improvising and randomizing

[Charlie D]

The recent thread on adventure writing inspired me to consider running my next campaign using randomized tables, improvising, and having the players provide the lead. Currently I'm running Warhammer 2E and using adventures. The players go along with it because they simply want to play.

However, I think if I pitch the idea of a more open-ended campaign and the idea that they need to pick what adventuring they want and if they feel like it even provide the hook for adventuring based on what they want to do.

I will use Forbidden Lands if they say yes because it is tailor made for this type of campaign. Loads of random tables, short adventure sites, and placing dungeons where they make the most sense.

A lot of OSR adventures work like this as well. Operation Unfathomable is full of weird groups vying for control and all kinds of interesting locations. Isle of Dread for D&D would work also.

I think Monster Island for RQ 6 also works for something like this. I also have the dwarven ruins for WH 2E and maybe I'll start there to try out the concept with the group's current characters. It too has a ruined underground with loads of NPCs running around with various agendas. And a city above for the PCs to scheme and plot in as well.

You could also run the One Ring this way even though it is written with traditional adventures. The journey rules make for interesting travel and the GM could sprinkle adventure site ideas around and see where the PCs decide to go.

The more I think about it the more I think I will move Warhammer in that direction. It sounds really interesting to me. And I know the players want their PCs to continue.

 

[TheophilusCarter]

I'd like to do more low-prep GMing. Last time I did some traditional GM prep, I felt like I was spending hours for every hour actually played at the table, and I just don't have the time and energy. There's improvising, of course, but I'm not good enough at it without some help. Various randomizers are good. There's Mythic, of course, and it works well, but sometimes I find it a little fiddly. Maybe if I just get used to it more, it won't feel that way. Rory's Story Cubes are a good option for something simpler, and they have various themes. I like your idea of having some little set pieces to drop in here and there, but might still require a fair amount of prep to get familiar with them all. Or perhaps random dungeon generators, like in the DMG or some online ones, but those are pretty limited in terms of genre. What else do folks use for low-prep GMing?

 

[TheophilusCarter]

I'm reading the Keeper section of Monster of the Week. Though I'm not interested in the PbtA engine, the general advice is damn good stuff. It makes it clear that the Keeper is not to plan out encounters in the traditional way, but rather to come up with an antagonist that has an agenda, goals, a timeline, etc., and then let that play out organically, as the PCs investigate. The Keeper can also think about key locations, NPCs, etc. I think that, combined with some random generators of various kinds, is just how I want to try running the Fate horror game I have planned a bit later in the summer.
Oh, and instead of Mythic, I'm think about using a Magic 8 Ball.

 

[PolarBlues]

I'd like to do more low-prep GMing. Last time I did some traditional GM prep, I felt like I was spending hours for every hour actually played at the table, and I just don't have the time and energy. There's improvising, of course, but I'm not good enough at it without some help. Various randomizers are good. There's Mythic, of course, and it works well, but sometimes I find it a little fiddly. Maybe if I just get used to it more, it won't feel that way. Rory's Story Cubes are a good option for something simpler, and they have various themes. I like your idea of having some little set pieces to drop in here and there, but might still require a fair amount of prep to get familiar with them all. Or perhaps random dungeon generators, like in the DMG or some online ones, but those are pretty limited in terms of genre. What else do folks use for low-prep GMing?

I am in the same boat in many ways. My prep can be very inefficient. I can improvise but I don't improvising the whole lot, it leaves me with a sense of GM-remorse when I think of all the better I could have handled things if only I'd had a chance to think things through in advance.

 

[PolarBlues]

I'm reading the Keeper section of Monster of the Week. Though I'm not interested in the PbtA engine, the general advice is damn good stuff. It makes it clear that the Keeper is not to plan out encounters in the traditional way, but rather to come up with an antagonist that has an agenda, goals, a timeline, etc., and then let that play out organically, as the PCs investigate. The Keeper can also think about key locations, NPCs, etc. I think that, combined with some random generators of various kinds, is just how I want to try running the Fate horror game I have planned a bit later in the summer.
Oh, and instead of Mythic, I'm think about using a Magic 8 Ball.

That is good advice but it makes kind of makes things sound easy when they aren't really. For one thing you are looking for an antagonist who doesn't simple have "an agenda", he needs to have a suitably interesting and dramatic agenda. And the agenda has to something the players can come across, interact with and clash over repeatedly with open outcomes. And of course it has to be different from the agenda of your previous villain.

There is also a difference in the kind of adventure.The OP mentions Isle of Dread which if I remember correctly was a D&D exploration driven adventure. Those kind of adventures I imagine lend themselves better to randomisation. Games about investigation and generally stopping bad people from doing bad things maybe less so.

 

[Charlie D]

That is good advice but it makes kind of makes things sound easy when they aren't really. For one thing you are looking for an antagonist who doesn't simple have "an agenda", he needs to have a suitably interesting and dramatic agenda. And the agenda has to something the players can come across, interact with and clash over repeatedly with open outcomes. And of course it has to be different from the agenda of your previous villain.

There is also a difference in the kind of adventure.The OP mentions Isle of Dread which if I remember correctly was a D&D exploration driven adventure. Those kind of adventures I imagine lend themselves better to randomisation. Games about investigation and generally stopping bad people from doing bad things maybe less so.

You could pick a bad guy and let him get to work whatever the PCs do (or don't do). Example: Grandfather of Assassins has started killing all the nobles in the city--no one knows why. Just plan it one assassination at a time and the repurcussions (from bounty on assassins, curfew, martial law, and on to anarchy). If the PCs do nothing they see the barony start to crumble around them and they get caught in the blowback (mob riots, guard haressment, open war).

Or ask a friend who is not in your campaign to tell you what he or she would do as the Grandfather of Assassins. Get their feedback one adventure at a time and see what devious ideas they develop.

 

[Tele-Viper]

Reading Monster Island and it is perfect for what you envision.

 

[Baulderstone]

That is good advice but it makes kind of makes things sound easy when they aren't really. For one thing you are looking for an antagonist who doesn't simple have "an agenda", he needs to have a suitably interesting and dramatic agenda. And the agenda has to something the players can come across, interact with and clash over repeatedly with open outcomes. And of course it has to be different from the agenda of your previous villain.

I'd say that any agenda that conflicts with the players is suitably interesting and dramatic. If the players have a tavern they use as their home base, and a gang is driving the friendly owner out of business through extortion, the gang's agenda is pretty grounded and mundane, but it is dramatic because it hits the players where they live. It also presents the players with a range of responses. Are they going to just try and get the gang to back off the tavern or are the going to try and take the whole gang down? Or simply reach into their gp reserves and give the owner the weekly protection money and let the gang go about their business.

Having some villains with complex and colorful agendas is cool, but you can go along way with NPCs that just want more than their fair share of money and power. Trying to make every NPC unique and colorful makes things harder than they need to be. A lot of times NPC motivation remains opaque to the players anyway.

In any case, random villain motivation tables are pretty easy to find out there. Any single table will probably give you more than you can use in a campaign.

There is also a difference in the kind of adventure.The OP mentions Isle of Dread which if I remember correctly was a D&D exploration driven adventure. Those kind of adventures I imagine lend themselves better to randomisation. Games about investigation and generally stopping bad people from doing bad things maybe less so.[/QUOTE]
I find you can mix those styles pretty freely. Just because the players are involved in some kind of investigation doesn't mean you can't keep the world around them animated with random generators. A lot of people put up a wall between linear adventure forms and sandbox ones, and I think that boxes them in. You can have a big sandbox with lots of random table, and you place breadcrumb investigative adventures inside it that the players can choose to follow.

And that's just talking about use at the table. Using random tables during prep can be great for putting pieces together when building an investigative adventure.

 

[PolarBlues]

You could pick a bad guy and let him get to work whatever the PCs do (or don't do). Example: Grandfather of Assassins has started killing all the nobles in the city--no one knows why. Just plan it one assassination at a time and the repurcussions (from bounty on assassins, curfew, martial law, and on to anarchy). If the PCs do nothing they see the barony start to crumble around them and they get caught in the blowback (mob riots, guard haressment, open war).

It is probably just me, but when I GM I kind of want to know why the assassin in on a killing spree! I am not a purist. I am not above retconning events in my campaign or shifting the planned timeline to make things more fun or just more convenient, but knowing why the villain is doing what he's doing is pretty fundamental.

And his reason ought to be interesting interest otherwise why are we even bothering playing this adventure? Might as well let someone else who is clearly more inspired run something (your gaming group may be different, but I've generally always played in groups with plenty of people willing and able to GM).

Also in the scenario in which the player character do nothing and consequences ensure, what exactly do you do during the session while you wait for the consequences to come to bear?
So again, while I agree prepping an adventure in terms of villain's agenda and timelines is a great approach, it's not a magic bullet, it still a lot of thinking and working for the GM to do.

 

[PolarBlues]

I

And that's just talking about use at the table. Using random tables during prep can be great for putting pieces together when building an investigative adventure.

I do that a lot. I found particularly useful the adventure generation tables from Savage Worlds Interface Zero when prepping non-IZ games (the irony is I've never even played IZ but I've used its tables frequently). It is a great way to get beyond the blank page syndrome.
But again, turning the cult leader looking for vengeance due to stolen industrial secrets into something gameable require inventing a cult, inventing some industrial secrets, an incident that triggered this all and a reason for the players to get involved, or even notice this is going on at all.

As part of an ongoing campaign you may already have elements ready, otherwise filling in all the blanks is still a lot of work and you quickly get into the territory Theophilus mentions above in which you spend longer prepping than actually running the adventure.

 

[TheophilusCarter]

That is good advice but it makes kind of makes things sound easy when they aren't really. .

Oh yeah, that was me distilling a whole chapter down to a few sentences. They provide quite a bit more advice that that!

 

[Charlie D]

It is probably just me, but when I GM I kind of want to know why the assassin in on a killing spree! I am not a purist. I am not above retconning events in my campaign or shifting the planned timeline to make things more fun or just more convenient, but knowing why the villain is doing what he's doing is pretty fundamental.

And his reason ought to be interesting interest otherwise why are we even bothering playing this adventure? Might as well let someone else who is clearly more inspired run something (your gaming group may be different, but I've generally always played in groups with plenty of people willing and able to GM).

Also in the scenario in which the player character do nothing and consequences ensure, what exactly do you do during the session while you wait for the consequences to come to bear?
So again, while I agree prepping an adventure in terms of villain's agenda and timelines is a great approach, it's not a magic bullet, it still a lot of thinking and working for the GM to do.

No one knows why means the people in the world including the PCs. Not the GM. He should always know what the villain is up to.

As to what to do if the PCs don't want to go after the villain is do whatever the PCs want to do. Delve a dungeon, buy a tavern, wrangle horses, hustle pool, whatever. As the nobles die and the town dies around them they can enjoy the glorious anarchy that ensues as everything falls into the villain's hands or pitch in to stop it.

To me, letting the PCs decide what to do is the point of of improvising and randomizing. Including doing nothing or even teaming up with the villain. The GM has to adapt week to week as the PCs spread chaos and live life large.

 

[Edgewise]

The recent thread on adventure writing inspired me to consider running my next campaign using randomized tables, improvising, and having the players provide the lead.

I'd love to do something like that, too, but I don't have enough faith in the consistency of my improvisation. These tables only get you so far, and my brain needs some space to come up with flesh for those bones. I prefer using tables during my prep and when coming up with features for the local sandbox.

It makes it clear that the Keeper is not to plan out encounters in the traditional way, but rather to come up with an antagonist that has an agenda, goals, a timeline, etc., and then let that play out organically, as the PCs investigate.

That strikes me as very un-PbtA, but what do I know? I don't mean that in a bad way. I mean that those storyesque games seem so much more player-facing, and this advice is very much in the vein of what Gronan was saying in another thread as a suggestion on how to run a heist. It's a commendably old-school attitude where the setting has its own life independent of the players.

 

[TheophilusCarter]

That strikes me as very un-PbtA, but what do I know? I don't mean that in a bad way. I mean that those storyesque games seem so much more player-facing, and this advice is very much in the vein of what Gronan was saying in another thread as a suggestion on how to run a heist. It's a commendably old-school attitude where the setting has its own life independent of the players.

I don't know the PbtA games well enough to say, but according to MotW:

"This is an improvisational game. You will start each mystery having
defined the monster and other details, but you won’t know how the
situation will play out once the hunters get involved. Let them do what
they want: it’s your responsibility to decide how the people and monsters
and anything else react to those actions.
The game is improvised in the wider scale too: you and the other
players will develop a backstory and mythology about the hunters and
their world as you play. When something happens in an individual
mystery, you can weave some of those events back into later events to
build a consistent world."

It kinda sounds like both player-facing and a setting with its own life. It'd be kinda cool if those two things turned out to be compatible!

 

[Charlie D]

I'd love to do something like that, too, but I don't have enough faith in the consistency of my improvisation. These tables only get you so far, and my brain needs some space to come up with flesh for those bones. I prefer using tables during my prep and when coming up with features for the local sandbox.

That strikes me as very un-PbtA, but what do I know? I don't mean that in a bad way. I mean that those storyesque games seem so much more player-facing, and this advice is very much in the vein of what Gronan was saying in another thread as a suggestion on how to run a heist. It's a commendably old-school attitude where the setting has its own life independent of the players.

I think you need player buy in to make this happen. They have to be willing to seek adventure and tell you what they are looking for as you throw out some options.

 

[Tarot70]

That strikes me as very un-PbtA, but what do I know? I don't mean that in a bad way. I mean that those storyesque games seem so much more player-facing, and this advice is very much in the vein of what Gronan was saying in another thread as a suggestion on how to run a heist. It's a commendably old-school attitude where the setting has its own life independent of the players.

Dungeon World codifies this into Fronts: https://www.dungeonworldsrd.com/gamemastering/fronts/

---

More broadly on the subject of improvising, I like index cards:

• You can sort them, or colour code them, put daytime encounters on the front and nighttime on the back. They're flexible so that you can find your own way to organize the things that you want to organize. You can shuffle them up and effectively roll a 1d37 if you feel like. They can be curated as the campaign progresses.
• Instead of rolling dice and consulting a table (and possible looking in the Monster Manual or other place for details), a card is the randomizer and has all the information that you need on it right in front of you.
• They have a limited space to write on, so you have to distill things down to their most essential features.
• When you're prepping stuff, you can set yourself a target -- ten more random treasures --- which breaks up your prep into manageable chunks.
• Keep track of NPCs. Flip through them every once in a while and see who's due for another appearance.

Another tool I use is making lists. Lists that essentially amount to 'how things can go wrong.' I think about the kinds of things that the PCs are likely to do and come up with potential problems.

So, if the the PCs are bounty hunters in space, I figure that at some point they'll be involved in a foot chase, and come up with things like:

• crowds of people (shopping arcade, worker protest, party)
• crates and forklifts
• running through traffic
• station emergency (artificial gravity failure, lighting failure, sewage malfunction, CO2 scrubber malfunction, jammed hatch, micrometeorite impact)
• gang or local constabulary turf
• construction/maintenance
• etc.

And maybe there is no foot chase, but now the players are on some decrepit and poorly maintained space station and I've already spent time thinking about things that could go wrong while on one.

 

[robiswrong]

That strikes me as very un-PbtA, but what do I know? I don't mean that in a bad way. I mean that those storyesque games seem so much more player-facing, and this advice is very much in the vein of what Gronan was saying in another thread as a suggestion on how to run a heist. It's a commendably old-school attitude where the setting has its own life independent of the players.

PbtA games are nowhere near as "storygame" as some people make them out to be.

 

[Lundgren]

I tend to improvise a lot (mainly running sandboxes tend to require that, as I can only guess what will happen). I tend to work from trying to understand the setting, so I get a sense of what is plausible.

Personally, I'm not much for rolling at random tables, but I can find a table (or a bullet point list) a good reminder of things I can pick.

I use the dice to shake things up a bit, but more from I pull out some numbers from thin air and then roll; or decide that one end of the result spectra is a beneficial result and the other means something negative. So I decide the characters would meet some people, but haven't decided whom or what yet. So I might assign 20% for soldiers, 10% for bandits, 20% for traders, 50% for farmers (numbers pulled from thin air, or somewhere else, but how I perceive the area). After the roll, and getting bandits, I decide a high roll is a good situation for the PCs, and a low is bad. Getting a high result, what could be good... Perhaps the PCs equipment and demeanor screams that the bandits would be outmatched and they will pretend to be hunters to avoid a confrontation with the party.

 

[Spinachcat]

Like Lundgren, I also like random tables to snag my favorite entries. Unless all is equal, I'll scavenge the lists instead of rolling. Random tables are great for brainstorming.

 

[Voros]

PbtA games are nowhere near as "storygame" as some people make them out to be.

I think a lot of people also misunderstand what a ‘storygame’ is or isn’t.

Baker’s advice in Apocalypse World is very much to create a basic setting, factions and NPCs and improv from there. Not all PbtA games follow that but it is clearly the model in AW. Many people never read AW, just the significantly inferior DW and take their misconceptions from that game.

I don’t think that kind of scenario/situation improv style of play is as radical as some present. I recall sessions increasingly tended to improv as they progressed even when I was a teen.

For me it was all very instinctive, I wonder now what techniques and tools/mechanics could help make that play work more consistently at the table.

 

[Dumarest]

I think a lot of people also misunderstand what a ‘storygame’ is or isn’t.

I've read so many different interpretations that it's meaningless to me. I've also skimmed people arguing over it as if one group were going to somehow force the other to change over to the first group's preferred style of gaming, like a forced conversion to a new religion. I've seen the same thing with others trying to prove they're more "old school" than someone else because they hex-crawl using only random tables, blah blah blah...

...it's a shame there's only one way to have fun with RPGs, isn't it? In the meantime we keep fooling ourselves into thinking we're enjoying our incorrectly-played games!

 

[Baulderstone]

Based on last night's game, I am going to advice against trying to be creative while running a game as a migraine sets in. I completed the adventure fine, but by the big fight at the finish, it was about all it could do to adjudicate combat in the driest way possible, and I left one player out dry in another location even though I actually had a plot hook I meant to cut to there.

 

[Spinachcat]

I've read so many different interpretations that it's meaningless to me.

Storygame is the wrong name. They are narrative RPGs which are different than traditional RPGs because players have the power to narrate scenes and as a group, share the power and responsibilities of a traditional game master.

 

[TristramEvans]

It makes it clear that the Keeper is not to plan out encounters in the traditional way, but rather to come up with an antagonist that has an agenda, goals, a timeline, etc., and then let that play out organically, as the PCs investigate.

See, I think of the latter as the "traditional way" of gaming. The railroad/pre-planned story I see as the "new" hotness (new being very relative here, because I'm thinking of Dragonlance as spearheading this playstyle)

 

[TristramEvans]

Storygame is the wrong name. They are narrative RPGs which are different than traditional RPGs because players have the power to narrate scenes and as a group, share the power and responsibilities of a traditional game master.

I'm only familiar with Dungeonworld, but I wouldnt class it as a storygame or 'Narrative RPG', by your above definition. Is Apocalypse World that different?

 

[Justin Alexander]

Many people never read AW, just the significantly inferior DW and take their misconceptions from that game.

Yeah. It's a weird situation where most people have only listened to the Monkees, but feel that this has given them deep insight into the Beatles. (It's a pet peeve of mine.)

 

[Voros]

I'm only familiar with Dungeonworld, but I wouldnt class it as a storygame or 'Narrative RPG', by your above definition. Is Apocalypse World that different?

Not really, a basic technique in AW is for the MC to ask the players questions about their characters and the world and build off of their answers. So PCs get to contribute to world building indirectly at best.

AW is a very good example of a game based very much on improvisation, Baker explictly tells the MC to not plan what is going to happen. You're supposed to create some maps and threats and then work from there based on the PCs reactions.

To me, a storygame is more like Follow, 1001 Nights, Fiasco or Ten Candles, where the players have GM-like authority to narrate what happens to their character, NPCs, the world in general for a portion of the game. Although these games often still have GMs and restrictions on what the players can narrate (most games don't allow you to reverse previous narration, win by fiat or narrate what other players do for instance).

Yeah. It's a weird situation where most people have only listened to the Monkees, but feel that this has given them deep insight into the Beatles. (It's a pet peeve of mine.)

Exactly.

 

[Charlie D]

Yeah. It's a weird situation where most people have only listened to the Monkees, but feel that this has given them deep insight into the Beatles. (It's a pet peeve of mine.)

Whoah. I compared Masks of Nyarlthotep to Taco Bell and sent shock waves through the internet. But did I just read something saying Apocoplypse World is akin to the Beatles?!

 

[Lunar Ronin]

So if Apocalypse World is the Beatles, and Dungeon World is the Monkees... What is the new Monkees?

 

[robiswrong]

Not really, a basic technique in AW is for the MC to ask the players questions about their characters and the world and build off of their answers. So PCs get to contribute to world building indirectly at best.

Most explicitly during the first session to establish the world. After that, it's not pushed nearly as heavily.

I mean, it still seems like it's A Thing for PbtA GMs to do that, but it's not really pushed by the actual rules, and I find it useful to separate the culture surrounding the game from the game itself.

AW is a very good example of a game based very much on improvisation, Baker explictly tells the MC to not plan what is going to happen. You're supposed to create some maps and threats and then work from there based on the PCs reactions.

Which still can be a lot of prep, right? I mean, that's even one of the principles - follow your prep. The difference is that prep generally isn't "the series of encounters that you've prepared". It's "the things that you've decided the world contains, and what your NPCs are doing".

To me, a storygame is more like Follow, 1001 Nights, Fiasco or Ten Candles, where the players have GM-like authority to narrate what happens to their character, NPCs, the world in general for a portion of the game. Although these games often still have GMs and restrictions on what the players can narrate (most games don't allow you to reverse previous narration, win by fiat or narrate what other players do for instance).

I'd agree with this 100%.

See, I think of the latter as the "traditional way" of gaming. The railroad/pre-planned story I see as the "new" hotness (new being very relative here, because I'm thinking of Dragonlance as spearheading this playstyle)

Same.

Storygame is the wrong name. They are narrative RPGs which are different than traditional RPGs because players have the power to narrate scenes and as a group, share the power and responsibilities of a traditional game master.

Which games are you talking about?

 

[TheophilusCarter]

I mean, it still seems like it's A Thing for PbtA GMs to do that, but it's not really pushed by the actual rules, and I find it useful to separate the culture surrounding the game from the game itself.

Yah, this. For Fate, too: there's a lot of talk about shared setting and character creation, shared narrative control once in play, etc., but almost none of that has anything to do with the actual mechanics. Once you get past Fate Core and start looking at various other Fate games, you'll see all sorts of pre-written settings and solo chargen, and as far as the supposed shared narrative control in play, mostly everything is done complete in-character and in-world, through the actions of the PCs, like any traditional game. I guess there's the whole "spend a Fate point to declare some minor narrative detail, as long as the GM and other players don't object" thing, but that's no different than many other supposedly traditional games (e.g., Savage Worlds, Unisystem, Vortex). Ultimately, the game itself is pretty traditional; it's just that there's a play-style associated with it, and even advocated by a loud section of the fan-base, but not actually required by the mechanics.

That's a long way to say: here's one more reason I don't find terms like "story-games" or "narrativist games" too helpful most of the time - despite occasionally using them myself - as I suspect they're really more about play-style than anything else.

 

[Justin Alexander]

Storytelling games feature narrative control mechanics: The mechanics of the game are either about determining who controls a particular chunk of the narrative or they're actually about determining the outcome of a particular narrative chunk. (Such games can be built around players having characters that they're proponents of and, probably, have preferred mechanical control over, but the mechanical focus of the game is not on the choices made as their characters.)

Roleplaying games feature mechanical choices for the players which are directly associated to the choices being made by their character. In other words, when you make a mechanical choice in an RPG that choice is, by necessity, roleplaying (i.e., making a choice as if you were your character). (Some people get confused by this because "the wizard doesn't know what a 'hit point' is". That's why the decisions are associated, not identical. All mechanics are inherently abstracted and metagamed.)

Lengthier discussion here.