Post originally by Bifi at 2003-06-19 01:30:29
Converted from Phorums BB System

Thanks Jonathan,

The idea you are proposing is quite attracting. It suits more creative style of play, where the players are the main propelling force in the story.

Of course, the GM is the PCs' senses. Therefore, only what the PCs see and hear (and taste and feel...) is real. Nothing else ever exists. That's right. It's the same with us - we experience reality only through our senses, and when we turn around we can't 100% tell whether the tree is still there where it was a second before. But that doesn't mean there's no mechanism in the real world, and that there wouldn't have to be a very fast lumberjack there.

Your experience is intriguing in one more way - it reaches beyond the classical dichotomy of static vs. dynamic. More than a decade ago, when I started GM-ing, the settings I created for the players were static, with no inner development, purely reacting to PCs' actions and with few relations among themselves. After a period of improvisational GM-ing (which never went really well) I came to use dynamic settings. I see the environment of the players as a complex system of entities/elements and various relations between them. The system itself is in motion, therefore "uncounted" events occur in it every moment. Of course there are a few relevant storylines going on (NPC A wants to obtain an item B - because of wanting to reach his goal - held in possession of NPC C by manipulating NPC D to do it, etc.). In the process of creating PCs we establish some links to these storylines. Then, as the game starts, the system itself is already in motion (the environment is therefore living and believable, more real for the players). If the players would choose to just sit and wait (or do things not affecting the storylines), there are certain directions where the environment would/could develop. However, since they perform actions/establish relations that influence the existing elements/relations in the system, thay change the storylines as well.

The motivation and course of actions the players take depends upon what style of play they prefer at that given moment. The existence of a running environment-system doesn't hamper them in their actions and I try to suit THEIR story to their liking. The players' story is run by me improvisationally (as I can't really foretell and prepare several directions), but, and here is the difference, since I designed the environ, I am able to react in a believable way (e.g. in the motivations of the NPCs, etc.) and adjust the system. (Usually I re-think the behind-the-scenes development between sessions except for immediate PC environment.)

Whether the players wish to play a conspiratorial game, a violent game or an investigation game, it just happens in the already-designed setting. (And the setting develops to encompass and adjust to PCs' actions.)

When I tried sort of more improvisational kind of play, I often found myself only reacting to players' actions, causing some hardly believable story development. If my players play a story where they would like to reveal some terrible secrets, there have to be some secrest beforehand, haven't they?

But environment aside - it's not only adapting to what players prefer, but it's also a subtle GM-performed manipulation of players' wishes, isn't it? RPGs are far more than just having fun. Apart of having an artistic, political and moral dimensions, thay have also social and psychological dimensions as well. The communication among players (including the GM) and the atmosphere they create (when successful) runs on deeper levels. It is anticipated that the players immerse into their characters, which are basically compilations of their subconscious desires, problems and illusions. The players subconsciously place their characters into conflicts or situations which they experience (and often are not able to solve satisfactorily) in the real life. The game itself, played well, has serious therapeutic effects. The player, through the mask of his PC, lets other players or GM deeper into the intimate spheres of his inner being than he ever would in real communication. Through his PC he experiences situations, which help him to define his being (in the terms of opinions, morale, methods of conflict-solving, etc.) and perceive his real-life "problems" in a different light or from a different position. The game provides capacities for the players themselves to grow and mature.

On the other hand, it is anticipated from the GM to not become too attached with his creations (as you pointed out) and both being able to work at the story level, creating a believable and intriguing story which suits the players' immediate wishes and makes fun, and at the player level as well - sensing tensions/enthusiasm in the players, maintaining the game in an air that makes them feel unthreatened (so they are able to come out and put down the everyday barriers/masks that protect the vulnerable inner self), and providing them with situations that challenge them in various ways (as players, not as PCs).

Occassionally, even testing players to the very edge of their readiness to solve conflicts is IMO permitted, since under stress the development processes of human psyche a) run faster, b) go deeper, and c) human ego doesn't usually want to go into situations that have the potential to change/weaken it (from its perspective every change means weakening so it behaves self-preservatory and resist change). It is of course extremely simplified as I put it here, the real psychic processes are far more complex and "ephemeral". This "metagame" aspect is by far the most important thing why the majority people play RPGs (although they might not be aware of it). Fun is just the guise for it, although it is a very vital part of it.

Of course, understanding and harmony between players in the group is also vital, as is the player social compact and at least partial players' trust into the GM.

So, if I am to be able to work at the player level, I have to be able to drive the story without any extreme effort (without a second thought). And the creation of a dynamic environment helps me best. The problem is only that I would like the PCs to explore the inner workings in more detail.

What do you say to this one?

Bifi