Sandy Petersen's method

[Runeblogger]

During THE KRAKEN convention last October I attended a seminar by Sandy Petersen in which he explained how he builds his horror scenarios.

Read my report here

(there's also a list of upcoming CoC books and a game I played with Lynne Hardy from Chaosium)

Thoughts?

 

[Baulderstone]

I agree with Sandy Petersen on letting information flow. Back in the '90s, I liked to revel in keeping my settings mysterious, But when players don't know anything, they can't do anything. It's fine to have some things be mysteries, but even then, players need a way to move closer to the answer. Mysteries motivate players to find the answer, and simply blocking paths to the answers is just frustrating.

 

[Black Vulmea]

I agree with Sandy Petersen on letting information flow. Back in the '90s, I liked to revel in keeping my settings mysterious, But when players don't know anything, they can't do anything. It's fine to have some things be mysteries, but even then, players need a way to move closer to the answer. Mysteries motivate players to find the answer, and simply blocking paths to the answers is just frustrating.

When the Cabin Kids' characters arrived at Space Station Indigo Alpha in our Mothership game, I handed them a map and an illustration of the space station, explained which rooms were which, and described their options for getting inside. Knowing where the station laboratory was didn't tell them, once they got there, why the door is locked and the biohazard warning light on. Knowing about the zero-G tube at the center of the station didn't tell them anything about the two yellow mold-covered corpses drifting around the passage or the hazard they present. Knowing the location of the med-bay didn't prepare them for the survivor clinging to life, nor did it provide them with the important clue that the mold is sensitive to light.

I believe it's Dante who suggests referees who think nerfing cell phones and the intrewebs, or divination magic, are good refereeing techniques will find themselves banished to the Third Circle of Hell for their misanthropic self-indulgence. This is, with apologies to AsenRG, lazy refereeing, in my opinion, usually to force characters down some form of gauntlet the referee cannot bear the players to avoid by playing smart. Putting the clues in plain sight and still surprising your players is a referee master-skill.

(Actually, I might be misremembering Dante there.)

In my experience, the most important thing a referee does is offer the players interesting choices. Blind choices are rarely interesting, second only perhaps to false choices, which Dante definitely says lands referees in the Sixth Circle, flammis acribus addictis. What makes a mystery interesting, again in my experience, isn't necessarily the solution - it's the investigation. This is why I believe too many adventure designers get this wrong: they're hung up on delivering their reveal - the Spooky Space Ghost is really Mr Bascomb! - rather than making the discovery process itself the best part of the adventure.

I like the last line of Runeblogger's linked post as well: "One thing was clear enough: the more books you read, the more material you'll have to create an interesting scenario. For example: Had you ever heard of goblin sharks? They're awful." With respect to the latter, I had access to a goblin shark's jaw when I taught marine biology: it's like a hole saw bit for flesh.

With respect to the former, awhile back I wrote that artwork and books and movies "train the mind" for the "heavy-lifting" of refereeing.

 

[AsenRG]

When the Cabin Kids' characters arrived at Space Station Indigo Alpha in our Mothership game, I handed them a map and an illustration of the space station, explained which rooms were which, and described their options for getting inside. Knowing where the station laboratory was didn't tell them, once they got there, why the door is locked and the biohazard warning light on. Knowing about the zero-G tube at the center of the station didn't tell them anything about the two yellow mold-covered corpses drifting around the passage or the hazard they present. Knowing the location of the med-bay didn't prepare them for the survivor clinging to life, nor did it provide them with the important clue that the mold is sensitive to light.

I believe it's Dante who suggests referees who think nerfing cell phones and the intrewebs, or divination magic, are good refereeing techniques will find themselves banished to the Third Circle of Hell for their misanthropic self-indulgence. This is, with apologies to AsenRG, lazy refereeing, in my opinion, usually to force characters down some form of gauntlet the referee cannot bear the players to avoid by playing smart. Putting the clues in plain sight and still surprising your players is a referee master-skill.

(Actually, I might be misremembering Dante there.)

In my experience, the most important thing a referee does is offer the players interesting choices. Blind choices are rarely interesting, second only perhaps to false choices, which Dante definitely says lands referees in the Sixth Circle, flammis acribus addictis. What makes a mystery interesting, again in my experience, isn't necessarily the solution - it's the investigation. This is why I believe too many adventure designers get this wrong: they're hung up on delivering their reveal - the Spooky Space Ghost is really Mr Bascomb! - rather than making the discovery process itself the best part of the adventure.

I like the last line of Runeblogger's linked post as well: "One thing was clear enough: the more books you read, the more material you'll have to create an interesting scenario. For example: Had you ever heard of goblin sharks? They're awful." With respect to the latter, I had access to a goblin shark's jaw when I taught marine biology: it's like a hole saw bit for flesh.

With respect to the former, awhile back I wrote that artwork and books and movies "train the mind" for the "heavy-lifting" of refereeing.

Ah well...that's not Lazy GMing (R), so yes, I don't like it being called this way - but it's the best way to call the approach you're talking about, yes. Still, it's "GMs not knowing how to create meaningful challenges".
And, yes, I might not give the players a map, or not a good map...but that's in fantasy and historical settings. In modern and future/other SF settings, maps would be likely to be available. Well, assuming all changes are going to be on the map might well be suicidal, but still!

Now, I might not have drawn a map at all. But today, when running a session for my daughter, I gave her a precise explanation* of everything that was known about the road to the dragon she wants to visit - to the extent that the info in the court bibliotheque was precise. Either way, the information either is, or isn't there, but that's not because my adventures would flop once the PCs know the shape of the land.


*As much as she was willing to listen, I must add. But then she's 6 yo, so I can understand lack of patience. When the same thing happens with adult players is when I start to grow...thoughtful.