The Campaign Builder's Guild

Vreeg's Fifth Rule of Setting Design

The 'Illusion of Preparedness' is critical for immersion; allowing the players to see where things are improvised or changed reminds them to think outside the setting, removing them forcibly from immersion.   Whenever the players can see the hand of the GM, even when the GM needs to change things in their favor; it removes them from the immersed position.  

(Cole, of the RPGsite, gets credit for the term).


Not every GM places immersion as high up the ladder as I do; I think a lot of this has to do with my psychology background.  Roleplaying therapy involves "getting into character" as much as possible; so a roleplaying game, in my experience and mindset, is based upon this level of immersion.

But this does force some GMing questions when it is thought about.  if the players can see the machination, you are forcing them outside this immersion.  You are forcing them to see the hands moving the pieces and not just the pieces.  

[spoiler=part of the conversations]
c) I agree with Justin that smacking the players in the face with the fact they are playing a game that is partially prepped by nature (as we all agree, there is no way every NPC and every connection and every NPC viewpoint can be preprepped) can ruin or at least raise the barrier towards immersion. Justin's point about the randomly generated sewer is in line with this; to the players, it is not 'real' because it is not part of the larger, logical created setting (which actually says volumes about games that use a shared narrative). This is what what ties it to Cole's earlier comments; the players will NEVER immerse as heavily into the improvised parts of the game.
This also deals with the faith in the GM's authority, and how the players feel about ramifications. It may be fun, it may be well done, but the second the players know you are doing something on the fly, they look at it differently as players. It's in the same catagory as when they know you fudge your rolls, it weakens immersion and the sense that you are merely reflecting the world of the setting to the players, as opposed to having your own agenda.

As Ben said; a good GM runs a game that the PCs never feel any of this. They feel the reality of the setting being represented by the GM and the impartiality in how that representation reflects the players actions in that setting. The transitions between prepared and improvised must be unseen and unfelt by the players; when they can feel these transitions, it is forcing them at some level to see the world outside the setting.
[/spoiler]

I'll post more on this later.  This is a WIP, ramification thread, so I don't know if it will be of any use to anyone else; but I thought it thought-provoking.

An interesting idea and I can't wait to see you go more in depth on it. I'm not sure how I feel about it though as I've run entire games where everyone knew every single thing was made up on the fly, and they loved it more than my prepared games.

Quote from: NomadicAn interesting idea and I can't wait to see you go more in depth on it. I'm not sure how I feel about it though as I've run entire games where everyone knew every single thing was made up on the fly, and they loved it more than my prepared games.

Immersion does not equal fun.  It makes it easier to play a role and get into character...but that is just one of the things that one enjoys in a game.  It may (in my estimation) make it more of a roleplaying game; but that does not always equate to more fun.

This is only peripherally relevant, but I've played a handful of narrative-heavy and scene-setting games; essentially where players double as characters and game masters, setting the scenes which they and their fellow players take part in within the framework of an organically growing improvised common story.
This type of game seems very conductive to roleplaying in general. If done right, players quickly become connected to the characters they are playing and put a lot of effort into their acting. On the other hand, these games do not even pretend to possess an "Illusion of Preparedness" (they are often GM-free) and I've heard many say it's immersion-breaking, which only stands to reason when you are brought back into the "Real World" after each scene has been played out. So in some ways these games represent an interesting border case.    

Quote from: Conundrum CrowThis is only peripherally relevant, but I've played a handful of narrative-heavy and scene-setting games; essentially where players double as characters and game masters, setting the scenes which they and their fellow players take part in within the framework of an organically growing improvised common story.
This type of game seems very conductive to roleplaying in general. If done right, players quickly become connected to the characters they are playing and put a lot of effort into their acting. On the other hand, these games do not even pretend to possess an "Illusion of Preparedness" (they are often GM-free) and I've heard many say it's immersion-breaking, which only stands to reason when you are brought back into the "Real World" after each scene has been played out. So in some ways these games represent an interesting border case.    

On the contrary, I find this very, very relevant.

I like your comment to connectedness.  I generally feel like the constant awareness of things outside playing in-character ruins a lot of the immersion, but a willingness to become connected and invested might counteract much of that.

I think that it helps that when immersion is broken, players are not faced with the "Real World" (be it snacks, the weather, discussions about tv series or what have you) but instead by another level of roleplaying (the creation of the common story). So these games are in fact a sort of nested game-within-a-game, so even if you don't experience as much true character immersion you can generally maintain a higher level of game immersion.

One fun thing about GM-less games, or about games where the GM takes more of a background role in general, is that it seems to foster more interaction between the various players.

What I mean is, in games with a sort of top-down, authoritative GM, each player is often primarily focused on interacting with the GM-- the GM steals a huge chunk of spotlight, just by the stuff they have to be doing to make the game go. Rather than really meaningfully engaging with each other (and with each others' storylines), players often seem to be playing almost one-on-one games-- just me and ol' GM!-- which seldom intersect with each other.

If you have a game where the GM takes a back seat (particularly if players are given a measure of GM-like power to make declarations and assertions that move the game along), players interact more with each other. Because there's no other choice. (That's just the way the story is designed to move forward, after all.) When it's tuned well, the GM can just sort of be a fly on the wall much of the time, and rather than focusing all his attention on running the game, he can offer twists and hooks here and there, draw out players who aren't saying/doing much, and generally sort of massage the game, because the game is running itself.

I find this dynamic-- players investing in each others' characters-- is what I always think of when I think of the best memories from games I've been in, and it's the sort of thing I'm always striving to recapture.

Perhaps I'm using a different understanding of the word "immersion" than the rest of you, though: rather than "immersion in a fictional world I'm pretending to live in", it's "immersion in other peoples' stories, which I am helping to jointly tell".

Edit: another discrepancy: noticed the OP is talking about setting design (I'm pretty sure this is the case, at least), while I am talking about game design. So, uh, whoops

What are the other four (or more?) laws?

Quote from: LordVreeg of Sauroids

Quote from: NomadicAn interesting idea and I can't wait to see you go more in depth on it. I'm not sure how I feel about it though as I've run entire games where everyone knew every single thing was made up on the fly, and they loved it more than my prepared games.

Immersion does not equal fun.  It makes it easier to play a role and get into character...but that is just one of the things that one enjoys in a game.  It may (in my estimation) make it more of a roleplaying game; but that does not always equate to more fun.

It equals fun for me :D

Seriously though I think that if you have the right mindset you can make things up on the fly without breaking immersion though in such a case the immersion is more in the storytelling itself than the world. This can be a good thing sometimes I think.

Hmm. In my experience player immersion has always been dependent on bastard friends barraging me with questions I don't know the answers to. So I throw my setting book at their smug little faces and snarl "fuck you, answer them yourself". And then they do. (True story)

When players come up with ideas while I tie the ideas into a coherent whole, they take the setting more seriously. It seems form a greater presence in their minds.

The illusion of preparedness doesn't fly with us because game moves so quick that they see right through it.

In general, there are probably many levels of immersion that can be achieved: game immersion is the most shallow level where you are focused on the game and its elements as opposed to the world around you, story immersion comes next and here the players consider the story they are telling rather than the framework they are telling it in. At the deepest level we have character immersion (perhaps with an intermediate level of Setting immersion before it?) where the players see only what their characters see and only think what their characters think.
The lack of an Illusion of Preparedness would most definitely break character immersion, of course depending on how apparent the lack is. If the GM is rummaging through his papers or the NPC seems rough around the edges the character/player gestalt-being will be reminded that this is not real, if only for a second.
I'm not sure it would break story immersion though?
Also, I echo LC's question: what are the other 4 laws?

QuoteI'm not sure it would break story immersion though?

Not in my experience. :)

For those who were asking...

[ic=The Rules]

Vreeg's first Rule of Setting Design
"Make sure the ruleset you are using matches the setting and game you want to play, because the setting and game WILL eventually match the system."[/list]

Corrollary to Vreeg's First Rule.
"The amount of rules given to a certain dimension of an RPG partially dictate what kind of game the rules will create.  If 80% of the rulebook is written about thieves and the underworld, the game that is meant for is thieving.  If 80% of the mechanics are based on combat, the game will revolve around combat.  

Multiply this by 10 if the reward system is based in the same area as the proponderance of rules."

2nd Corrollary.
"Character growth is the greatest reinforcer.  The syntheses of pride in achievement with improvement in the character provides over 50% of the reinforcement in playing the game.  Rules that involve these factors are the most powerful in the game."

Vreeg's Second Rule of Setting Design,
Consistency is the Handmaiden of Immersion and Versimilitude. Keep good notes, and spend a little time after every creation to '˜connect the dots'. If you create a foodtuff or drink, make sure you notate if the bars or inns the players frequent. Is it made locally, or is it imported? If so, where from? If locally made, is it exported?[/list]

Vreeg's Third Rule of Setting Design,
The World In Motion is critical for Immersion, so create 'event chains' that happen at all levels of design. The players need to feel like things will happen with or without them; they need to feel like they can affect the outcome, but event-chains need velocity, not just speed.[/list]

Vreeg's Fourth Rule of Setting Design,
Create motivated events and NPCs, this will invariably create motivated PCs. Things are not just happening, they happen because they matter to people (NPCs). There is no overacting here, make sure that the settings and event-chains are motivated and that the PCs feel this.[/list]
 

Vreeg's Fifth Rule of Setting Design
The 'Illusion of Preparedness' is critical for immersion; allowing the players to see where things are improvised or changed reminds them to think outside the setting, removing them forcibly from immersion.   Whenever the players can see the hand of the GM, even when the GM needs to change things in their favor; it removes them from the immersed position.  
(Cole, of the RPGsite, gets credit for the term).[/list]
[/i][/size][/ic]

Quote from: Superfluous CrowIn general, there are probably many levels of immersion that can be achieved: game immersion is the most shallow level where you are focused on the game and its elements as opposed to the world around you, story immersion comes next and here the players consider the story they are telling rather than the framework they are telling it in. At the deepest level we have character immersion (perhaps with an intermediate level of Setting immersion before it?) where the players see only what their characters see and only think what their characters think.
The lack of an Illusion of Preparedness would most definitely break character immersion, of course depending on how apparent the lack is. If the GM is rummaging through his papers or the NPC seems rough around the edges the character/player gestalt-being will be reminded that this is not real, if only for a second.
I'm not sure it would break story immersion though?
Also, I echo LC's question: what are the other 4 laws?

Setting Immersion is critical to character immersion.  Thinking 'in character' requires being able to think of the setting as the enviroment of the character.  

And what you define as story immersion is a different level.  it is a different mindset to respond as the character, in first person

[blockquote=LC]I do think it's possible to encourage players to take dramatic risks, and I think that one way to do that is to actually take catastrophic results off the table in some circumstances. When you frame a conflict, determine the stakes ahead of time, so that the players know what they stand to lose/gain if they fail/succeed.

Like: You're playing Sir Steve, and you've got major beef with Geoff the Gladiator, so you say "Hey, I'm going to kill Geoff." And Geoff's player (maybe the ST?) responds: "Well, Geoff is going to kill you right back." And maybe that's okay with both players, and you go right ahead and have a fatal duel and the loser dies.

Or maybe you say: "Hold on a sec, I don't want Sir Steve to die-- instead of killing Geoff, I just want to disfigure him, give him a permanent scar so he'll always remember how I bested him and be reminded of his failure." And Geoff's player says: "Okay, disfigurement vs. killing isn't a balanced set of stakes, so what if Geoff just humiliates Steve in front of this crowd, discrediting him in front of his liege lord and also his girlfriend?"

So if that's agreeable to everyone, Steve and Geoff have their knock-down, drag-out brawl, and both know that they can risk the fight because death is not on the table. Steve's player knows that if he loses, the worst that will happen is disgrace, and Geoff's player knows that if he loses, the worst that will happen is a permanent scar. Neither one of those negative outcomes makes the character unplayable (being dead, on the other hand, certainly does), so while being less likely to risk death (as there's no risk of that at all, in this scene), they are potentially more likely to risk a dramatic fight. (As a bonus, the consequences for loss actually make each losing character more interesting, arguably.)[/blockquote]

LC, you asked about immersion earlier.  So I shamelessly cut and pasted this from Nom's thread to illustrate a point.

This can be one of those times where the mechanic you are using may make a better storyline, but it reduces the setting immersion and the ability to stay in character.  This does not make it a better or worse game.  this does not make it more or less fun.  It does reduce the level of immersion, I contend.

1) the players both have to stop playing and thinking in character to go use a mechanic that takes them back into conversing as players outside the game; out of first person.
2) The players are stepping out of character to determine how the world will react to their actions.  In an immersed position, the Player acts in character, and deals with how the world responds to those actions.  In a real fight, the combatents don't stop and decide that they will fight until scarring; they fight, and in a GMed game, if they were both players, I would not allow them to speak except in character.  And if one was fighting to wound and hit too hard and killed the other one, such would be the way it happens in a real, violent situation.  No stepping out of character, the rules are set up to try to keep the players IC.

Again, this may make a worse narrative.  It certainly can be less cinematic.  And for a lot of people, perhaps less fun.  I am not trying to argue what is fun, by Orcus' Anus.  But this was a perfect example.

QuoteThis can be one of those times where the mechanic you are using may make a better storyline, but it reduces the setting immersion and the ability to stay in character. This does not make it a better or worse game. this does not make it more or less fun. It does reduce the level of immersion, I contend.

I absolutely agree. You can't step back and have that kind of discussion without sacrificing immersion. I'm spitballing ideas for Nomadic's thread, here, and this one is an idea that obviously, overtly requires a tradeoff. Insofar as fun is subjective and an objectively "perfect system" is impossible, I submit that we will all be constantly making similar tradeoffs, whether we are consciously aware of it or not.

Naturally, this leads us to questions of priorities-- if we're talking of tradeoffs, we have to know what we're willing to trade for what.

If you're coming from a mindset where the thing you value above all else is players being in-character as close to 100% of the time as possible, maybe you're willing to trade a tiny bit of that in order to gain a larger portion of some secondary concern. Or maybe you're unwilling to part with even a shred of it for any reason. Either way, well and good.

The interesting thing about this discussion is that it shines a light on our dogmatic differences, by showcasing what kinds of tradeoffs we are and are not willing to consider.

INdeed, LC.  My insanty and appetitres are notorious.  I like the conversation in terms of tradeoffs, as well.  
what will make a better game for the players is the concern...

I always feel like I'm missing something whenever people start talking about immersion. I cannot say I have ever felt 'immersed' when playing a traditional role playing game. To me, it feels equivalent to writing and reading a book at the same time, which while enjoyable, is not particularly 'immersing'.

Quote from: LordVreeg of Sauroidswhat will make a better game for the players is the concern...

To go for the trivially obvious, I'd back up far enough to say that the point of the game is to make sure that everybody involved has fun.

I'd venture that there are many avenues through which one might pursue that ultimate goal (having fun), and that the way you navigate these avenues-- pursuing some, discarding others, balancing several relative to each other-- has got to depend on what your group likes and on what works for you personally when you do your writing/prep/GMing/whatever.

Quote from: Luminous Crayon

Quote from: LordVreeg of Sauroidswhat will make a better game for the players is the concern...

To go for the trivially obvious, I'd back up far enough to say that the point of the game is to make sure that everybody involved has fun.

I'd venture that there are many avenues through which one might pursue that ultimate goal (having fun), and that the way you navigate these avenues-- pursuing some, discarding others, balancing several relative to each other-- has got to depend on what your group likes and on what works for you personally when you do your writing/prep/GMing/whatever.

On a slightly tangential note, I find this balance of "everyone having fun" the hardest. Oftentimes, what I want as a GM and what my players want are different things. Nothing drastic; we still get along just fine, but I always have to wrestle over how much leeway I give on either side. Can I make a setting with guns if I feel it thematically appropriate even though my players don't want guns? What sort of middle ground is there between that? Also, systems have always been difficult; having been weened on PF, it's hard for me to get them to branch out. Sometimes, I feel as though I have to contour the setting to the system they'll prefer. But I digress...

Quote from: TheMeanestGuestI always feel like I'm missing something whenever people start talking about immersion. I cannot say I have ever felt 'immersed' when playing a traditional role playing game. To me, it feels equivalent to writing and reading a book at the same time, which while enjoyable, is not particularly 'immersing'.

I'm largely the same way, I very rarely feel much character immersion. But that's not where I get my enjoyment from roleplay or why I take part in roleplaying. I have a craving for storytelling and immersion in the story itself is something I relish. It's like creating a work of art and really getting into it, adding little brushstrokes here and there and broad strokes in other places and polishing things up. For me that's what roleplay is, like painting a picture save that you are unsure what the final product will look like, and that fact excites me.

I would go as far as to say that traditional rules-heavy roleplaying games make full immersion impossible. Immersion takes time, most of all, and if there is never more than 5-10 minutes between a die roll, immersion won't be achieved.
It sounds like Vreeg has achieved Immersion at times, but I venture that there are some periods in his campaign where the players do nothing but speak in character. This will (inevitably?) lead to immersion (provided that setting immersion is maintained as per the Illusion of Preparedness and so on).
Rules-free games could thus (potentially) achieve constant character immersion, but introduces many other problems if the experience is to be fluid: other players are not taken into account and actions might unconsciously make the game less fun for the others and resolution would be a nightmare. So there has to be some kind of balance.  

Vreeg does a good job of keeping things running at a relatively quick pace. Part of this is just how he does things and part of it is that the complexity of guildschool encourages people to have a list of common rolls ready for copy paste so that they don't have to look things up.

Never ever tell your players you made something up on the fly, it immediately and irrecoverably alters their perception of the event for the worse.

Makes sense in the middle of the game, but is it really that damaging say after the game or a few days later? How long does it take for the imprint of "the event" to settle?

Quote from: Superfluous CrowMakes sense in the middle of the game, but is it really that damaging say after the game or a few days later? How long does it take for the imprint of "the event" to settle?

That's the problem.
Once they know you've done it; thay start distrusting the reflection of the world that the GM portrays.

Quote from: Superfluous CrowMakes sense in the middle of the game, but is it really that damaging say after the game or a few days later? How long does it take for the imprint of "the event" to settle?

There's is no time limit, telling your players you made something up on the fly will always spoil the memory of the event.

Quote from: EE

Quote from: Superfluous CrowMakes sense in the middle of the game, but is it really that damaging say after the game or a few days later? How long does it take for the imprint of "the event" to settle?

There's is no time limit, telling your players you made something up on the fly will always spoil the memory of the event.

I disagree. It can but it won't always do so.

Quote from: Nomadic

Quote from: EE

Quote from: Superfluous CrowMakes sense in the middle of the game, but is it really that damaging say after the game or a few days later? How long does it take for the imprint of "the event" to settle?

There's is no time limit, telling your players you made something up on the fly will always spoil the memory of the event.

I disagree. It can but it won't always do so.

I worry less about the original event....I know this has effects down the road.  That's what I always worry about.

Quote from: Nomadic

Quote from: EE

Quote from: Superfluous CrowMakes sense in the middle of the game, but is it really that damaging say after the game or a few days later? How long does it take for the imprint of "the event" to settle?

There's is no time limit, telling your players you made something up on the fly will always spoil the memory of the event.

I disagree. It can but it won't always do so.

Certain events are fine especially if they are framed in frivolity or as singular events. However anything that relates to an over-arching story, a meta-plot, a combat, or something directly related to a character is a different story.

I'd venture to say that most people would not care if they were told a random encounter in the woods was done on the fly (most people expect that) however, if they were told that a large swathe of an over arching story where the PCs adventured in a castle and saved the princess was all made up on the fly (even if you crafted the basics of the adventure but made up the encounters, the "dungeon design" and the enemies  on the fly) will most likely garner a negative reaction. Players want to believe their DM plans everything out and knows his story like the back of his hand - that everything fits into a greater whole. To discover a large chunk of the story was no crafted with the care and love that the rest of the story was given cheapens that chunk.

I think we here on this board tend to be more DM-focused than player focused. Most people here understand how to DM and do it well. We all know the trade secrets and so our experience is not often lessened by the discovery that something "was made up on the fly" because we know that that is a natural part of DMing.

However, most people are not DMs. They do not understand the subtle craft that goes on behind the screen. They believe their characters are merely actors in a screenplay written and directed by the DM. They do not want to understand the craft, they prefer ignorance because it preserves the illusion of a finely-crafted story.

That is, of you are playing a story-heavy game. Of course there will always be some stories, maybe a session or two long, but your argument seems to hinge on a major over-arching plot of some kind.

I'm a bit confused why this is a law of setting design as it applies to what we do here on the CBG - maintaining the illusion of preparedness is vital in session, of course, but on the setting level it really doesn't seem like it's something that would come up during design. So I guess my question is: How does this Law impact setting design as it's done here or in any medium where the players aren't directly involved.

Quote from: Superfluous CrowThat is, of you are playing a story-heavy game. Of course there will always be some stories, maybe a session or two long, but your argument seems to hinge on a major over-arching plot of some kind.

A story can be as long or as short as it needs to be. Large Chunks are a vague descriptor meaning, literally, a large chunk.

If the story of the campaign is 12 sessions long and it is divided into 3 four session parts, then a large chunk would be one part (3 sessions).

"Making things up on the fly" is akin to fudging dice. DMs don't mind it but players hate it. It takes the player out of the fantasy and immersion of the game.

Every player is different and even a singular person will often react differently in varying situations.

Telling your players you fudged a die or improvised something is akin to watching the behind the scenes footage from a movie that you dearly love. Suddenly you see the actors acting like themselves and not their characters, you see how small the sets really are, you see the props and costumes hanging on racks, heck you even see the half-eaten jelly doughnut that someone left on a table. Sure those Behind the Scenes footage can be fun to watch but if you were truly invested in the fantasy of the movie, then some of its luster is worn away. That Luster will never return because you now view the film in a different light.

Quote"Making things up on the fly" is akin to fudging dice. DMs don't mind it but players hate it. It takes the player out of the fantasy and immersion of the game.

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you that this is a general rule. Of the DMs I know in person, I'm the only one that doesn't mind both of those - some with never fudge dice, some will stop the game if they have to improve, some with do both. Meanwhile, most of the players I know prefer you improve than the game stops - though my DM style typically involves having a vague idea of what I'm doing and then just improvising the rest. My players know this is how I run and for the most part like it because as long as I have energy I can keep going, leading to the occasional 12-15 hour marathon session, and I keep detailed notes post game to make sure things fit together well. It really depends, I think, on group expectations and interactions more than a universal rule.

Quote from: Xathan Worldsmith

Quote"Making things up on the fly" is akin to fudging dice. DMs don't mind it but players hate it. It takes the player out of the fantasy and immersion of the game.

The difference is that your players are expecting you to improvise. If your players were expecting you to come prepared with a story, then after an enjoyable session you spill the beans (as it were) and tell them you improvised the whole session, then (in my experience) the players will be either be disappointed (because you did not fulfill their expectations) or the fun they had during the night will be lessened in retrospect (because you lifted the curtain and showed them the inner machinations of DMing, which they did not want to see).

Quote from: Xathan WorldsmithI'm a bit confused why this is a law of setting design as it applies to what we do here on the CBG - maintaining the illusion of preparedness is vital in session, of course, but on the setting level it really doesn't seem like it's something that would come up during design. So I guess my question is: How does this Law impact setting design as it's done here or in any medium where the players aren't directly involved.

In the level of preparation and depth.  I see where you are going, this is as much a rule of GMing as a rule of design.  But it applies when someone is creating a setting and a plotline.  All of us have to extrapolate from our notes and prep; but I believe once one starts creating levels of detail out of whole cloth, it becomes easier to trip up and to lost the consistency.

Quote from: EE

Quote from: Nomadic

Quote from: EE

Quote from: Superfluous CrowMakes sense in the middle of the game, but is it really that damaging say after the game or a few days later? How long does it take for the imprint of "the event" to settle?

There's is no time limit, telling your players you made something up on the fly will always spoil the memory of the event.

I disagree. It can but it won't always do so.

Certain events are fine especially if they are framed in frivolity or as singular events. However anything that relates to an over-arching story, a meta-plot, a combat, or something directly related to a character is a different story.

I'd venture to say that most people would not care if they were told a random encounter in the woods was done on the fly (most people expect that) however, if they were told that a large swathe of an over arching story where the PCs adventured in a castle and saved the princess was all made up on the fly (even if you crafted the basics of the adventure but made up the encounters, the "dungeon design" and the enemies  on the fly) will most likely garner a negative reaction. Players want to believe their DM plans everything out and knows his story like the back of his hand - that everything fits into a greater whole. To discover a large chunk of the story was no crafted with the care and love that the rest of the story was given cheapens that chunk.

I think we here on this board tend to be more DM-focused than player focused. Most people here understand how to DM and do it well. We all know the trade secrets and so our experience is not often lessened by the discovery that something "was made up on the fly" because we know that that is a natural part of DMing.

However, most people are not DMs. They do not understand the subtle craft that goes on behind the screen. They believe their characters are merely actors in a screenplay written and directed by the DM. They do not want to understand the craft, they prefer ignorance because it preserves the illusion of a finely-crafted story.

I see what you're saying and I do agree with it to the degree that a casual player or someone new to roleplay gaming would probably be concerned that the GM was just making things up as they went. That being said a few years ago I and a couple friends had a game we'd play where we'd basically pick the DM for the day. The other two guys would be the players and we all knew from the start that stuff would be made up on the fly. And we'd run a game through lunch where we ran a normal adventure of some kind with the DM crafting it as we went with no preparation of any kind. We were all experienced with roleplaying and decent at thinking on our feet and as a result these games ended up being alot of fun for all of us and often very immersive since you had to really get into the story and (to a degree) the characters in order to make everything work.

What I'm trying to say is that not all roleplayers are the same and some will actually think more highly of you upon discovering that you just pulled something straight out of your head without preparation. I still remember something one of the aforementioned guys said. Paraphrasing here but "The mark of a truly skilled GM is being able to craft quality elements on the fly at a moments notice, being a player who catches a GM doing this is satisfying to me as it shows their skill and skilled GMs are rare". I think the key here however is quality. Anyone can slap a name and background quickly onto an NPC should a player ask for them. Not everyone can do so and make them believable.

Oh and as an aside to what Vreeg said about tripping up (a very real danger of seat of the pants RP) I've learned that if you're going to spin stuff from whole cloth alot you need to do one thing... take notes, take notes, take notes... and when you're done taking notes take some more. Get good at taking them and get good at organizing them. Interestingly enough this sort of situation can result in you and your players creating a game world on the fly.

Quote from: Xathan Worldsmith

Quote"Making things up on the fly" is akin to fudging dice. DMs don't mind it but players hate it. It takes the player out of the fantasy and immersion of the game.

Yeah, I've had this conversation quite a few times.  I've spoken and written with lots of GMs who like to create most of everything out of whole cloth, or most of it.  
And we all need to do a lot of improvisation; but I agree with EE that if enough is prepared, the players are not tempted to wonder what you are making up and what was prewritten.  But once they start to be aware of the human agency switching things around and responding to what is going on at the time as opposed to playing the part of the already written game, it raises the barrier to immersion.

It doesn't make it less fun, it doesn't make it bad...it just changes the way the players percieve the game.  It may be more artistic or more clever.  But if the pl;ayers know it is happenning, it changes they way they view the game.  EE makes the very valid point that it is similar to if the players know you are fudging the dice.  Even if it is in their favor, every dice roll is now suspect in terms of the intention of the GM.

I think this is a matter of taste more than anything else - I honestly feel more immersed when the DM is reacting and responding to what I am doing as opposed to following what they had already written. It, to me, gives the world a more organic, natural quality since what I do feeds into the DM, which it turn feeds into what I do, which makes me think more of how my character would respond, which puts me more into his headspace...whereas if the DM sticks hard and fast to a pre-written script and I know that, I feel as if I just need to get enough into my character's headspace to match the situation and a bit of me can stay out.

Maybe I'm just weird, but (In my experience) improvisation doesn't ruin immersion any more than "Make me a will save" does - and in most cases, does so less.

Quote from: LordVreeg of SauroidsYeah, I've had this conversation quite a few times.  I've spoken and written with lots of GMs who like to create most of everything out of whole cloth, or most of it.  
And we all need to do a lot of improvisation; but I agree with EE that if enough is prepared, the players are not tempted to wonder what you are making up and what was prewritten.  But once they start to be aware of the human agency switching things around and responding to what is going on at the time as opposed to playing the part of the already written game, it raises the barrier to immersion.

It doesn't make it less fun, it doesn't make it bad...it just changes the way the players percieve the game.  It may be more artistic or more clever.  But if the pl;ayers know it is happenning, it changes they way they view the game.  EE makes the very valid point that it is similar to if the players know you are fudging the dice.  Even if it is in their favor, every dice roll is now suspect in terms of the intention of the GM.

It takes a skilled GM to pull it off well, in many cases it will flop horribly as the players will think you are railroading them. This is because alot of people get preconceived notions about what they want to do and a DM trying to think on the fly who is unused to or uncomfortable with it will find an idea and cling desperately to it doing everything they can to force players back into their idea of the story out of fear that they can't think of something else. You've got to roll with the punches players throw and as you all probably are aware players can throw some strange punches out of nowhere. It isn't for everyone, it can be really stressful if you don't like that style of game. And games should never be stressful.

Quote from: Xathan WorldsmithI think this is a matter of taste more than anything else - I honestly feel more immersed when the DM is reacting and responding to what I am doing as opposed to following what they had already written. It, to me, gives the world a more organic, natural quality since what I do feeds into the DM, which it turn feeds into what I do, which makes me think more of how my character would respond, which puts me more into his headspace...whereas if the DM sticks hard and fast to a pre-written script and I know that, I feel as if I just need to get enough into my character's headspace to match the situation and a bit of me can stay out.

Maybe I'm just weird, but (In my experience) improvisation doesn't ruin immersion any more than "Make me a will save" does - and in most cases, does so less.

You should read through Justin Alexander's essays on Dissociated mechanics.  They give a pretty good background.  They also talk about how all rules pull a player a little away from the game, how some are dissociative while some are more associative.

Part of the idea of Immersion is being in the "First Person', to respond as the character with the enviroment of the setting.  The solid, unflexible envroment, and be able to feel like the event chains that are happening around them would happen whether the PCs are there or not, though the Players can affect them.  A good GM (or a great one) can give the impression that the setting is that real.
If part of the game is removed from that into what you and the GM are thinking, and how one of you is repsonding to the other, that may be more fun, and may provide more entertainment, but I can't see it making it more immersed.

Then again...I haven't played with you.   :-p  

I guess part of it is, for me, improvisation includes things happening outside of the PCs control or around them - I've got a knack for on the fly details, the newspaper they happen upon, the car crash that slows them down, weather that has no impact, hearing the doomsayer shouting to a crowd...it's hard coming up with examples outside of the game but flow naturally for me while I'm running them.

And I haven't played with you - and I think I could learn something, because Lord knows my games would probably vastly improve if I did some more planning. :P

However, I'm still not sure on an answer to my initial question - I don't see how this Law applies to setting design, only how it could apply to in-game running a campaign.

The best DMs are those that present the illusion of being prepared and having a rich story but who are, behind the scenes, feverishly manipulating the plot through improvisation and interactions with the Player's characters. The illusion is more important than anything else. You can fly by the seat of your pants and make everything up but if the illusion of a plot is kept, 99% of all players will be happy. Those that believe in the illusion will enjoy themselves and those who do not will respect you for tailoring the adventure to their character's needs, desires and impulses.

The First Law has been in my mind, if not always consciously, ever since I first read about it. I support it fully.

A variation of the Second Law was introduced to me years ago by LC, back on the WotC boards, when he explained the importance of Why questions. By asking yourself these questions, you can connect dots between two otherwise dissimilar elements of a setting, and make them consistent with each other. This approach can, I think, also help to drive plots. Comic books do it all the time.

Corollary to the variation: If a Why question is noticed but unanswered, make it explicitly unanswered. Denying the presence of the question makes it more suspicious on a meta level that breaks immersion, but openly acknowledging both the question and its unanswered state can imply that it's at least theoretically answerable.


I do agree on the distinction between immersion and fun. Yes, immersion is definitely fun, but fun is a significantly broader, more abstract concept that applies to quite a bit more than roleplaying. If that wasn't the case, then nobody would ever buy Trivia Pursuit. Even in the context of roleplaying games, fun can be achieved through activities that don't require immersion, such as enjoying Cheetos & Soda (or your group's equivalent Cake & Ale), or character optimization. Because fun is such a broad concept, I think it might be best to not approach it directly. Instead, it might be better to focus on other goals, of which fun is a likely desirable side-effect.

Quote from: SDragonThe First Law has been in my mind, if not always consciously, ever since I first read about it. I support it fully.

A variation of the Second Law was introduced to me years ago by LC, back on the WotC boards, when he explained the importance of Why questions. By asking yourself these questions, you can connect dots between two otherwise dissimilar elements of a setting, and make them consistent with each other. This approach can, I think, also help to drive plots. Comic books do it all the time.

Corollary to the variation: If a Why question is noticed but unanswered, make it explicitly unanswered. Denying the presence of the question makes it more suspicious on a meta level that breaks immersion, but openly acknowledging both the question and its unanswered state can imply that it's at least theoretically answerable.


I do agree on the distinction between immersion and fun. Yes, immersion is definitely fun, but fun is a significantly broader, more abstract concept that applies to quite a bit more than roleplaying. If that wasn't the case, then nobody would ever buy Trivia Pursuit. Even in the context of roleplaying games, fun can be achieved through activities that don't require immersion, such as enjoying Cheetos & Soda (or your group's equivalent Cake & Ale), or character optimization. Because fun is such a broad concept, I think it might be best to not approach it directly. Instead, it might be better to focus on other goals, of which fun is a likely desirable side-effect.

I can't sargue or prove what is fun. I can show people three dozen threads where min-maxing is called bad, but I have a few gamer freinds who have trouble enjoying their RPGs if they cannot game the system.  That's part of their fun.

Similarly, the wife of one of my players really enyos shared-narrative games.  And after 3 or 4 drunken conversations, she concedes the point that for most people, the shared narrative viewpoint is a barrier for immersion.  But for her, a authoritative GM is often a barrier for fun.  Fun is the overriding rule, rule '0'.

I've had the 'improv GM' conversation about a hundred times.  A lot of very talented improvizationalists resent it when they see how perception plays into immersion, the same way the combat-utility-balanced designers got butthurt about 'dissociated mechanics' when that debate started.
I should know.  I'm not speaking from just one side on this issue.  Every GM has to improv constantly; it's actually one of the fundamental skills of GMing.  I've had to wing some shit that still gives me a shiver when I think about giving the illusion of preparedness when it was all flying like monkeys out of my butt.
The place where this falls the hardest is on the long-term group, and in the long campaign.  Recently, I could have fudged the encounter or the dice in the SIG to allow for more survival of the group.  Certainly would have made my life a little easier, and the group would actually be in the ruins, where I have spent most of my prep time (grr).  By playing it straight, there were a numbre of good and bad consequences; but one good consequence is that I have decreased the disconnect in the players mind between 'playing in the setting' and 'playing with the GM'.  Those 2 states are virtually the same thing to the players (I hope), and playing it obviously straight strengthens this.  becasue once there is some dissocnance here, once the player starts thinking of what the GM is doing, he is spending extra time thinking as the player, not as the character.    

Reading over these, I still feel they should be Vreeg's Laws of Running a Campaign, not Laws of Setting Design. The focus of these laws apply to the Setting once it is in motion. By necessity a setting is static - it may have a history, it once was in motion, but by the time it reaches these boards, the pages of a setting book, or right before the game is run the setting (ideally) is fixed and unmoving - the Setting is waiting for the characters to begin their journey through it, in stasis until they do. I dare you to name a complete setting that is not static, where things are actively happening once the setting is complete. (And no, Nation X is at war with Nation Y and winning is not movement - the combatants are frozen in victory or defeat until a game, a novel, a comic, any story begins and time begins flowing again.) A setting is as a book of history - no matter when it is written and how far it goes, even if it goes all the way up to current events at the exact moment that book was published, it presents a static image of the world - the most current history book ever written is still a frozen image within a microsecond of publication. The same is true for a setting. The Laws, however, assume something that is being interacted with, something that is in motions, where there are characters making actions and actors responding. I've thought about these Laws and while many of them I agree with when it comes to running a game, I challenge that they are Laws of Setting Design.

In addition, there is a heavy focus in the Laws on how players interact with things. I don't intend to get into the fact that every group's dynamics are different and these Laws seem to describe the ideal group they want. Second is the fact that the Laws assume the Players even exist. A Setting does not have to be made for players -it could be made to provide the framework for a personal work of fiction, it could be made as a thought experiment (What if X?), it could be made for review and praise or criticism from fellow worldbuilders, it could even be made just for the sheer fun of inventing an entire area, be it a Universe all the way down to a tiny village. A Setting need not be made to be anything other than that beautiful frozen moment, never intended to go beyond that, and it need not be made for others to interact with, intended for the Author of the Setting to create his own characters and story within it. (None would dare not call Middle Earth a Setting, but it was not made for players, but for the author's personal fun and to provide a framework for a novel.)

Therefore, I ask again my unanswered question - how do these Laws (any and all of them) apply to the Design of a Setting, when they seem to best be suited to the running of a game?

Quote from: Xathan WorldsmithReading over these, I still feel they should be Vreeg's Laws of Running a Campaign, not Laws of Setting Design. The focus of these laws apply to the Setting once it is in motion. By necessity a setting is static - it may have a history, it once was in motion, but by the time it reaches these boards, the pages of a setting book, or right before the game is run the setting (ideally) is fixed and unmoving - the Setting is waiting for the characters to begin their journey through it, in stasis until they do. I dare you to name a complete setting that is not static, where things are actively happening once the setting is complete. (And no, Nation X is at war with Nation Y and winning is not movement - the combatants are frozen in victory or defeat until a game, a novel, a comic, any story begins and time begins flowing again.) A setting is as a book of history - no matter when it is written and how far it goes, even if it goes all the way up to current events at the exact moment that book was published, it presents a static image of the world - the most current history book ever written is still a frozen image within a microsecond of publication. The same is true for a setting. The Laws, however, assume something that is being interacted with, something that is in motions, where there are characters making actions and actors responding. I've thought about these Laws and while many of them I agree with when it comes to running a game, I challenge that they are Laws of Setting Design.

In addition, there is a heavy focus in the Laws on how players interact with things. I don't intend to get into the fact that every group's dynamics are different and these Laws seem to describe the ideal group they want. Second is the fact that the Laws assume the Players even exist. A Setting does not have to be made for players -it could be made to provide the framework for a personal work of fiction, it could be made as a thought experiment (What if X?), it could be made for review and praise or criticism from fellow worldbuilders, it could even be made just for the sheer fun of inventing an entire area, be it a Universe all the way down to a tiny village. A Setting need not be made to be anything other than that beautiful frozen moment, never intended to go beyond that, and it need not be made for others to interact with, intended for the Author of the Setting to create his own characters and story within it. (None would dare not call Middle Earth a Setting, but it was not made for players, but for the author's personal fun and to provide a framework for a novel.)

Therefore, I ask again my unanswered question - how do these Laws (any and all of them) apply to the Design of a Setting, when they seem to best be suited to the running of a game?

You raise a good overarching point, though some of the examples do not hold water in my eyes.  

A setting is not static, if you play it long enough. So your first issue is that a setting is Never complete. You want a setting that is engaged in active evolution?  I don't have to look far.  
Celtricia's first character was created in November of 1983 (Klantio and Gearsar), and their date of first adventure was Winterwane (Dumotux) 10.  Over 27 years of play later and over a 100 characters later, most of the current groups are playing in Spring of 895.  So we have played through the Empire of Argus' attack on the Theocracy of Nebler in 899, the years of hot war between the Blue/White alliance vs the Stenronian Alliance (899-892) and the uneasy peace that currently exists.  
A setting is certainly a setting created in that moment when the game starts.  It si still a setting once the game begins, it does not lose the status once game play begins.
This is part of creating the 'World In Motion'.

I agree that many of the rules for Setting design as stated are based on an active, used setting, and more, they are certainly written for foe an interactive situation of some sort.  I think they apply in terms of writing fiction as well as RPGs, however.  They do NOT apply well to those that are just Conworlding for the sake of creating.
In the example above, the original setting notes and setting as created in 1983 set up the situation of specific tensions between the various national states, their historical issues, and the momentum currently in place.  And if no one had ever played it, and if I had never used it for writing fiction, or for gaming, then it would have remained as you describe.

But I am not going to bother adding the words "intended for active gaming or for use" in front the the word 'setting' in the rules, due to the audience I write for and the groups I interact with.  And they are not merely laws of running a game, as they are all very setting-specific.  I will agree that the Fifith Rule, the newest, strays the farthest from this.  Would you think it better as less of a full rule?  Perhaps as a corrolary to the second Rule?  

Quote from: LordVreeg of SauroidsYou raise a good overarching point, though some of the examples do not hold water in my eyes.  

A setting is not static, if you play it long enough. So your first issue is that a setting is Never complete. You want a setting that is engaged in active evolution?  I don't have to look far.  
Celtricia's first character was created in November of 1983 (Klantio and Gearsar), and their date of first adventure was Winterwane (Dumotux) 10.  Over 27 years of play later and over a 100 characters later, most of the current groups are playing in Spring of 895.  So we have played through the Empire of Argus' attack on the Theocracy of Nebler in 899, the years of hot war between the Blue/White alliance vs the Stenronian Alliance (899-892) and the uneasy peace that currently exists.  
A setting is certainly a setting created in that moment when the game starts.  It si still a setting once the game begins, it does not lose the status once game play begins.
This is part of creating the 'World In Motion'.

Emphasis mine. As soon as a game begins, the Setting "unfreezes"...and refreezes the moment the session ends until the DM begins altering it further or the next session starts. I guess I should have clarified my initial point - a setting, posted on these forums, is a static entity until further modified, and a published setting is a static entity until a game/story/fiction begins. I do accept that it doesn't lose setting status once play begins, just assert that static is the default state of a setting unless it's being played in a way that impacts the setting on a 24/7 basis (The only example I can think of of settings that don't follow this default state are MMORPGS, but until one comes out where you can alter the world around you the way you can in a tabletop RPG, I'm going to stick by my assertion.)

QuoteI agree that many of the rules for Setting design as stated are based on an active, used setting, and more, they are certainly written for foe an interactive situation of some sort.  I think they apply in terms of writing fiction as well as RPGs, however.  They do NOT apply well to those that are just Conworlding for the sake of creating.
In the example above, the original setting notes and setting as created in 1983 set up the situation of specific tensions between the various national states, their historical issues, and the momentum currently in place.  And if no one had ever played it, and if I had never used it for writing fiction, or for gaming, then it would have remained as you describe.

But I am not going to bother adding the words "intended for active gaming or for use" in front the the word 'setting' in the rules, due to the audience I write for and the groups I interact with.  And they are not merely laws of running a game, as they are all very setting-specific.  I will agree that the Fifith Rule, the newest, strays the farthest from this.  Would you think it better as less of a full rule?  Perhaps as a corrolary to the second Rule? [/quote]

I'll admit that my problem was partially an emotional one - I read it as to mean "all settings should be designed this way to be good settings", which I found frustrating. Now that I understand their intent, I do think the fifth rule would make more sense as a corrolary to the second rule as you suggested, though how you outline them is entirely your prerogative - as long as the message gets across, then your rules' exact organization is relatively unimportant. However, the message does need to get to get across, and I'm of the opinion that some disclaimer as to the type of settings you are addressing should be part of the overall "Here are the rules" post - even if it's just a minor note at the bottom - for those who aren't your usual audience, such as myself, because while most of the audience you write for understands what you mean inherently, it's obvious at least one person didn't - and while I may be a total anomaly, I feel your points would be greatly improved with that clarification.