Q: What do you mean, you neither railroad players nor have a prepped sandbox?
A: Improv!
Q: But wait, what does that mean?
A: OK, ok. Here's the long answer. Games like Dungeon and Dragons necessitate a lot of GM prep, because building monsters and dungeons is hard work. It takes time and energy and brain juice. And then you have an incentive to get the players to do the things you've prepped. But, here's the secret, deserving of its own paragraph:
That is a product of game design.
There's a whole other way to do game design where play emerges from player choices, and this is baked right into the rules.
Some examples, from most accessible to least:
1. Dungeon World (DW) has many of the trappings of Dungeon and Dragons: classes, hit points, even a move called "hack and slash". The GM has to do a lot of prep compared to some others, mostly in figuring out what the players may face. Still, this game can represent a radical departure from traditional games and change people. Lots of dice, but no d20.
2. Fiasco, by Bully Pulpit games. Fiasco gives 3-5 players, in 2-3 hours, the ability to play through their own Cohen brothers style film. Fiasco is GMless, requires no prep, and is single-session driven. You -- as a group -- choose the playset, which determines the genre. From there, individuals make decisions and act in character in ways that determine the course of events. And yes, dice help, too.
3. Apocalypse World (AW) has characters (playbooks) which, by their very nature, alter the game, set its tone, and can determine how play starts. The obvious example is the hardhholder, who is the leader of a settlement and has a private army. At the start of every session, the hard holder rolls to determine if there is trouble. This trouble can readily create the course of a session or even campaign. In AW and its ilk, while the GM is encouraged to come up with "fronts" the players will face, these are meant to emerge from the first session of play.
Alex Schroeder , who asked a simple question and got a long-winded response.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think these examples are definitely role-playing game designers trying to design their way out of the problem space of "wasted prep" -- either because it's a lot like work for the GM or because it affords railroading, which is not fun for players.
ReplyDeleteBut then again, if you manage to set expectations such that people know that some parts of your game are not improvised, then these locations on the map will be "more real" than things you all just thought up. That's how I work, at least.
So that's the counterweight I see: we can design away the option of a railroad, but we must be careful not to design away an important source of immersion, the suspension of disbelief that there is an actual, imagined, shared, pre-existing world out there. For me, that idea is powerful. In games that afford a lot of improvisation, this is often lost, I feel.
Dungeon World navigates this by suggesting the creation of a map beforehand and Perilous Wilds even offers a procedure to create a shared map at the table.
To make a long story short: I think it's important to remember that adding more improvisation also means that you loose something. Being aware of that trade-off is important.
The idea that D&D requires that prep is commonly held, but no more true than for DW or anything else. D&D doesn't give clear advice on doing that, but I see guidance as separate from design.
ReplyDeleteAlso I think Alex Schroeder's point about the illusion of a firmer "reality" to explore is a good and important one.
In the "more-improv" listed above, the shared imagined world really is there it's just that some of it arrives there on the spur of the moment. But that happens in every D&D game too. I think what's important is that once it's there, it stays there as something with which the PCs can interact.
ReplyDeleteAlex Schroeder unless I'm mistaken, DW's map is built during the first session. That's taken straight from AW.
ReplyDeleteBesides, this was originally posted as an either/or: my position is there is a third option. The merits of that position are debateable (absolutely, and YMMV), but its a major point that the dichotomy is a result of game design and culture, not one set into the world.
Brandes Stoddard I'm not sure where the line between design and guidance is. If its in the book, I'm really tempted to call it design. For example, the GM advice in AW or Urban Shadows could be viewed as part of the rules; rules for the GM to abide by.
ReplyDeleteIts been a while since I've looked at D&D: Does it have rules for the GM?
Christopher Weeks I happen to agree.
ReplyDelete5e D&D does not have Rules By Which The DM Must Abide as PBTA games do. As someone... probably you? I don't remember... has pointed out, the GM Rules of PBTA - especially Soft and Hard Moves - amount to what GMs do in other games, but push action in bold strokes.
ReplyDeleteOh, and a thing to stress: In my spaces, disagreements (especially in our tiny hobby) should be met with facts, views, and ideas. They should never be met with name calling, ad hominem attacks, or general assholery. If you see me doing anything like that, please call me on it.
ReplyDeleteBasically, try to have a reasonable discussion. :-)
Brandes Stoddard It does! And I think this makes it a lot easier for newbie GMs, as well as serving as great reminders for non-newbies. Have you gotten to play any of those games yet?
ReplyDeleteI have played a session of AW, and I've read DW stem-to-stern about a half-dozen times, but it's weird how having a two-year-old turns one's previously dense gaming schedule into a fiery ruin. ;)
ReplyDeleteI have often said that I think AW's and DW's GMing advice - especially the explanation of Fronts - is useful no matter what you're running, if there's any concept of a GM at all. It brilliantly reframes one's thinking about the forces at work in the setting.
I also find Hard/Soft moves to be incredibly useful tech in just thinking about What Should Happen Next? during play.
Brandes Stoddard Yes! and the question, after a move, to a PC of: "What do you do?"
ReplyDeleteNext time you make it to a con (hah), make sure to grab a session of something pbta. Many of them are super good, and seeing how different it is from AW could be a great learning moment.
Yeah, I agree.There are many useful lessons I took from DW for my D&D game; fronts stand out in particular, when I think back on it.
ReplyDeleteAlex Schroeder Tryed to play DW?
ReplyDeleteWilliam Nichols I ran a single session of DW a while back. And yet, it generated several blog posts. :) https://alexschroeder.ch/wiki?action=tag;id=Dungeon%20World
ReplyDeleteAlex Schroeder Read it, and I think you're saying that this third way does exist. So, do we have any disagreement on that major axis? That is, is there disagreement to the proposition that prep is a product of design?
ReplyDeleteWilliam Nichols I don't think we ever had a disagreement. To argue that there is only sandbox and only railroad would be foolish. When I posted that link talking about sandboxes and railroads, it was mostly for entertainment reasons. Also, my preference is sandbox classic D&D, but I have played plenty of indie games to feel that I've made an informed choice. Up above, I argued why a lot of improvisation is no solution for me. But clearly, improvisation is an important skill and there are various techniques that are useful to any GM out there. Prep is a product of design, I agree, but improvisation is not a panacea. I guess that was my point somewhere in all of that.
ReplyDeleteAlex Schroeder "... improvisation is not a panacea ... " Right, good game design that facilitates useful and productive time at the table may be, though.
ReplyDeleteThat is: My time and energy are valuable, at least to me. And I want my games to view them at way. Games that necessitate more prep -- especially when that prep is accounting -- do not do so. While games (like Dungeon World and, most especially, AW and Fiasco) that value the time of both players and GMs? That's valuable.
But, YMMV, and do what's fun for you. The key I was meaning to press -- both in your post and here -- is the video had an implicit assumption that the world needed to be prepped. It doesn't; I know, because I don't do that sort of prep.
Works for me. :)
ReplyDelete1 & 3 are nowhere near low-prep enough for me. I really dislike games that require me to do anything outside of game time anymore.
ReplyDeleteRobert Bohl What, are you a game designer?
ReplyDeleteI dunno, am I?
ReplyDeletewell, have you designed a game?
ReplyDeleteThen you're a game designer. (I'm a game designer!)
Did you publish it?
Then you're a published game designer!
Have you gotten paid for it?
Then you're a professional game designer!
So ... what are you, Robert Bohl ?
I was kidding; yes, I'm a game designer.
ReplyDeleteDo you spend time doing game design? Do you spend time talking about games?
ReplyDeleteBecause I do, and yet I have basically no desire to spend time prepping for a game session -- though I'll spend time and brain juice thinking about games.
That's fairly strange to me.
Yeah, I do, but it's not strange to me. The problem with prep for me is it's frequently either wasted effort or an inducement for me to railroad / get illusionist* about things. No-prep games cut that Gordian knot. And I find that the story winds up taking much more interesting and exciting turns when everyone's creativity is brought to bear on what's going to happen next by the system.
ReplyDelete* Meaning let people make choices but make my prepped stuff appear wherever they go so those choices are meaningless
Robert Bohl So, in other words, you want the Game to happen during the time of The Game?
ReplyDeleteThat works best for me, I've found, yeah. And I think it leads to positive, pro-social outcomes.
ReplyDeleteI tend to agree. I'd go further, and say something like: a large portion of good game design rests in ensuring the time at the table ("game time") is meaningful and good, and is not reliant on the players doing additional work.
ReplyDeleteFor example: board games! I can pick up and play Catan and Carc or hundreds of others with different groups. And we can discuss the house rules (if any, what, and why) during the set-up phase. There is no time needed outside of the game-time.
Contrast this with my favorite thousand pound gorilla punching bag: DnD. While I can't speak to 5e, the ratio of game time to play time in previous editions is, by my standards, downright unacceptable. Requiring this to get game time mean my time as GM is not valued.
Worse, this is a barrier to entry for many such that the position of GM continueously goes to a person with extra time, energy, and brainjuice. It is one more way we keep people not like us out of the hobby.
I'm curious in terms of actual time what we're all talking about. I feel like I can run D&D with the same prep (same ballpark, anyway) as AW. Let's call it a week of sort of thinking about stuff in the back of my head and then an hour of solid sitting down and reading/writing.
ReplyDeleteChristopher Weeks Supposing that I've read the pbta hack in question, I can run a pbta game's first session so long as I have printed the sheets. No other prep needed.
ReplyDeleteBut that's cheating a little: between the first and second (or, at least, between the first and third sometime), I'll have the game in the back of my mind and will write down ideas for fronts.
This takes longer for some games (DW) than for others (Monsterhearts).
AW is the only of those that I've run enough to have an opinion. And yeah, no prep for first session but that hour that I described is something that I've tended to spend before every other session in the game.
ReplyDeleteI just finished a long Worlds in Peril game. WiP is not on the low prep time for AW games. I spent an hour or so between the first and second, then every once in a while would rethink based on what had happened. But, largely, the notes I took at the table were all I needed.
ReplyDeleteI personally find more than half an hour prep per three hour game of classic D&D is my upper limit. Sadly, the older D&D versions did not come with a good discussion of efficient prep. Luckily, we have blogs and oral tradition and where as new games incorporated all this accumulated wisdom into the actual text of their rules, nothing stops a DM from eclectically building their own procedures for prep. So yes, I concede that the actual rules are lacking, but it will still work for people. And one aspect we haven't touched upon is that prep can also be an enjoyable solo activity. It's not for everybody, but if it is, then D&D is for you.
ReplyDeleteAlex Schroeder Sure, so this touches on a couple things:
ReplyDelete1. You have a 1:6 policy. That's roughly mine to, but here's the thing: I want everyone to be able to GM. I want those voices, those perspectives. I want GMing to be easier, so that I can have the experience of playing under someone who cannot spend that time. And I want my games to make that easier.
2. the community building work arounds is no excuse -- and may even be an incitement -- of the game design. That work is properly done in game design. That is, the game should tell me how to run the game. Or else, what are we doing with our 300 page RPG tomes?
3. Lonely fun is fun. But, not only is it only fun for some of us (I have definitely enjoyed thinking about villains, other hardhholds, etc), but it requires the privilege of time and energy to do so. Do you want your games to insist that GMs have that time and energy?
I'd say:
ReplyDelete1. I don't want the others at the table to GM because they don't want to GM, as far as I can tell. Those that do get to run their games, using their preferred rules, no problem. And I scratch my itch for other games by having an indie game night. There's no need for my game to be the one game to serve all people.
2. I can only tell you what I am doing with those 300 page RPG tomes. I'm shelving them and I'm not reading them and nor is anybody else at my table. So, I don't know what to make of that last sentence. As for "excuse", I'm also not sure. Do I need an excuse? Our lives are full of activities that are not fully prescribed and these lacunae allow us to bend them to our preferences, and to make blunders, yes. But that doesn't mean that all our games need more rules. I don't share your enthusiasm for the designed experience. I prefer my games to be less like a board game. I want there to be gaps.
3. Let me turn #3 around: Do you want your games to invalidate this prep experience? As I said before, I run and play all sorts of games. I prefer classic D&D and I'm arguing why some people, me included, my like such a game. Perhaps we need to reevaluate where this discussion is supposed to go. Are we trying to come to agree on a single answer to what's best in RPG design? I don't think this will be possible. I'm trying to illustrate the width and depth of the space we're talking about and I guess I was warning against thinking that improvisation would be a cure-all, and I'm warning against thinking that no-prep is a cure-all. I guess I'm arguing for an appreciation of the variety of human needs and the design space available to all of us as we write our RPG rules, or house rules, or rule variants.
Alex Schroeder So far as I was initially concerned, the point was to suggest that there isn't an either or between prepped sandbox and prepped railroad: there is just in time creation.
ReplyDeleteThat's rather the main point: there is a way to go between the bull's horns.
Something I can agree wholeheartedly, even if it is not my favorite solution. :)
ReplyDeleteMy next claim is something like: Games are better when they benefit from a variety of perspectives.
ReplyDeleteFrom there, its not too far of a jump to prefer game design that brings forth a multitude of perspectives from the table. And that, generally speaking, is not going to be games that require a lot of pre-work in order to have maximal input.
My next claim is something like: Games are better if they are opinionated and cater to specific needs of their target audience. Or maybe: providing for a variety of perspectives is an interesting design goal, but it's only one among a large number of goals.
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, I think this conversation is done? This last claim is rather vague. Is there some specific point you wanted to mention? Here's what I got from you so far: 1. sandbox vs. railroad is a false dichotomy 2. improvisation has improved your game be cause it reduces prep which you don't enjoy 3. you appreciate games that require less prep because that turned more of your players into GMs 4. a game depending on a community to explain the game is badly explained. Anything else?
Nah:
ReplyDelete2. on the fly creation improves my games because a wider range of people can run games.
Its not really about my enjoyment; lonely fun is still fun.
I'm not sure what you are saying is vague.
I read your last point ("Games are better when they benefit from a variety of perspectives.") and wondered whether this was something you wanted to argue for, or that you felt was obvious, and didn't know what to do with it. My only thought was that a broad appeal or multiple ways to approach a subject or whatever you mean with "a variety of perspectives" was surely just one of a gazillion parameters that make good games and it wasn't immediately obvious to me that the set of good games (for some definition of good and some definition of game) was even defined by a single set of parameters. It seemed to a statement as true as "good art is good for a game" or "having an index for a game is good" or "wargamers appreciate clear structure and wording". In other words, there are successful games with practically no art (chess), confusing structure (AD&D 1st ed), unclear wording (In a Wicked Age) which can still be considered "good" games. Now the obvious answer would be that your preferences go in a particular way but you started the statement with "My next claim is" which seemed to indicate a certain general application which I failed to see. So... I felt it was vague. :)
ReplyDeleteAh. It was a moral claim. Games are morally superior if (among other things), the game encourages expression. And a game is morally odious if it (among other, worse things) reinforces privileged positions.
ReplyDeleteHow weird. Many games have non-symmetrical roles, starting with hide & seek. I seem to make a different value judgement regarding the role of referee.
ReplyDeleteThat's a false equivalence: suggesting that non-symmetrical roles is somehow the same as encouraging non-privileged people to speak up.
ReplyDeleteBut, you are right: we've gone about as far as we have. I'm gonna shut off comments.