Vreeg's Fifth Law of Setting Design

Superfluous Crow · May 05, 2011, 03:25:33 PM

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.

Xathan · May 05, 2011, 03:40:26 PM

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.

Elemental_Elf · May 05, 2011, 03:50:13 PM

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.

Xathan · May 05, 2011, 03:59:49 PM

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.

Elemental_Elf · May 05, 2011, 04:09:02 PM

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).

LordVreeg · May 05, 2011, 04:09:56 PM

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.

Nomadic · May 05, 2011, 04:10:53 PM

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.

LordVreeg · May 05, 2011, 04:20:42 PM

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.

Xathan · May 05, 2011, 04:26:19 PM

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.

Nomadic · May 05, 2011, 04:27:19 PM

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.

LordVreeg · May 05, 2011, 04:41:50 PM

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

Xathan · May 05, 2011, 04:49:17 PM

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.

Elemental_Elf · May 05, 2011, 04:55:42 PM

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.

SDragon · May 13, 2011, 04:27:51 AM

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.

LordVreeg · May 13, 2011, 09:12:57 AM

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.

The Campaign Builder's Guild

News:

Vreeg's Fifth Law of Setting Design

Superfluous Crow

Xathan

Elemental_Elf

Xathan

Elemental_Elf

LordVreeg

Nomadic

LordVreeg

Xathan

Nomadic

LordVreeg

Xathan

Elemental_Elf

SDragon

LordVreeg