place.  Failing to pay attention to what is going on might have consequences….just as it does in the real world.

What if the players capture those goblins instead of slaughtering them all?  Again, if the GM has prepared plots and plotlines, he has at his fingertips all kinds of information to reveal through the captives.  All the GM need determine is what the goblins could reasonably know.

How many times have you heard a GM complain that his players simply wade through the opposition, never bothering to talk or take captives?  That happens because either (1) the cost of taking captives is too high, or (2) the cost of not taking captives is too low (i.e., nothing is lost by not talking to folks).  The median, where a captive might know something of importance, and might not immediately cause terrible woe to the PCs, is far more interesting, as it raises a real choice for the players.

How to Set Up Plots and Plotlines

This is actually pretty simple.  First off, when setting up your NPCs, take a second to think about what they want (or want to avoid) and what steps they are taking to make it so.  Not all of them.  Just some of them.  Bigwigs.  A few non-bigwigs.  Enough to make things interesting.

Remember, for each hour of design, you want a minimum of two hours of play.  If it takes five minutes to figure out what Lord Haggard wants, make sure that you include 10 minutes in play that relate to the same – bar rumours, related encounters, whatever.  Your time is valuable.

Second off, determine some events for your milieu.  If you have access to the 1^st Edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Oriental Adventures tome, there are some wonderful tables in the back for randomly seeding weekly, monthly, and annual events.  These can be a great spur to your imagination, even if you are not running an Oriental game. 

There is another benefit to using random tables:  You don’t always get the result you would have picked.  Just as it is worthwhile to use other’s maps (so it appears that there is more than one architect in your world) and other’s adventures (to increase the diversity in style and presentation, and by so doing expand the game world), so it is worthwhile to have events occur which surprise even you.

The events listed in Oriental Adventures are rather vague, and need to be adjusted to meet the needs of your campaign milieu.  I strongly urge you to consider using random events to confound (or make difficult) NPC plots, because doing so gives more opportunity for the players to get involved.  If the Lord of Swamp Castle wants to gain more land by marrying his son to Princess Lucky, and you roll “Death of an Important Person”, consider having either the prince or the princess be the person who dies.

Likewise, while “Princess Zelda is captured by a dragon.  If not rescued by the new moon, the dragon will eat her.” is a good example of a simple plotline, it is by no means the only plotline that can occur starting with Princess Zelda being captured by a dragon. 

Why can’t the dragon fall in love with the princess, or the princess escape, or another band of NPC adventurers swoop in to rescue her at the last moment?  Well, obviously, all of those things can occur.  The GM controls the world.  The plotlines that the GM sets, barring PC involvement, resolve themselves as the GM dictates.  The GM may dictate how they are resolved ahead of time, during game play, by GM fiat, or by random methods. 

Does it matter?

Well, it might.  If the GM consistently resolves matters in the same way, or consistently chooses resolutions that screw the PCs, either verisimilitude or player confidence in the GM might be damaged.  If the GM attempts to extrapolate reasonably from the set-up of the game milieu, though, it doesn’t really matter.  If the GM also takes into account how PC activity might have altered planned developments, then it really does not matter.

Either way the GM is making decisions for the NPCs, and/or further developing the web of context, choice, and consequence which is the game milieu.  A self-imposed Arbiter of the One True Way^TM may indeed “rail” at the observation, but it is no more possible for the GM to railroad his NPCs than it is for a player to railroad his character.

Which brings us to railroading, which is the subject of Part II.

Don't Be a Weed Part II

For the first time, I have decided to remove comments from this blog that had nothing to do with a bank manager in Nigeria or enlarging body parts.

Regardless of what some may wish to believe, a blog is a moderated forum.  I strongly encourage responses and reasoned debate.  I strongly encourage differing points of view.  But this is not a forum for poor behaviour.  A diatribe of fallacy and invective is not reasoned argument.  If you want to engage in that sort of thing, please do so in your own home, on your own time.

If I would remove you from my gaming table, or from my home, for your behaviour  you may be absolutely certain that I will also remove you here.

Don't be a weed.  It applies to most of life's little problems.

Further Further Thoughts.....

"I submit that the founders of the hobby, when determining the definition of what a rpg is, and what the term means, have more authority than you. "

So now I should just shut up because I don't have the "authority"? How about you don't have the authority to claim that Gygax had the authority?

Not at all....that is merely an estoppal to fallacious appeal to authority.

"An rpg has a definition and it doesn't change based on your own whims or emotions. When Gary Gygax ran Steading at GenCon, he was running an rpg, even if he picked the scenario."

You're right, it certainly doesn't change. Your idol, Gygax, sure changed that definition a lot though over the years though. But let's all bow down and worship "Gary Gygax's Steading game at GenCon" because ravencrowking says so.

Lol.  Not sure if the goal here is ad hominem or a good old-fashioned straw man.   In case it is unclear to anyone, although I doubt it would be, saying that any working definition of a role-playing game cannot exclude Gary Gygax running a module at a convention does not constitute idolatry or worship of Gary Gygax, the module in question, or the convention.

"In case you forgot: A role-playing game is a game... Because of this (1) rules that are dissociative (and thereby force the player to make choices from outside the stance of the characters) and (2) rules or set-ups that are railroady (and thereby force players to make decisions that the characters would not make, in some cases quite literally being forced to reverse decisions made from the character's stance because the GM does not like the outcome on "his story") damage the degree to which any game is a role-playing game."

You're the one calling for "plot-lines" and defining "best game" as whatever is "most fun", my friend. You break your own definition with almost every post.

(1) A plotline is a series of events occurring in fiction, which proceed from cause to effect.  Predetermining the resolution of a plotline does indeed cause a railroad.  Determining a series of events, following cause to effect, does not....even if that series of events includes future events, so long as the PCs actions can change those events.

I.e., "a princess was kidnapped by a dragon, who will eat her if she is not rescued by the new moon" is a plotline.  This does not presuppose any action on the part of the PCs, nor does it presuppose the degree of success of any particular action the players should choose to undertake.

Contrast with "the PCs go to rescue a princess who was...." and you will immediately see, I hope, the difference.

(2) Continuing to conflate "the best game you can run" with "the best game anyone can run" continues a critical error.  This is like conflating "the best singing I can do" with "the best singing" - I guarantee you that if the best singing possible was the best singing I can do, no one would listen to any music that wasn't purely instrumental.

But there is nothing new in this post.  It's rather a time waster that one hopes will clarify some issues that, I would have thought, were clear in the first place.

Too Long for a Comment....What is a Role-Playing Game

"RPG" isn't just some ubiquitous word we throw around to mean anything we want like "free love" ("If it's fun just do it!"). It has a distinct meaning, changing that meaning to "FUN!" or something else changes the word. People sitting around eating pizza and drinking beer while improving elves doesn't mean they're playing D&D even if it's a good time.

Hrm.  A role-playing game is a game in which the (or a) primary purpose of the game is to undertake the role of one or more characters within the game milieu, and to make decisions from the perspective of the character(s) so undertaken.  Because of this (1) rules that are dissociative (and thereby force the player to make choices from outside the stance of the characters) and (2) rules or set-ups that are railroady (and thereby force players to make decisions that the characters would not make, in some cases quite literally being forced to reverse decisions made from the character's stance because the GM does not like the outcome on "his story") damage the degree to which any game is a role-playing game.

But I am not about to say that, when Gary Gygax ran Steading of the Hill Giant Chief at GenCon, that he was not running a role-playing game, or that the players were not playing D&D.

2. "NPC" is only a word just like "dungeon" or "castle" or "monster". They are just props in a world. They don't create a story or a narrative on their own. They are only there because the players are interacting with them even if the DM controls their responses.

Erm....ugh.

They are there because the dictates of the fictional milieu require them to be there.  I am not engaging in games, like some computer games, where "NPCs" only exist to interact with the PCs.  In my games, NPCs have their own plans and motives, introduce their own threads, and change the milieu thereby.

Because I am attempting to simulate a "breathing world", I don't want the PCs to be the only, or in some cases not even the primary, movers for all that happens.  The world is not a vacuum, existing merely to cater to their whims.  I would find such a set-up boring at best.

If the DM decides to write a back-story for his game and decides to tell his players about it, there is no RPG narrative happening. There is one-sided narrative, but unless the players are driving that narrative into something by their interaction, it is not an RPG.

So, if the PCs decide to seek rumours, while the GM is telling them what they learn, it is not an RPG?  Sorry, but no.

Narrative driven by anything but the players is not an RPG. If they're not driving it, who is? The DM or a rule-book. Neither of which constitute the requirements for an RPG.

I call bullshit.  Sorry, but no.

OC:  "Sure!" says the player of the cleric character, "I'm moving over to the sacks now, sticking close to the lefthand wall."

DM:  "Just as the three are about in position to look down the passages, and while the cleric is heading for the rotting bags, the magic-user cries out, and you see something black and nasty looking upon her shoulder!"

LC:  "Hold on, Gary.  Are you trying to drive the narrative here, by introducing some kind of monster!?!  If you do that, this isn't a role-playing game!"

Absolutely not.  And this is more than "given them (the players) some props" - it is setting the context and consequences of choices.  And both context and perceived consequence drive the narrative as much as choices.  They are only "some props" if the players get told "There is a spider here" and then get to decide what it does (setting the context) and what happens as a result (determining the consequence).

Role-playing game narrative is driven by the mutual interaction of the players and the game milieu as devised by the GM.

And, yes, an RPG run without NPCs and without a DM is absolutely possible. It may not be a table-top RPG like D&D that requires a DM. But it qualifies as an RPG nonetheless.

A "storytelling" game maybe, but not a role-playing game.  You say,

The key is who is "driving" narrative? The players must do this and this alone for it to be an RPG.

I say, bullshit.  The qualifying element for a role-playing game is a primary purpose of the players to undertake roles, and to make decisions within the framework of the game from the stance of those roles.  Doing so requires context, and it requires consequence.  It requires, in fact, a volleying of narrative control from player (narrative control over character's choices) to GM (narrative control over the context in which those choices occur, and the outcome/consequences thereof).

Without those elements of GM narrative control, there is no PC "stance" that has any meaning - the players are simply writing a collaborative story.

There are storytelling games.  There are linear games.  There are role-playing games.  Too much loss of player agency creates a linear game.  Too much loss of GM agency creates a storytelling game.  The golden region between - where Player and GM agency volley and build off of each other - is where the role-playing game can be found.

And, certainly, that means that there is a border area where a game can be both a storytelling game and a role-playing game, or a linear game and a role-playing game.  But, in neither case would I make the claim that the game was a good role-playing game.

In conclusion, I agree with GaelicVigil that "RPG" isn't just some ubiquitous word we throw around to mean anything we want" but I disagree entirely that it means what GaelicVigil seems to think it means.  If it did, sitting around making up a story would be a "role-playing game", but playing D&D as described or played by Gary Gygax would not be.

Teletubby Space Rangers…...Or, All Players Are Not Created Equal........Or, Don't Be A Weed

Want to buy this costume for yourself?
www.buycostumes.com
Used without permission. 

One of the most poisonous memes to raise its pestilent head in recent years is the idea that all players, or for that matter, all GMs, are equal.  It’s cool, and it’s inclusive, to note that there is not One True Way, but this doesn’t mean that All Ways Are Equal.

I know – and if you’ve been doing this for any length of time, I would hazard that you know – that there are some players who make the game a joy to run.  There are some players who make the game better for everyone else at the table.  There are some really excellent players out there.

And there are players who peek behind your screen when you go to the bathroom, buy and read the module you are running, question every decision you make, and complain if anything doesn’t go their way.  There are players who want to be in the spotlight every moment of the game session, there are players who want to “get” the other players (not just their characters), and there are players who want to bring a Teletubby Space Ranger into a carefully crafted 17^th Century game setting and seem unable to understand why you are saying no.

Most players fall between those extremes, of course.  As do most GMs.  That’s cool.  But, just as the GM should try to improve herself – to be more than “just good enough”, so should each player.  When you sit down at the table, no matter what you sit as, player or GM, you need to ask yourself, “Am I making the game better for everyone?” 

If the answer is “No”, then you had better ask yourself “Why not?”

If you’re running the game, the odds are good that you are making the game better just by running it.  If you are not making the game better for everyone at the table, the odds are good that it is because one or more players at your table don’t belong there.  If you want a nice garden, sometimes you have to get down on your hands and knees and pull out the weeds.

If you are a player, not only should you strive to make the game a better experience for everyone, but you should also strive to make it more fun to run.  Why?  Because if it is more fun to run, your GM will keep coming back.  Or keep inviting you back.

Don’t be a weed.

You will hear a certain segment of the player population claim that their fun is more important than the GM’s, or the other players’.  You will hear a certain segment of the player population claim that the game should revolve around them, or that the GM is simply not being “creative enough” if he says No to a Teletubby Space Ranger in a 17^th Century European game.  There is, in fact, a certain segment of the player population that will claim that the GM should always say Yes to player propositions.

Pay attention to who says that.  They are letting you know that they are weeds.  And, yes, a weed might be cultivated into a worthwhile addition to your garden.  And some weeds have other good qualities that make them more like wildflowers.

But at least you’ll know what you’re letting yourself in for when you invite them to the table.

And if, as a player, you discover that your GM is a weed?  Quietly and calmly excuse yourself from the table and find a new GM - or better yet, run your own game.  The world can always use new GMs.

Further Thoughts

I was thinking about the Angry DM's open letter, and especially about the comments he left to my response on this blog.  For some, good-enough is enough.  So be it.  But, I'd like to point out a few things that have, the more I have considered them, tasted more sour in my mouth:

(1) You are Special:  You know what?  Scott is right.  You are special simply because you take on the GM's roll.  But.......Do you remember how we decided it was a good idea to tell every kid that they were special, not because of their achievements, but because we wanted them to feel good?  How did that work out for society?  Yes, you are special.....but you are special because of what you do, not because of where you sit at the table.  The less you do, the less special you are.  So, do something good.

(2) There is No One True Way:  You know what?  There is no One True Way.  But......."Some folks just want to sit and laugh and have a good enough, fun enough game" implies that there is a scale.  The use of the word "just" and the phrase "good enough, fun enough game" implies that there is something that is not "just" good enough, not "just" fun enough.  Which leads me to

(3) The Value of Striving:  Let us suppose that you "just" want to have a "good enough, fun enough" game.  Cool.  My rule of thumb is, if you can get a single player to play, you should always play the game you want the way you want.

As I said in the comments to the previous blog post, obviously, if good enough is good enough, you can be a lazy GM. You can half-ass it. I was in grade school when I was first running games. I could be a lazy student. I could half-ass it. I could be a lazy student, and even get halfway decent marks.  At the same time, though, I wouldn't claim that doing "good enough" was getting full value from the educational opportunities afforded to me.  Maybe I might have then, but I have grown in the intervening decades.

Play the game you want the way you want. But.......if you don't push yourself, you will never get full value from the opportunities afforded to you. If you don't want those opportunities, that's your call. But there is a difference between striving and not striving.  There is a difference between a game that is just good enough, and a game that soars.

You are more likely to reach good enough while striving for greatness, than you are to reach greatness while striving for good enough.

Running the game makes you special.  Running the game well makes you more so.  Pushing yourself, and striving for greatness, makes you as special as you can be.  Don't just pat yourself on the back.  Be special.  Be that GM that players go out of their way to play with.  You can do it.  All you have to do is pull up your metaphorical pants and give it your best shot.

But, Scott is dead right about this too - the best game you can run is the game you want to run.  What you run and how you run it?  That's up to you.  Bring your best game to the table, and the players will appear.  It might not be today, it might not be tomorrow.  You might have to post a message on a few walls (including real walls) so that the potential players know about it.  But they will appear.

And if someone else would rather play a game about Teletubby Space Marines fighting dinosaurs around Uranus?  Well, they can run that game.  That's the beauty of the whole thing....if they love it, and they strive to run it well, the players will appear.

Worth Reading, With Caveats

Scott Rehm posted an interesting open letter to Dungeon Masters here:  https://plus.google.com/113196639040063517758/posts/SX8LCNzKUFU

It is worth reading, and there is much of it that I can agree with.  The overall sentiment is, in fact, one with which I wholeheartedly concur.  There were, of course, a few points at which I was forced to twitch an eyebrow.

First off is this:

GMs will argue endlessly about the best way to do this and that. They will argue about "yes, and..." and failing forward and binary rules and simulationism and player agency and binary outcomes and this will be good and that will be bad and the other is the only way to get players invested. And those arguments are so much noise and fury that signify nothing. They don't matter. They are window dressing. They are bullshit. And the more passionately you argue for one over the other, the more full of bullshit you are.

Obviously, I disagree with this.  A lot of arguments about the best way to GM are, obviously, only so much bullshit.  But experience has taught me that the way in which I run a game matters.  It has also taught me that running a game well is a transferable skill.

What I mean by that is simple:  My own GMing has changed over the years, mostly for the better, although at times for the worse as I attempted to put certain advice to the test.  I ran a game in 1980 well enough to keep a great many players at my table; it does not therefore follow that my game was the best it could be.  GMs, like anyone with a skill set, improve by practice, by experiment, and by discussing their trade with others.

We all have our own strengths and weaknesses.  Doing our best job means that we will exploit those strengths while shoring up our weaknesses.  What works for me might not work for you, and vice versa.  My particular weaknesses, for instance, might prevent me from feeling easy about using a better method for some GMing task I set out to accomplish.  It doesn’t follow that my doing it my way is better than if I set out to overcome my weaknesses and master a new task.

I would not be half the GM I am today if I were not exposed to the “bullshit” of GMs arguing endlessly about the best way to do this and that.  Yes, you are special for GMing.  Yes, you should feel proud of what you are doing.  Also, Yes, there is room in your GMing for improvement, and Yes, paying attention to some of that endless arguing may be of assistance in so improving.

In fact, the whole letter may seem to be both encouragement, and advice of the type Scott calls “full of bullshit”. 

That's the thing. You can't be a lazy GM. You can't half-ass it. The longer you are at it, the more likely you are going to face one of those choices. Even if you manage the workload, even if you find all the tricks to focus only on the parts of the game you love, eventually, there is going to be a human conflict at the table and you will have to be the one to resolve it.

I would prefer to read this section as “Yes, other GMs will have ideas – some of them good ideas, and some of them terrible ideas.  It might be a good idea to pay attention to them, but if any one of these ideas damages your love of GMing, whatever benefit you might gain isn’t worth it in the long run.  Always take the advice of another GM with a huge grain of salt.  A grain of salt too heavy for you to lift is not too large.”

And then I would agree.

But I would also argue that, to GM well, you must also always strive to improve.  You can’t be a lazy GM and expect to also be the best you can be.  Your love for the game will atrophy.  The bullshit matters.

I have been called a terrible, awful DM. I have been called that by other DMs. Because I am railroady. Because I keep a tight leash on world building. Because I am old fashioned and old school and don't believe in player agency over the narrative.

When I think of the word “narrative”, I think of the actions that occur in the game.  When I think of the word “railroad”, I think of the GM usurping the ability of players to make choices within the context of the game.  Scott clarifies this in the comments section,

With regard to "player agency over the narrative," this refers to games in which the players decide things about the game world outside of the decisions their characters make. In a traditional game, a player exercises their free will by deciding what their characters do in response to a given situation. They declare the action their character takes - no more, no less - and the DM responds to that. Player agency refers to the practice to allowing the player control over things other than their own characters.

Please note that this is not what I mean, nor have ever meant, by “player agency”.  Nor, if the GM allows the players to make whatever choices their characters should rightfully be able to make, does this meet any reasonable definition of “railroady” in my book.

Everything else?  It’s a good post, and one well worth reading.

Just don't get so carried away slapping your own back that you forget to improve yourself a little, every chance you get.

The Squid is on the pfsrd..

http://shop.d20pfsrd.com/collections/mystic-bull-games/products/in-the-prison-of-the-squid-sorcerer


Your players have ransacked dungeons and slain mighty beasts, rescued the helpless and thwarted the sinister plans of demons. But they have never seen anything like the strange items, blasphemous rituals, or horrors that await within these pages.

Lurking herein are twelve short encounters for the Dungeon Crawl Classics roleplaying game.

Judges can use these scenarios as one-off’s or as jumping-off points to further wierd pulp adventures. Each encounter includes a unique monster, and the book is packed with treachery, novel twists, and horrible predicaments.

Whether it’s the Squid Sorcerer, Umbo the ape witch, or Malagok the Creator Beast, these encounters recall a tradition pre-dating orcs and elves when the pulp fantasy realms were just weird..