A Question Of Agency?

[zarion]

So I don't prepare plots, or adventures, or stories, or scenes, or anything for the PCs to encounter in advance. What I do is come up with stuff on the fly as the game is being played.

I do have a world that the PCs adventure in, sometimes a published setting, such as the Forgotten Realms or the Star Wars Universe. Sometimes a homebrew world made up in my imagination based on the players desires and the premise of the campaign as decided in Session Zero.

Between sessions I do daydream about the Imaginationland that the campaign will take place in. I wander around in it and see the sights. I fly above it and watch as the peeps that inhabit it go about their lives. I think upon what has happened so far in the established narrative and how that has affected the world and it's inhabitants.

But I don't write anything down, or get stats ready, or prepare encounters for the PCs to take part in. I just imagine stuff between sessions, at times even dwell on aspects of the established narrative to make sure that I have that part of the story that was told at the forefront of my mind for the next session.

So this has made me wonder about the existence of meaningful player agency within my campaigns. If I do not plan ahead and plot out various choices for the players to make, this surely means they lack agency.

So my question is whether or not a no prep GM such as myself is actually able to offer my players meaningful choices? Or am I actually only offering them the illusion of choice and thus robbing them of any agency they might have in a campaign that has choices plotted in advance?

 

[ffilz]

Do you play the world as neutral? If you decide how to respond to the PCs actions from a position of what is logical from the standpoint of looking at the world as a world and don't push your agenda, then the PCs have agency because they can make inferences (not always correct) from what you have presented so far about the world, and they can continue to learn about your world so they can make better inferences in the future.

Now let's cue Rob Conley to come in and say it all much better than I can...

 

[Brander]

I'm an improvisational style GM and I can assure you my players have all the agency in the world. I barely know what's going to happen next. I set up the scene and the world with a few things happening but it's up to them to move things forward in whatever direction they choose. They can go with something happening around them or go on something they made up on the spot.

I do keep good notes, and if they come back some things happened while they were gone for sure, but I'm not wasting my time thinking about it until it's relevant. It's a living world and while it doesn't actually revolve around them (excluding god or super powered games), the focus is on them. Not sure if no prep is the same as improvisational to you, but my view is you can provide them nearly all the agency. Certainly enough agency to get themselves into some fun trouble :-)

 

[Nobby-W]

So I don't prepare plots, or adventures, or stories, or scenes, or anything for the PCs to encounter in advance. What I do is come up with stuff on the fly as the game is being played.

I do have a world that the PCs adventure in, sometimes a published setting, such as the Forgotten Realms or the Star Wars Universe. Sometimes a homebrew world made up in my imagination based on the players desires and the premise of the campaign as decided in Session Zero.

Between sessions I do daydream about the Imaginationland that the campaign will take place in. I wander around in it and see the sights. I fly above it and watch as the peeps that inhabit it go about their lives. I think upon what has happened so far in the established narrative and how that has affected the world and it's inhabitants.

But I don't write anything down, or get stats ready, or prepare encounters for the PCs to take part in. I just imagine stuff between sessions, at times even dwell on aspects of the established narrative to make sure that I have that part of the story that was told at the forefront of my mind for the next session.

So this has made me wonder about the existence of meaningful player agency within my campaigns. If I do not plan ahead and plot out various choices for the players to make, this surely means they lack agency.

So my question is whether or not a no prep GM such as myself is actually able to offer my players meaningful choices? Or am I actually only offering them the illusion of choice and thus robbing them of any agency they might have in a campaign that has choices plotted in advance?

It really depends on how you want to view agency. If you're responding, the players actions are -in part - defining what goes, on, putting you into the dreaded story gaming territory. In that case, your players do have agency and the whole process is collaborative on some level.

 

[Silverlion]

Using a predefined world does not inherently take agency from the characters (or the players.) On the other hand, if you plot out exactly what they have to do ahead of time, you may be--from my point of view agency is about letting them do what is reasonable within the world with no planned required path (see railroading.) I have used set worlds before, created by other like Talislanta, and I create adventure ideas, but if the players don't want to hunt down Re-incarnators (a specific kind of villainous "undead.") then I'm not going to force them too. Do they have the freedom to choose where they go and how to solve problems? That's agency to me.

 

[Winterblight]

So I don't prepare plots, or adventures, or stories, or scenes, or anything for the PCs to encounter in advance. What I do is come up with stuff on the fly as the game is being played.

I do have a world that the PCs adventure in, sometimes a published setting, such as the Forgotten Realms or the Star Wars Universe. Sometimes a homebrew world made up in my imagination based on the players desires and the premise of the campaign as decided in Session Zero.

Between sessions I do daydream about the Imaginationland that the campaign will take place in. I wander around in it and see the sights. I fly above it and watch as the peeps that inhabit it go about their lives. I think upon what has happened so far in the established narrative and how that has affected the world and it's inhabitants.

But I don't write anything down, or get stats ready, or prepare encounters for the PCs to take part in. I just imagine stuff between sessions, at times even dwell on aspects of the established narrative to make sure that I have that part of the story that was told at the forefront of my mind for the next session.

So this has made me wonder about the existence of meaningful player agency within my campaigns. If I do not plan ahead and plot out various choices for the players to make, this surely means they lack agency.

So my question is whether or not a no prep GM such as myself is actually able to offer my players meaningful choices? Or am I actually only offering them the illusion of choice and thus robbing them of any agency they might have in a campaign that has choices plotted in advance?

I need to write basic things down, but my prep is still minimal. Maybe some plot ideas to get the characters fired up, or a few possible encounters that would be likely in the setting, some unique magic items or locations of note. It seems like you do these things in your head, but I will forget if I don't write them down. I don't think this in any way takes agency from the players. I'm preparing myself, not what the players are necessarily going to do. It sounds to me that this is also what you are doing.

Even if you have a pre-defined setting, which by its very nature could be a constraint on some actions, this doesn't take agency from the players. Where the risk of taking away player agency in this scenario might lie is if the players themselves don't know anything about the setting they are gaming in. If your players don't know anything about the setting, they might be relying on you to guide them and therefore that might be the illusion of choice?

 

[Baulderstone]

Where the risk of taking away player agency in this scenario might lie is if the players themselves don't know anything about the setting they are gaming in. If your players don't know anything about the setting, they might be relying on you to guide them and therefore that might be the illusion of choice?

This is a good point. I am running an Over the Edge game right now, which has a defined setting, but is meant to be very player-driven. During the first session, the game was fun, but I felt the players where a little aimless at times and I needed to nudge them. For the second session, I went through the book and wrote up a list of the districts and the city and prominent places in each district with a brief description. Having a more concrete handle on the setting freed them up to make more decisions on their own.

 

[Sommerjon]

Isn't this Illusionism?

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think in any game where there’s some kind of setting defined, and the flow of play largely comes from the GM having the fictional world respond to the actions of the player-characters, you’re generally maintaining agency.

Is it possible to force specific outcomes with this play mode? Sure, but for most such games that would be an example of bad GMing.

 

[CRKrueger]

It really depends on how you want to view agency. If you're responding, the players actions are -in part - defining what goes, on, putting you into the dreaded story gaming territory. In that case, your players do have agency and the whole process is collaborative on some level.

An important distinction is Player Agency vs. Character Agency.

 

[Fenris-77]

Isn't this Illusionism?

Not necessarily. General usage of illusionism includes an element of GM force, if the GM is allowing player actions to actually drive choices, not just appear to, then I think you sidestep illusionism neatly. For example, PbtA play generally.

 

[robertsconley]

So I don't prepare plots, or adventures, or stories, or scenes, or anything for the PCs to encounter in advance. What I do is come up with stuff on the fly as the game is being played.

I do have a world that the PCs adventure in, sometimes a published setting, such as the Forgotten Realms or the Star Wars Universe. Sometimes a homebrew world made up in my imagination based on the players desires and the premise of the campaign as decided in Session Zero.

Between sessions I do daydream about the Imaginationland that the campaign will take place in. I wander around in it and see the sights. I fly above it and watch as the peeps that inhabit it go about their lives. I think upon what has happened so far in the established narrative and how that has affected the world and it's inhabitants.

But I don't write anything down, or get stats ready, or prepare encounters for the PCs to take part in. I just imagine stuff between sessions, at times even dwell on aspects of the established narrative to make sure that I have that part of the story that was told at the forefront of my mind for the next session.

So this has made me wonder about the existence of meaningful player agency within my campaigns. If I do not plan ahead and plot out various choices for the players to make, this surely means they lack agency.

So my question is whether or not a no prep GM such as myself is actually able to offer my players meaningful choices? Or am I actually only offering them the illusion of choice and thus robbing them of any agency they might have in a campaign that has choices plotted in advance?

1) You have a good memory technique cultivate it.

2) Agency is about considering the circumstances, what been established, and making a decision about how the NPCs will behave in the future. The only thing different is how you handle what been established. As along you are consistent after you thought something up then I don't see an issue.

3) However, my experience is that while I can certainly run things on the fly even create whole adventures and NPCs out nothing. I have to write notes down so that I handle that locale and those NPCs in a consistent manner the next session. Moreso there are locales and groups of NPCs where the scope is such that I need to have something written to remain consistent although for me it doesn't need to be much. Generally a map with notes, some lists (treasures, NPCs, etc) is all I need.

Also I need to do some work beforehand if it is something I don't often like a different culture, or a different style of adventure.

My experience is that if I didn't keep notes, didn't prep something things beforehand. Then what tends to happen is considerably narrower in scope and more limited in execution. So rather than a one size all solution. I adapt what I do to the requirements. of what I need for the campaign to happen as it unfolds.

So the answer is no what you do doesn't limit agency if you are fair and consistent about what you already done. However perhaps you are limiting your scope of your campaign to what you can handle. But then again, storytellers remember hundreds of stories is not uncommon in human experience. So maybe you have it covered as far as that goes.

In which case, hone it and milk it for all it worth. Just keep in mind is only pertains how the details of the settings are retained from session to session. The rest is based on how you conduct yourself as referee.

 

[zarion]

Well, I do keep notes on what has happened once narrative has been established. Mostly names of NPCs. But even then it's minimal at best.

I do try to make sure that the world responds logically to the actions the PCs have taken. I also try to imagine what NPCs would be doing and what they might be planning so if the PCs encounter them again it won't be as if they were stuck in a vacuum the whole time.

 

[zarion]

An important distinction is Player Agency vs. Character Agency.

Please elaborate as I am not sure I understand?

 

[zarion]

Isn't this Illusionism?

That's what I'm worried about...

 

[ffilz]

Well, I do keep notes on what has happened once narrative has been established. Mostly names of NPCs. But even then it's minimal at best.

I do try to make sure that the world responds logically to the actions the PCs have taken. I also try to imagine what NPCs would be doing and what they might be planning so if the PCs encounter them again it won't be as if they were stuck in a vacuum the whole time.

Isn't this Illusionism?

That's what I'm worried about...

From the first quote above, I don't think so. You may be relying more on memory than others, but I hear a big intent to "play the world" in a neutral way. None of us can be perfectly neutral anyway. So given what you are doing, I see plenty of player agency.

 

[TristramEvans]

That's what I'm worried about...

Well, first off...don't worry. It doesn't matter what it is as long as you and the players are enjoying yourselves. The point of identifying these sorts of terms is merely to assist in the enjoyment of games, not to come up with reasons for anyone to feel like they're engaging in badwrongfun.

 

[robertsconley]

That's what I'm worried about...

Your human not God, so your good. We all do this what matters is what I said before. You consider the circumstances, what you established, make a ruling on how the NPC is going to behave.


If you are concerned about bias, then make a random tables for various situation, roll, and roleplay accordingly. Just makes sure the random table expresses what you think the range of possible results are and the odds of any one of them occurring. It only important come up with things that are possible. The life of the setting and the NPCs isn't always about what most probable. I.e. people do batshit crazy things from time to time. But not all the time or most of the time.

 

[AsenRG]

So my question is whether or not a no prep GM such as myself is actually able to offer my players meaningful choices? Or am I actually only offering them the illusion of choice and thus robbing them of any agency they might have in a campaign that has choices plotted in advance?

I'm a no-prep GM like you and I say that's not true.
You don't need to plot the choices they're being offered in advance of the session. You can make them up during.
As long as we had an idea about the situation and the likely outcomes of different actions before the PCs chose their approach, and didn't choose the result after they spoke, I believe we're fine!

 

[Sommerjon]

That's what I'm worried about...

To me it is.
After a comment from one of the players I had to assess the situation. I had a nice long talk to myself about what he had said. I realized I was leading the players around. It was unintentional, but that doesn't absolve me of what I was doing.

Without having something written down I found it's too easy to use 'OOC knowledge' to make decisions that sound logical, but in actuality are not.
When running the No-Prep Game I may use knowledge of something that the NPC wouldn't be aware of for a time afterwards, but I, as the person running the game, have. The NPCs are getting the ability to read ahead, that's not fair to the players.
And
I wouldn't remember something that for me would almost be a throw away statement, but for a player could be something to grab onto because reasons. Unless you have hyperthymesia, there are things you won't remember.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Without having something written down I found it's too easy to use 'OOC knowledge' to make decisions that sound logical, but in actuality are not.
When running the No-Prep Game I may use knowledge of something that the NPC wouldn't be aware of for a time afterwards, but I, as the person running the game, have. The NPCs are getting the ability to read ahead, that's not fair to the players.

Do you have an example of this in mind that you can share?

It seems like an interesting idea, but I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Or if it doesn't also apply to NPCs in prepared material, too.

 

[robertsconley]

Without having something written down I found it's too easy to use 'OOC knowledge' to make decisions that sound logical, but in actuality are not.
When running the No-Prep Game I may use knowledge of something that the NPC wouldn't be aware of for a time afterwards, but I, as the person running the game, have. The NPCs are getting the ability to read ahead, that's not fair to the players.

If a referee is committed to being fair, I found there no difference in the level of bias (OOC or otherwise) from rulings on the fly versus writing it down. If bias is a concern then same steps need to be taken for both instances. Writing it down before hand does offer the opportunity for revision before being used in a session. However in practice given that what we do is a hobby most referee never find the time.

However that in a general sense. For you I can understand that writing it down works better to minimize OOC issues. It goes hand in hand that we all think about this stuff in different ways related to how we learn and create things.

For somebody like zarion writing it down may not be the solution. Given his account of how he referees, I think increasing the amount he writes down would diminish his enjoyment of the hobby. Making it feel too much like homework. I could be wrong but that the general gist I get from reading his responses.

Whether writing it down or making up material on the fly, I found an effective way to minimize various types of bias is to come up with a decent set of random tables. It doesn't need to be elaborate just enough of a mnemonic so that something like red comes up when you create something rather various shades of blue.

Create a cheat sheet of these table or use something like NBos' Inspiration Pad Pro.

 

[Sommerjon]

Do you have an example of this in mind that you can share?

It seems like an interesting idea, but I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Or if it doesn't also apply to NPCs in prepared material, too.

The first time I remember paying attention to it was when we were playing in a guy's Rifts game. Most every encounter he would roll to see if the NPCs would have silver coated weapons/bullets(we were mostly PCs who were vulnerable to silver) in a place where Were and Vamps weren't known to be around.
I called him on it after it kept happening. He said "it's only a 5% chance it's no big deal" Do you think it was only 1 in 20 encounters?

And 15 years later here I am essentially doing the same thing. The PCs cast a spell for an advantage against so and so, I then say "well he is so and so it's plausible he would have something to counter this lets roll to see". Do you think I would be rolling if they hadn't cast the spell?
Or the PCs talk with Clan A about Group B and 30 minutes after that meeting they are at Group B pumping them for info about Clan A, but Group B already knows they talked to Clan A, you know cuz there might be a chance they knew already so I rolled and waddya know. Really there shouldn't be but hey there's always a chance or it's Group B has a mole in Clan A who conveniently was either there at the meeting or knew about the unplanned meeting and still got word over to the group. IoW I use sophistry to make it happen.

 

[Fenris-77]

Huh. I never roll for that sort of thing unless I've already established that there is some chance it's the case. The silver thing is pretty brutal IMO, as is the spell thing (no offense), but the two groups example would depend. If it was reasonable that one or both groups might have a mole or a contact then it might be reasonable, but 30 minutes might be pushing things a little, the next day though, not so much, IMO anyway. If there was going to be a mole I'd also establish that at the beginning of that encounter with A, and there would be some chance that the PCs would be able to suss that out while talking to group A.

 

[Sommerjon]

If a referee is committed to being fair, I found there no difference in the level of bias (OOC or otherwise) from rulings on the fly versus writing it down. If bias is a concern then same steps need to be taken for both instances. Writing it down before hand does offer the opportunity for revision before being used in a session. However in practice given that what we do is a hobby most referee never find the time.

However that in a general sense. For you I can understand that writing it down works better to minimize OOC issues. It goes hand in hand that we all think about this stuff in different ways related to how we learn and create things.

For somebody like zarion writing it down may not be the solution. Given his account of how he referees, I think increasing the amount he writes down would diminish his enjoyment of the hobby. Making it feel too much like homework. I could be wrong but that the general gist I get from reading his responses.

Whether writing it down or making up material on the fly, I found an effective way to minimize various types of bias is to come up with a decent set of random tables. It doesn't need to be elaborate just enough of a mnemonic so that something like red comes up when you create something rather various shades of blue.

Create a cheat sheet of these table or use something like NBos' Inspiration Pad Pro.

And I have found there is a difference in the level of bias in myself and every single GM I have played with who run on the fly. it is why I stopped running on the fly.

 

[Sommerjon]

Huh. I never roll for that sort of thing unless I've already established that there is some chance it's the case. The silver thing is pretty brutal IMO, as is the spell thing (no offense), but the two groups example would depend. If it was reasonable that one or both groups might have a mole or a contact then it might be reasonable, but 30 minutes might be pushing things a little, the next day though, not so much, IMO anyway. If there was going to be a mole I'd also establish that at the beginning of that encounter with A, and there would be some chance that the PCs would be able to suss that out while talking to group A.

Which is why time now plays a very large part in my games. Totally agree if it was the next day. It was 30 minutes which is why it has stuck in my head all these years later.
I didn't think I was being bias at the time. Looking back though, it's like really dude?
Of course they have moles.
Of course there is a chance the mole will be at the meeting.(roll)
Of course the mole should be able to relay exactly what went on before the PCs can get to the other group.(roll)

Or it could be I'm just a shitty GM
Whichever makes you sleep better.

 

[Fenris-77]

And I have found there is a difference in the level of bias in myself and every single GM I have played with who run on the fly. it is why I stopped running on the fly.

Just curious, have you GMd any PbtA games at all? Just trying to get a sense of your frame of reference.

 

[Fenris-77]

Which is why time now plays a very large part in my games. Totally agree if it was the next day. It was 30 minutes which is why it has stuck in my head all these years later.
I didn't think I was being bias at the time. Looking back though, it's like really dude?
Of course they have moles.
Of course there is a chance the mole will be at the meeting.(roll)
Of course the mole should be able to relay exactly what went on before the PCs can get to the other group.(roll)

Or it could be I'm just a shitty GM
Whichever makes you sleep better.

No, not at all. It's all part of the GM learning curve. You wouldn't GM it like that now, would you? Of course not. We all learn though experience what works and what doesn't. I'm a way better GM now that I was in my teens or 20's. A big part of my learning curve was to figure out when to include and how to telegraph things like the mole example. I mostly don't do shit like like that behind the scenes any more. One because it smacks of GM Force, and two, because it's actually way more interesting to have the players find out about the mole at the first meeting.

 

[zarion]

And I have found there is a difference in the level of bias in myself and every single GM I have played with who run on the fly. it is why I stopped running on the fly.

I guess that's why I use the term logical to describe my bias. So if the bad guys had no idea of Vamps or Wolves and their vulnerability to silver, they logically wouldn't have silver bullets.

I also try really hard not to be a dick. So if the players come up with a plan that totally blows my mind, I almost always roll with it unless there is a logical reason why the bad guys would be prepared for such a plan.

 

[robertsconley]

For an example of what I am talking about. Below is a set of charts I use to roll to see what spell a scroll, or wand contains. The level of the spell is determined by the treasure table hence no random level determination in this set of chart. So if I need to generate a 2nd level spell scroll. I roll the spell type and then roll on the cleric or magic user 2nd level spell table.

Note that I didn't assign an equal chance to each spell. Instead based on my experience and what I think it likely for magic-user or clerics to scribe on spells I assign odds to each spells and setup the tables accordingly. This is how I view it works in my Majestic Fantasy Realms. How you view it for your setting is likely difference, hence the tables below would be different.

For example if the spell to be scribed is a cleric spell it is highly likely that it would Cure Light Wounds. It reflect of what my player have done and what I would do if I had a character who had a cleric who made spell scrolls. Most of my scrolls would be cure light wounds because of utility of the spell versus the cost.
These tables reflect how I view this element of my setting and ensure as a side benefit I don't just keep picking the same narrow range of spells over and over again. And also aid in suspension of disbelief because players are not continually finding spell scrolls and asking why the hell this individual scribe so many useless scrolls.

 

[robertsconley]

I also try really hard not to be a dick.

Yeah adopting "Don't be a dick about it." goes a long long way in running fun campaigns.

 

[robertsconley]

I do the same for spell memorization. I have a set of table similar to the one for scrolls that I roll on to determine what spells a caster has memorized.

Spell Casters, Memorized Spells v2
1st Level: Magic Missile, Charm Person, Magic Missile, Charm Person
2nd Level: Detect Evil, Strength
3rd Level: Lightning Bolt, Suggestion

1st Level: Sleep, Sleep, Charm Person, Charm Person
2nd Level: Continual Light, Invisibility
3rd Level: Fly, Fireball

1st Level: Hold Portal, Sleep, Magic Missile, Sleep
2nd Level: Detect Evil, Detect Invisibility
3rd Level: Dispel Magic, Fireball

1st Level: Sleep, Magic Missile, Charm Person, Sleep
2nd Level: Locate Object, Levitate
3rd Level: Haste, Dispel Magic

1st Level: Detect Magic, Magic Missile, Detect Magic, Sleep
2nd Level: Knock, Detect Thoughts
3rd Level: Fly, Monster Summoning I

1st Level: Sleep, Charm Person, Shield, Sleep
2nd Level: Web, Locate Object
3rd Level: Invisibility, 10' Radius, Haste

 

[robertsconley]

Finally I am not beholden to the exact result produced by these tables. While most of the one I use are tailored to how I view the setting of my campaign. The result is often not quite suited for the circumstances. But the good news, it usually a handful of elements like I know this magic-user would have some specific spells. But beyond that, I don't have anything defined so I just accept that portion from the generator.

And if I need something truly random because I have nothing in particular define. I will generally use the result 'as is'. Tweaking only if I am using a bunch of other generators and want to make sure the result hangs together.

The main effect of my generators it does make what I do beforehand and during the session more complete, and thus more consistent for future sessions. As well as ensuring I am picking red, yellow, etc along with the shades of blue I am biased towards.

 

[T. Foster]

So this has made me wonder about the existence of meaningful player agency within my campaigns. If I do not plan ahead and plot out various choices for the players to make, this surely means they lack agency.

So my question is whether or not a no prep GM such as myself is actually able to offer my players meaningful choices? Or am I actually only offering them the illusion of choice and thus robbing them of any agency they might have in a campaign that has choices plotted in advance?

There's no universally-applicable theory-based answer that any of us can tell you without actually being you, or at least observing your games. The key distinction is whether the players' actions and decisions have any impact on what happens or if it's all decided by you, and that (at least it seems to me) is orthogonal to how much written prep-work you've done (which just determines whether the determining is done in advance or in the moment). If the players do, or say they want to do, something you weren't expecting, do you allow them to do it and react and follow that new logic-chain, or do their actions and decisions not make any difference and what was going to happen before still happens? Just because you're not writing down plots and scenes it's not clear whether you still have a sense in your mind of "what's going to happen" before play starts, and, if so, whether you are willing to deviate from or even completely abandon that in the moment based on the players' actions and choices.

The players' choices don't have to be explicitly framed in advance as choices with defined outcomes A, B,. and C, but you can still identify them in retrospect. Look back at the action of the session and some action the players did and ask yourself if, at that juncture, they'd done something different than what they did, would the rest of the session have been different or would the same things have happened (they'd still have had the same encounters, etc.). Your answer to that is the answer to your question.

 

[Sommerjon]

I guess that's why I use the term logical to describe my bias. So if the bad guys had no idea of Vamps or Wolves and their vulnerability to silver, they logically wouldn't have silver bullets.

I also try really hard not to be a dick. So if the players come up with a plan that totally blows my mind, I almost always roll with it unless there is a logical reason why the bad guys would be prepared for such a plan.

That's the thing about Rifts, they do know about the vulnerability. That's why it sounds logical. The issue is there is lots of things in Rifts that have vulnerabilities, you can't prep for them all. When you're up in CS-land(Minnesota) near Bug territory, why would soldiers and others have kit for Vamps that live in Mexico.

My problem with logical is it allows a near retcon of things, because you are reacting to what the players are doing. It's logical for a NPC to do something that you didn't think of, because you ain't the NPC just it's voice. I'm not being a dick, because it's so logical for the bad guys to have done this... I had that conversation with myself.

 

[robertsconley]

It always a reaction to what the players are done because that what experience is. Learning from what you experienced in this case what the player do as their characters. A central conceit of my Majestic Wilderlands is that the setting changes in response to what the players do. Not just in the sense they personally made a mark but sometimes a retcon.

I ran a campaign where all the players played character who were mages in the Order of Thoth. The details of that campaigns fleshed out the mages both in terms of its present but for it past. The same with the players played city guards. Some the details I retconned to say that they were always that way.

Why? Because I am not god, but a single person pretending to run a world of thousands if not millions of individuals.

With being said I almost never retcon anything during a campaign. Instead when the campaign is over, I change my writeup and that becomes part of the next campaign. In a sense, I didn't run the same setting that I started out with in the early. Instead I ran a series of very closely related settings in succession which one building on top of the previous.

It works, my experienced players expect this and are find with it. Mostly because the changes make sense. I rarely make changes "just because".

This is not obvious to many referees, because most in my experience don't stick to a single setting campaign after campaign. Instead this become more of a "seasoned" referee phenomenon where settings made in the individual later years are more richly detailed and consistent then settings made earlier.

 

[zarion]

That's the thing about Rifts, they do know about the vulnerability. That's why it sounds logical. The issue is there is lots of things in Rifts that have vulnerabilities, you can't prep for them all. When you're up in CS-land(Minnesota) near Bug territory, why would soldiers and others have kit for Vamps that live in Mexico.

Well, you pointed out why it wouldn't be logical. Since it wouldn't be logical, the NPCs in a game I ran wouldn't be prepped for it.

My problem with logical is it allows a near retcon of things, because you are reacting to what the players are doing. It's logical for a NPC to do something that you didn't think of, because you ain't the NPC just it's voice. I'm not being a dick, because it's so logical for the bad guys to have done this... I had that conversation with myself.

At times I do allow the NPCs to have something I didn't think of when the players present me with a plan that contains elements I didn't think about. It would depend on whether or not the NPCs would have logically thought of that stuff, as you said, I'm not the NPC, I just portray them. But I also try really really hard not to be a dick about it! I absolutely hate stealing the players thunder! If the players come up with a plan that outsmarts me I let them!

 

[cryptkeeper]

I have been recording all my game sessions for a year now. I do it to answer questions like these. Listening and/or watching the game replay I can see what I do works to foster creativity and a back and forth between me and the players that result in affirmative action. I can see bad calls I made and need to fix and able to notice the things which surprised the players and made them feel dread during important encounters. The cringe-worthy moments are good to see. Also, see where I'm doing a bit of rail-roading without realizing it. This usually takes the form of running over what a player said and moving the plot forward before the player fully developed their intentions at the table.

 

[Justin Alexander]

So my question is whether or not a no prep GM such as myself is actually able to offer my players meaningful choices?

Yes.

Most importantly, this kind of thing tends to be pretty white room in any case. You say you don't prep anything, but that goes out the window the minute you start playing: Whether you prepped Bob the NPC or Bob the NPC showed up in Session 1, it's now Session 2 and Bob the NPC is an established fact of the campaign world. So this hypothetical situation where the players are being hypothetically railroaded because the world is a blank slate with no prior existence ceases to be true in practice the instant you start actually playing the game.

Second, the idea that improvisation removes agency doesn't really hold up to any scrutiny. Let's exit the realm of RPGs entirely: You're playing Street Fighter 2 with your friend. A new fight loads up. You start taking spontaneous action... did the fact you didn't script your attacks before you started playing mean that the other player has lost agency in the game? Of course not. No more than the fact they didn't pre-script their attacks means that you've lost your agency.

The same thing applies to RPGs: The players are constantly improvising with their characters. Does that improvisation mean that the GM has lost agency? No.

Now, it is POSSIBLE to railroad while running from zero-prep: You just have to improvise the outcome of a choice before the players make it and then stick with it no matter what choice the players make. And that is a habit that some people find very easy to slip into when improvising from zero-prep. Conversely, other people find it easier to slip into if they're prepping stuff ahead of time. It's not so much YMMV, it's that your mileage WILL vary.

 

[Lessa]

What Justin said above. The fact you didn't pre-plotted paths A and B and is relying on on-the-fly improv doesn't mean the newly improvised paths can't be as logical and verissimile as pre-plotted ones. Agency is agency, no matter the form it takes.

Vincent Baker in Apocalypse World advises something simple, that I like:
"Before players decide on a course of action, tell them the possible consequences, and ask: what do yo do?".

GM: "So you want to aggro the security guard to force your entry? ok, but don't forget there's a camera right above you. What do you do?"
Player: "Wait... hmmm... how about we attract him to the alley and take him down there? It wouldn't raise any immediate alarms, right?"
GM: "Sure, you gain more time that way, but if the guard is absent for long it will eventually raise suspicions. Are you doing it?"
Player: "Yeah, let's do it".

This helps the group to always anticipate (and assess) possible consequences, allowing them to make informed choices that feel meaningful and not something inconsequential that the GM pulled from his... back. xD