GMing style

[RavensPath]

Okay, Don't think this has been asked before but if so I apologize. I just got done running 2 mini games at a convention and they were very different.

The first game was a scripted adventure. Fun, but hard for me to get in to.
The second was free form. Had a basic story idea, but for the most part the game came out of what the players fed me as they played. (And if you want to read how that turne out go to the Champions board and ready Game Gone Awry.)

I have always felt I was a better Improv GM, but had never had the chance to do both in one day to compare until now.

What is your style of GMing?

[Dr. MID-Nite]

Well....as a reasonably new GM, I tend to be between scripted and semi scripted. My prefered style would be a mix between semi-scripted and Improv, but at the moment I'm more incilned to script. I voted semi-scripted because I generally have a plot, but I allow some leeway if I'm able to improv without it feeling contrived.

Rob

[GamePhil]

I don't exactly do any of the above. I come up with major plot points and characters, but am willing to pitch 'em all if they don't work out (I can always use them later).

[Kirby]

What is your style of GMing?
I generally plot my adventure down with things that need to happend and then let the players deviate as they wish. This way, I either have a timeline of when certain events will happen (barring PC interference) or I have encounters that will happen in a specific order (the time between usually doesn't matter to me, especially if the players are roleplaying some good stuff).

I have had only two instances I can think of where the PCs went off on something completely unexpected plot-wise.

The first dealt with a Aztec dagger used in ancient sacrifices. It was a plot device used to link different PCs together to form the group (beginning of a campaign). That's all I wanted it for, but the three with supernatural talent kept investigating it until there was no more info and followed its course because they thought the bad guys knew more than they did. The PCs - newly known heroes- ended up stealing the dagger during a publicized museum exhibit so that the criminals wouldn't get it when the criminals attacked. Yes, they just didn't get the dagger and hand it over to the authorities, they took the dagger, left the museum and one of them hopped in a cab and left the city, not returning until the next evening. His partner ended up being arrested as an accomplice. Not just viewed by witnesses, but caught on tape!

The second was a D&D game based in the Greek era. The "team" was on their way to Athens or Olympia for the Olympics. They had a 0-level NPC with them who was deathly frightened of being killed. (And they sort of abducted him by brow-beating coercion.) The PCs kept mentioning in casual conversation things that were happening that were very dangerous (some leading up to death). One night, the NPC fled and ran back home. The next morning one of the players refused to just "let him go." He spent hours tracking him (with the other PCs following), even when they had a deadline to meet in the opposite direction. After four to six game hours, I told him he hit an invisible wall. He looked at me strangely and asked about it. I told him he felt like it was a sign from either his deity or DM telling him to forget about this person because he has absolutely nothing to do with this plot, nor the campaign any more. The character fled home because you had abducted him from there.

The player then asks me if there is any way around this. I said "NO!"

[arcady]

Even when I run modules there's so much improv going on it's just plain silly.

When I do my own adventures, I often only have bare notes on motives and main characters and a few key scenes, and then let it go from there. If the players don't take a proactive hand my sessions can collapse into us doing nothing.

If they do take a proactive hand, I become more like a conductor and can get some pretty amazing stuff going - though not so much if none of the PCs appeal to me personally. If they're not the kind of characters I would enjoy playing, I will have less to offer them simply because I find myself less there for their stories than to get my gaming fix.

I try to steer players into making characters I like, but I don't force them. It's a human limit though - we're going to engage more with what we enjoy than what we don't, and by recognizing it I try to deal with it.

Wallflower players don't do well in my games. If you're not socially assertive I will leave you behind. I see it as a player's duty to get involved, not my duty to involve them. Just my take on the world - I happen to like being the center of attention and will speak up when I can and want players who will also do things to get attention.

[Mark Taylor]

Mostly improv, but I will at least go into the session with a couple of basic ideas I can use.

[Doc Democracy]

Personally I like to have two or three main encounters well scripted. I don't mind where and when those encounters take place during gameplay and will slot them in wherever they seem appropriate.

This allows the plot to go wherever the players want it to but lets me keep some control of events. For example, the heroes are supposed to meet Mephisto stealing an ancient dagger from the British Museum but they have instead decided to investigate some lead they have mentioning Ethiopia in Ethiopia rather than through books or academic sources. So instead they meet Mephisto stealing an ancient dagger from a British Museum archaeology team 50 miles outside Addis Ababa.

I've found that doing it this way keeps the game moving and gives the players less of a feeling that they are being led around by the nose...

[Edsel]

I would like to play semi-scripted when I can but the reality is that most of my games are improv.

[Blue]

How about a combination. Scripted, but I love to deviate! My players are madmen. But I still write out everything in advance because of the possibility of a game where they don't know what to do next.

[tkdguy]

I try not to railroad my players, although I've done so unintentionally from time to time. So I try to keep my style between semi-scripted and improvised. I try to get the players to at least begin the adventure I wrote out; otherwise, there's no game. After that, it's all up to them. If they do something not in the script, I can improbvise. However, their actions (or inaction) may have consequences not favorable to them. I'm not being vindictive; I'm doing what the villain would normally do.

Here's an example. The PCs were hired to retrieve coins from a corrupt businessman who had stolen them. After the mission, the businessman had their employer, his ex-girlfriend, kidnapped. He demanded the return of the coins as a ransom. They responded with a counter-threat.

As a result, the final showdown never took place. The employer was found dead, and the PCs were framed for her murder. The businessman simply traveled abroad and sent a few thugs after the PCs, who thrashed the unfortunate thugs soundly.

The consequences are that now the police are after the PCs. Since they were vigilantes to begin with, that's nothing new; the cops just have more reason to put more effort into catching them. The businessman is also after the PCs, and he has connections with several criminal organizations as well as the police force. Of course, that opens up possibilities for sequels, but the PCs had better watch their backs more than ever now.

[TheEmerged]

The poll could have used a step between "scripted" and "semi", because that's where I'd fit. I tend to do a *great deal* of scripting and pre-prep -- it's not unusual for me to have 7-10 pages of notes, not counting combat sheets & characters -- but if my players go in a different direction I have no problem doing improv :D

[Supreme Serpent]

Semi-scripted. I've largely given up trying to predict player actions/reactions and just go with the flow. I just throw the "plot" at the proverbial fan that is my players and see where it splatters to... :doi:

[jackalope]

I use a very freeform scripted method. Mostly I plan out a timetable of events for the villains, and leave it at that.

I try to never railroad my players, though I am very fond of such devices as Starting Mid-Fight (the session begins and the fight with this week's villain is already started), and that sort of thing.

I also include a lot of "Dramatic Cut Scenes", sort of a "Meanwhile, back at Dr. Destroyer's space station..." thing. I use those sorts of scenes to drop big Clue Bricks on my players when they are Being Dumb.

[Plex]

I like creating a lot of detail for history and background information. When it comes to the storyline, though, I plot out the major events, the overall idea of the adventure, and let everything else run as they may. I can pretty easily switch into a total improv if the players go off in a direction I wasn't expecting. I like being prepared, ie: having the villians stats ready, general idea of where the story is going, that sort of thing. But I am usually not too concerned how the players get from point "a" to point "b". I do take notes during the game session, though. Things like what each pc did or didn't do, what villians were defeated or got away, clues missed or found, etc....

[palehorse]

Semi-scripted, I suppose...

I create a LOT of characters (I can never tell ahead of time which ones are going to work, which ones are going to fall flat, and which ones are going to get slaughtered until they make it out 'into the wild', so to speak, so I like to have lots of options ready...), and depending on the game I may have two or three action set pieces or big plot points more or less worked out in advance, as appropriate to the game. Like, I did a game set in Vegas, and I knew I wanted to have a fight scene that took place while the characters and the bad guys were sliding down the side of the Luxxor, so I worked that out ahead of time. Or in another case, I know they really need to meet and interview a particular loan shark; I leave it open as to how they end up running into him, but I know more or less ahead of time what he's going to tell them.

I've found it's easier to steer them gently towards the set pieces if I don't work out the in-between bits in too much detail. I can usually riff off of what they come up with and keep things moving, if not so much in a straight line then at least tacking gently towards the goal.

I also like to keep a few Chandler events handy. No, not that guy from Friends; Raymond Chandler. He said (more or less, I'm quoting from memory here): "When in doubt, have two guys bust through the door with guns." So basically, I just try to keep a couple of events up my sleeve so that if things start to slow down, I can - metaphorically or literally! - have two guys bust in with guns to get things moving again.

[zornwil]

It's semi-scripted, but more improv in the details, as well as things can change on a dime if the players say something more interesting than I had in mind. Given the choices, I selected "semi-scripted".

[sinanju]

I have always felt I was a better Improv GM, but had never had the chance to do both in one day to compare until now.

What is your style of GMing?

Definitely Improv. Typically, I decide who the bad guy(s) are, what they want to accomplish, what resources they have (minions, contacts, powers), and what they a) plan to do in the absence of PC intervention* and b) how they'll respond to problems**. Then I decide how the PCs will get involved--what the plot hook will be.

From there, it's all improvised, based on what the players do and how I figure the bad guys would react based on what the bad guys could know.

*They've already got plans for dealing with the police or anyone else they can expect to interfere. This is the plan the bad guys follow unless the PCs act (I've occasionally had bad guys get away scott free because the PCs dithered or otherwise wasted time or failed to follow up on a plot).

**Will they try to buy off the PCs? Distract them? Kill them? Take hostages? Give up and try another day?

[Doctor Otaku]

I tend to plot out the adventure and play it by ear from there.

[Guzalot]

I also like to keep a few Chandler events handy. No, not that guy from Friends; Raymond Chandler. He said (more or less, I'm quoting from memory here): "When in doubt, have two guys bust through the door with guns." So basically, I just try to keep a couple of events up my sleeve so that if things start to slow down, I can - metaphorically or literally! - have two guys bust in with guns to get things moving again.
I do this all the time, I just never had a name for it
:snicker:

[Tech]

The way I GM varies from game to game. If I absolutely had to label it, I'd go with Improv. I've had games where the entire episode was mapped out, I've had games with nothing written down and I've had games with some things written down. However, in all cases, I know the plot behind it. It allows the GM to move things along if the players don't grasp what you consider obvious or to change things if the players do things you didn't expect or even better, completely grasp the plot and move things along at a faster pace than intended. I try to avoid doing episodes where I need to come up with something in a moment's instance because those generally turn out terrible - generally, but a few of those have been gems amongst the rubble.

[BlackSword]

Tend to go with the semi-scripted. I write out the major plot points and sometimes what I want to describe to the characters (otherwise I might forget some details whether they be important or just extra color). Usually I know what I want to do enough that the sheet is there as a reminder. However, the group sometimes (as in always) chooses a rather odd path so planning too much is just a waste. Of course I can't complain, when I was playing and another guy running we wasted an entire session on something that should have taken half a session at most.

[OddHat]

Semi-scripted but improv friendly. I know who the bad guys are and what they're trying to do. I make sure that there are hints for the players. If the players find a way to short-circuit the bad guys plans, I let them take the lead. If an interesting twist comes from one of the players (she becomes obsessed with tracking a particular clue, he becomes convinced a minor NP is part of the plot, etc.), I try to find a way to work it into the story.

I've had games where the characters behaved like complete lunatics: "We bomb France! Why? Why not!" I don't usually think in terms of a campaign with those players. ;)

[Black Omega]

I'm semi-scripted but try to give my PC's alot of freedom. It's a headache sometimes and makes more work for me, but it's worth it for the fun. I know what my bad guys are doing, I can work with what the PC's decide to do.

[CrosshairCollie]

I go for 'semi-scripted'. I generally do the 'throw a plot hook out in front of my PCs, see if they bite' technique for starting the ball rolling, assuming it's the start of a story arc. I try to have at *least* three other plotlines ready in case the PCs dead-end or don't bite in some way (or, as happened last time, nip it in the bud in the first two games by being more clever than I anticipated!).

If the PCs don't bite, then I move on to the next, keeping some kind of timetable for the other plot ... thusly, the PCs can alternate between the two if necessary, or they can complete the new one. I try very hard not to simply screw over the PCs on this, though ... for example, let's say there are two museum robberies. The PCs don't put the clues together to figure out that there'll be a third, which is the third part of, I dunno, the legendary TriForce of Hyrule or something. They don't stake out Museum 3, so that game is out of luck ... so, I start up the secondary story arc. Then, after that one resolves, the PCs have to deal with the guy with the TriForce.

It can be very, VERY hard to anticipate PC reactions sometimes ... you have to be ready for almost anything.

[rebeccared50]

Being a GM from back in the D&D days (oops, am I dating myself) I've found the "I want to get from point A to poiint B and not worry too much about the path taken" method to work well for me. It tends to be semi-scripted and it also tends to depend on what system I'm running. D&D tends toward improv, Shadowrun is a bit more scripted (but ask the group I ran through Chicago about Wallace *giggle giggle* that was pure improv). If I want to introduce a major NPC, there's usually a script to go along with it, but I also tend to have Plan B on the back burner as well. Usually I'[ll have an idea for where the end of the campaign is going to be, what events are going to need to happen to lead to that, and what order. Usually I don't have a script, just a generally timeline. However, if the players want to go out into Left Field, I'm usually willing to follow. (remind me to never bring Genies into any of my games again, though!)

[RavensPath]

(remind me to never bring Genies into any of my games again, though!)


Never bring Genies into your game again. There consider yourelf reminded!



To everyone that has posted Thanks! I put improv originally, and still stick with that as my best style. But after reading some many posts I would say it is somewhere between improv and semi scripted. I know where the characters are starting, and I have an overall end point that I would like to get them too with a few possible points in the middle. But how they get there and how the final plot is resolved is a complete mystery to me.

[Fireg0lem]

Back when I first started, I ran pretty heavily railroaded adventures, but for the last year or so, I've been going with semi-scripted - as other's have said, I plan out what the villains want, and what absolutely has to happen for the plot to get off the ground.

For the low-fantasy game I just started, I decided to go with total improv - I planned out the world, and have stuff prepared for various situations, but it's up to the PCs to choose their goals. Stuff is happening, some of which will force the PCs to deal with it, but it's up to them what they make of it. For example, I don't know what the PCs are going to do - not because I'm unprepared, but because it's up to them.

Their homeland has just been invaded by a moderately-sized army, which destroyed their home village. The PCs are back at the village, and the army has bypassed them already. They might sneak forward and assassinate the enemy leader, join forces with the local lord, try to find out why the invasion happened and negotiate a truce - I don't really know.

[CourtFool]

You have to have style?! Damn it! Why didn't I get the memo?

[zornwil]

You have to have style?! Damn it! Why didn't I get the memo?
We stopped doing memos, you have to subscribe to a thread, but I don't have clearance to tell you which one.