Vote away!

I went w/ spontaneous but I think there should be a few more choices.

What kinds of other choices?

Spontaneous within a framework.

Goes from an Outline.

Has notes on ideas rather than plans.

Has a complete story in his/her mind but can easily adapt to PC input.

Stuff like that. Neither of the choices in the poll is ideal unless I infer a certian amount of planning and forethought went into the 'Spontaneous GM'
That being said, I don't want a GM who has no idea whats going from scene to scene unless we're doing a PC driven session/campaign (The GM reacts to our plans. Like, "We want to rob a store" or whatever)

You get where I'm coming from? I'm not trying to be argumentative just provide some input.

Perhaps there should be a recognition that between improvasation and total pre-planning there is a continuum. For example, I tend to plan about 70% of runs out, but leave enough details undefined so that I have room to improvise. Your poll does not give me the option of saying "mostly scripted, with some elements spontaneous." It's either a totally scripted play or completely off-the-cuff.

I really don't think you're going to get any serious votes for "scripted". The poll is a tad one-sided that way.

~J

There's a lot of middle ground between the railroader and the GM who goes in with no plot at all and makes the PCs generate their own. Most GMs I've played with are somewhere in the middle... they have at least some sort of preconceived plot, but one that's flexible enough that it can handle player creativity without coming apart or requiring railroading. And some are more willing than others to just trash the entire thing if the PCs do something that actually does bend it far enough that it breaks.

I'm fairly far towards the extreme end of "loose", myself... I don't have plots, I have background events, and the PCs can take part in them or not as they feel like. And I love it when the PCs stop just taking the runs I hand them and start figuring out things to do on their own. Even the runs I hand them, I don't plot out... I generate the opposition, give them an objective, make sure I can figure out at least a couple ways to accomplish it that don't require any GM knowledge (just so I know it's possible, not to close off any methods they might come up with that I didn't think of), and roll with whatever they decide to do. Frequently that means I'm winging the entire session.

Perhaps I should clarify (re-reading it, I agree with some of the above posts - it's not too clear)

What I meant was - If a GM has a plan, partial or full, can he act spontaneously with an unforseen action, or does he stick to the "script" as it were?

I just try to set the scene and work from that. Plan the building, plan the people, and let it rip.

Bingo.

Again, I still don't think you're going to get anyone who will say that you should always stick to the script, even if it means having to rerail your players.

~J

Then your poll should be: "Have you ever played for a railroading GM?"

Well, the general temperment of this board is against that. My statement wasn't saying that there's no one out there who would vote scripted, as an example has been provided elsewhere of what your GM is like. I'm saying that from my knowledge of the people who tend to be active on this board, I doubt you'll even get a one of them to vote scripted, and I'd gladly bet a sawbuck that the Scripted option would never get to 10% even if it did somehow get a vote.

~J

I think the GM should have a scripted plan, but PC's actions are rarely what you expect. As a PC I always hated railroading. So now that I GM I try to have key descriptions of surrounding areas an other useful items, in case the team veers off and the rest is seat of the pants, I now how security works who they call for help, how they patrol, and how they react. When PC's do something I say how does this affect people or things, what would they do? How would they react...Freeform GMing is the way to go

Okay...a new Poll then? Let's hear some ideas for options.
I grant this poll is one-sided.

A trick I got off this board was to have detailed descriptions of places I think will be key but then have just a list of descriptive words handy for the PCs wander off the beaten trail.

Well, I believe we're all in agreement that a outline/framework with open ends
and a spontaneous GM able to think on his feet is good. That was the point of my (rather one-sided) poll.

Me, my style comes from ten years of GMing D&D. I read the core rulebooks several times through for fun, and never had a group that I was able to consistently play with, so I was used to coming up with adventures of whatever length for during lunch, at recess, on the chairlift at ski slopes, for the time we had after school... the whole "experience" thing was kinda lost on me, since it was pretty much a series of hundreds of one-shot games, none of which I had the rules on-hand during (and many I lacked dice, too), which has lead to my being a tad karma-stingy nowadays, but aside from the fact that I have to do more planning for Shadowrun (I need to actually make stats for things rather than just sorta assigning a d6 of damage, some random AC and THAC0, and going from there) I still end up being mostly freeform. Here's a goal, do what you can with it. When I do script, I tend to not have problems with players breaking from the script; I'm good at predicting people that way

~J

An example of how I write up my own games. I should warn any one who clicks that link it is fairly lengthy.

I generally fall into the set scene and let it roll crowd. I try less to anticipate what the players will do, and concentrate on figuring out what the NPC's will do. It allows me to realisticly react to their plans.

We all hope and pray for a spontaneous, funny, interesting, and great run. However, many GM's (me included) are just not that good. But it is something I can work on. One question: how do you deal with players trying to derail a storyline? (I haven't had problems yet, but I have heard horror stories)

Like... intentionally trying to screw up the run? How do you mean 'derail?'

Deliberately trying for no IC reason? By getting new players.

~J

Players who deliberately work against the GM can present a number of problems. Most of us I am sure game with people who we know at least in passing, if not better. Its hard sometimes to approach a friend and say "Dude quit being a dick" but it can be done.

I always do this one on one-its better not to front some one off in front of the rest of the group. It allows them to save face, and in my opinion puts them less on the defensive-they're not showing off for everyone else. It also conveys how seriosuly I am taking this.

I never accuse. I ask. "Dude we've got a problem here, what can we do?" By letting them speak I defuse the situation a little, and I put the burden of proff on them. Plus it lets me see what exactly they are thinking, so I can see if maybe this unintentional or accidental.

I'm not afraid to say no. I can always change a no to yes, changing yes to no is a lot harder. By being firm, I keep it my game. And that makes me the guy people come to when things are going wrong.

Never be afraid to admit your own mistakes. We've stopped games half way through and said "This fragged up totally-lets do it over, or do somethign else." If I'm not having fun chances are they aren't either.

My final rule is be fair-sometimes other people enjoy other things. Its not fair to force a course of shakesperian acting on your players if all they want is a dungeon crawl. Cater to them and they'll cater to you.

Hope that helps.

My runs are usually arranged like this.

I sit at work, I come up with an idea like: stuffer shack vehicles are armored going into the barrens, let's have the players hijack one.

then I mold it: let's have one they come across to hijack already be disabled, and a ghoul eating the driver, meanwhile, when the players arrive, all the ghouls jump out of surrounding buildings and sewer holes to attack the players for more food.

then I annotate it in my head or on paper as: Stuffer Shack Hijack Ghouls...

and I create the landscape/pedestrians/scene on the fly. and I react to the players in Real Time.

I set small milestones, and mark them as single sentence notes for myself, and use my inspiration at the moment to drive the game. it's how I've always done shadowrun, with the occassional moment when I might need more detail(such as detailing a specific NPC) but I even generate most of the NPC's off the cuff, I guesstimate the level of threat I need, give them the skills/stats off the top of the noggin, and go. My players rarely know what's up ahead of time except guesses, because I am about as spontaneous as they come with campaign twists and turns.

I haven't had a complaint with this style yet, and I think it makes it more fun for myself since I don't have to do so much crazy amounts of legwork before laying it out for my players.


scripts, we don't need no stinkin' scripts.

Yes, my star player is also a GM, and so often tries to say I'm ruling wrong, or whatever. Very annoying. Although, I do the same when I play in his games... the trick is knowing when to let it go. Especially for the little things.

2 is a campaign start problem. When you make your PCs, make sure you're making somehting that fits with what the GM is gonna go with. Once you're in the middle of the campaing, and the GM is frustrated with you pushing stuff he doens't want to do and you just want to play the character you made... best to put that character aside and make a new one. Or start a new campaing. It's just not resolved otherwise.

My own personal solution to rules lawyers lies on page 38 paragraph three of the Third Edition Shadowrun book. Just read that to them.

I tend to plot out who the characters are, what resources they have, what their goals are and what their mind set is.

Then I plan out locations I know will be used and other setting details.

I plan out (and to some degree) script the meet with Johnson (or the opening scene).

After that, I pretty much wing it. You never really know what your players are going to try, so scripting out the whole thing is going to get you into trouble. Besides, the players want to make the decisions that shape the game, they don't want to be hand-held through a pre-determined story.

People have already described quite well the quite of GMing I aspire to. However, I'm too lazy to actually plan out locations, people or situations in full, so I wing even more than average.

Like kevyn668 said, this poll should really be about whether we've ever been or played with a strictly railroading GM. And like Kage said, it's exceedingly rare for anyone to want GMs to railroad. I'm pretty sure you won't find any non-GMs who think like that, at least.

Okay, I have to ask: which one of you "devil's advocates" went for Scripted GMs? There had better be at least two "I like a planned module" post following.

They could be Opposition Votes, ie. they voted that just so the poll wouldn't become so boring, or because they simply needed to object to something. It happens in RL politics, why not here?

Yeah, I hear you, chummer. I just was hoping to see someone try to defend the "I like being railroaded" option.

Being a Devil's Advocate myself, I like to see others that claim that title to stand and deliver. Or I'm not impressed.

I'm glad someone appriciated it.

Being a GM and player, I usually wargame out my scenarios before I run a game. I usually try to include as many contingency scenarios as possible, or keep my counter responses as generally as possible to account for player deviation.

I always prepare 3 to 4 "jobs" in advance at the start of the campaign, each "job" being a possible full campaign by itself. It is a lot of work but the end result is that I'm usually prepared for any weird stuff that might pop up.

One of these days, I'm going to give my players an adventure handout that's actually a short story on what they do in the next 72 hours, and the game will consist of them reading it.

*Applause*

~J

I used to have TNN(trideo news network) reports printed for them. since I ran out of ink, I don't do them anymore.

The way i run a game is things that are immdiatly around the players is freeform, you can't play for what your players are going to do all the time, but there are things going on behind the scenes that the players are very unlikly to effect.

When I GM things tend to be very free-flowing, I don't like scripted worlds at all. If I'm playing a module, of course, it get's scripted and I do use them when I don't have time to think up a run on my own.

I'm also, sadly, one of the players that screws with the GM. It's really not intentional, it's that I have a bizarre sense of humor most people don't understand and it tends to come out when I GM. So I do things like put together an entire run based on a Fetish Shop wanting the runners to steal 10,000 pairs of soiled panties from a catholic school for girls, or designing a Street Samurai who dresses up as a magical girl (Just for the fun of calling him Pretty Sammie). Some people become astoundingly annoyed at this and when I play with such people. . . trouble can happen.