Angry on TFA and how NOT to run a game:

http://www.madadventurers.com/angry-rants-and-then/

"Star Wars: The Taming of the Force is an “and then…” plot. That is the MAJOR problem with the movie. There are a bunch of OTHER problems with the movie too (which doesn’t mean you can’t enjoy it, remember). But the big one is this business of an “and then…” plot. And THAT provides a MAJOR lesson for GMs. And I will explain exactly why Star Wars can get away with that bulls$&% and why you usually can’t. But first, let me explain what an “and then…” plot is."

I have to agree...

And then all the advice was completely ignored while reams and reams of "living" campaigns were cranked out by publishers to ensure continued profitability...

You know... I get there are 'less than stellar' GM's out there who do this sort of thing, but there are equally as poor players too. Let's not give bad players a pass here. Bad players can just as much ruin a game with their 'dead fish' passiveness. Sometimes a GM is forced to make lemonade and resort to this kind of nonsense. There's enough blame to go around if a group of people are consistently showing up to play a game like the one described.

You know... I get there are 'less than stellar' GM's out there who do this sort of thing, but there are equally as poor players too. Let's not give bad players a pass here. Bad players can just as much ruin a game with their 'dead fish' passiveness. Sometimes a GM is forced to make lemonade and resort to this kind of nonsense. There's enough blame to go around if a group of people are consistently showing up to play a game like the one described.

^^This.

You can have the best (or even the most obvious and cliche) plot hooks out there, and you'll STILL have dead fish players that won't progress on their own. I've lost count the number of times I've had to resort to an "and then" plot just to keep the game going.

My last EotE game hit that wall because my players were LITERALLY just running away from problems and sitting around for me to feed them a new plot hook. Seriously.

Last campaign crashed as follows:

Players had numerous run-ins with a self-proclaimed Pirate Queen who loved to capture ships (Imperial or otherwise) and add them into her fleet (and would either press people into service or make them an offer they couldn't refuse). They escaped from her once, and all evidence showed that it was a setup.

They kept running into her, and the same guy that set them up the first time always had something to do with the deal.

Instead of assuming the guy was setting it up, they assumed he was hired by said Pirate Queen. . .but STILL kept taking jobs from him. It became an endless cycle of jobs and frequent run-ins with the Pirate Queen. The characters seldom bothered to evolve outside of two players trying to demand that they now knew how to use the Force without any training ("And then I learned how to use the Force" was one guy's exact comment).

It flopped when they willingly took another job from the guy who was setting them up all the time, and it involved working with the Pirate Queen. They didn't even blink, and I realized that after a year, my game devolved into "And Then. . ." moments.

Yes, bad GM-ing and uninspired stories can be a problem, but problem players can ruin anything.

I'd like to assume there is a "Bad Players Union" or something that demands protection money from GMs. "Gee, that's a swell story you've got there. Be a shame if someone were to wreck it..."

I don't often agree with the AngryGM, but this article had some really good points.

Angry on TFA and how NOT to run a game:

http://www.madadventurers.com/angry-rants-and-then/

"Star Wars: The Taming of the Force is an “and then…” plot. That is the MAJOR problem with the movie. There are a bunch of OTHER problems with the movie too (which doesn’t mean you can’t enjoy it, remember). But the big one is this business of an “and then…” plot. And THAT provides a MAJOR lesson for GMs. And I will explain exactly why Star Wars can get away with that bulls$&% and why you usually can’t. But first, let me explain what an “and then…” plot is."

I have to agree...

And that's what bugs me about so many of the fannish defenses of this movie, and other fiction in general -- people start filling in the cause-and-effect with either their own explanations, or "it could have been" speculation, and saying "it's OK that they didn't ever show how and why these things were connected and how and why these things happened, so long as we can come up with how they could have happened".

And as AngryGM says -- "Now, the thing with cause and effect is that it’s not enough to establish that something COULD happen."

I'd like to assume there is a "Bad Players Union" or something that demands protection money from GMs. "Gee, that's a swell story you've got there. Be a shame if someone were to wreck it..."

You can't control the players, you can only control what you produce as a GM, which is what the article is about.

If you do all you can, and avoid the major pitfalls, eventually you should be able to say "Hey, fellow players, as your GM, I have some concerns."

If you either know you can't say that, or saying it gets a negative response or no results... then it might sadly be time to reexamine the group. And I know that's hard if you're in a "place" where it's those gamers, or no game.

You can't control the players, you can only control what you produce as a GM, which is what the article is about.

Oh, agreed, I was just taking the opportunity to try to elicit at least a weak chuckle based on some statements earlier in the thread.

Of course, I wouldn't elevate myself above being a member of that union. I have shamelessly bribed my GM by covering his cut of the pizza expenses, hosting the games (I spent a couple of hours one evening with a trip to Lowes and some construction time to put together a 4'x6' gaming table for RPG/WH40k gaming, so I'm the one with enough table space for books, food, and general sprawling) and offering access to all of the splatbooks I bought.

Angry on TFA and how NOT to run a game:

http://www.madadventurers.com/angry-rants-and-then/

"Star Wars: The Taming of the Force is an “and then…” plot. That is the MAJOR problem with the movie. There are a bunch of OTHER problems with the movie too (which doesn’t mean you can’t enjoy it, remember). But the big one is this business of an “and then…” plot. And THAT provides a MAJOR lesson for GMs. And I will explain exactly why Star Wars can get away with that bulls$&% and why you usually can’t. But first, let me explain what an “and then…” plot is."

I have to agree...

Yeah, the structure of TFA left much to be desired--it just about did its job, but really everything else about the movie carried most of the weight. And I understand why. You can really see how the screenwriters had to strain to make things line up just so. TFA was really all set-up, but they had to cram a complete, world-ending story in there as well. I would have much preferred if they'd been able to keep the story tighter, about that search for Luke. Would have been much more enjoyable. For the record, I absolutely loved TFA. Rey, Finn and Poe are my new favorites.

At least the sequel will be in a much better position to tell its own story. All the pieces are in place now.

As far as tabletop campaigns go, I run a lot of fairly improvisational sessions since my players run around in a total sandbox, and boy oh boy. Even when you have solid backgrounding it's just a challenge to run a sensible, compelling improvised game. A fun challenge, but it's important to keep what the Angry DM described in the back of your head.

Angry on TFA and how NOT to run a game:

http://www.madadventurers.com/angry-rants-and-then/

"Star Wars: The Taming of the Force is an “and then…” plot. That is the MAJOR problem with the movie. There are a bunch of OTHER problems with the movie too (which doesn’t mean you can’t enjoy it, remember). But the big one is this business of an “and then…” plot. And THAT provides a MAJOR lesson for GMs. And I will explain exactly why Star Wars can get away with that bulls$&% and why you usually can’t. But first, let me explain what an “and then…” plot is."

I have to agree...

Yeah, the structure of TFA left much to be desired--it just about did its job, but really everything else about the movie carried most of the weight. And I understand why. You can really see how the screenwriters had to strain to make things line up just so. TFA was really all set-up, but they had to cram a complete, world-ending story in there as well. I would have much preferred if they'd been able to keep the story tighter, about that search for Luke. Would have been much more enjoyable. For the record, I absolutely loved TFA. Rey, Finn and Poe are my new favorites.

At least the sequel will be in a much better position to tell its own story. All the pieces are in place now.

As far as tabletop campaigns go, I run a lot of fairly improvisational sessions since my players run around in a total sandbox, and boy oh boy. Even when you have solid backgrounding it's just a challenge to run a sensible, compelling improvised game. A fun challenge, but it's important to keep what the Angry DM described in the back of your head.

It could have been a lot better if they'd just left out the Starkiller entirely, and focused on establishing the new characters and their arcs.

But then, hiring JJ Abrams means that you've purposefully ****-canned plot and character in the name of spectacle.

But then, hiring JJ Abrams means that you've purposefully ****-canned plot and character in the name of spectacle.

I actually didn't know he'd done Mission Impossible 3 until I watched it the other day. It's probably my favourite M:I, but a lot of that is due to Philip Seymour Hoffman.

". . . and far less of a mess than Guardians of the Galaxy."

And thus his opinion was instantly rendered invalid. And the opinion of his mother, of his father, and of every descendant for the next thousand generations.

Man, I need a tl;dr of his stuff - his style just rubs me the wrong way but I'm sure there's useful tidbits in there. Man, it was tl;dr in 140 characters...

This is a collaborative hobby, much moreso this system. I infer from the context that he's yelling at us to think about our plots. Good advice.

Man, I need a tl;dr of his stuff - his style just rubs me the wrong way but I'm sure there's useful tidbits in there. Man, it was tl;dr in 140 characters...

This is a collaborative hobby, much moreso this system. I infer from the context that he's yelling at us to think about our plots. Good advice.

tl;dr: Don't just feed your players all the necessary plot points. Allow them to go looking for them. Coincidence should only get you so far.

tl;dr: Don't just feed your players all the necessary plot points. Allow them to go looking for them. Coincidence should only get you so far.

Thank you, you're a gentleman and a scholar. That is indeed excellent advice. I guess it wouldn't be a "rant" if it wasn't entirely too verbose.

I like to take the process one step further: let the players develop their own plot points. If I throw a little bait out there around the plots circling in my mind and see what they come up with, I can reel in that fish and use it.

So is an 'and then' type of GM style the same as a linear GM style? Seems like a thin line to me, no?

Or is the 'and then' style of GM'ing influenced heavily by the players not doing anything, just looking at their GM like a deer in headlights?

Separately, do you guys feel video games have any responsibility in how players play RPG's today?

Separately, do you guys feel video games have any responsibility in how players play RPG's today?

I dunno, seems like video gamers are used to having to make their own fun, whereas media consumers are used to being spoonfed. These are crass generalizations with a limited test set, so ymmv....

Depends on what you mean by "spoonfed"...

". . . and far less of a mess than Guardians of the Galaxy."

And thus his opinion was instantly rendered invalid. And the opinion of his mother, of his father, and of every descendant for the next thousand generations.

Indeed, if anything it had a plot established about 30 minutes into the movie. There was a clear objective for at least most of the characters, they were introduced, the villain was set along with his motivations and the cast were thrown together. Sure, it had impromptu moments, but they were complications to spice things up rather then whole plot points.

I largely agree related to the force unleashed, the story really did feel like a bonfire, with more and more stuff piled on to keep it going. There was no real structure and a space station got blew up somewhere along the line. I can agree with that. I just think that he, and everyone else who rambles on and spams f-bombs are frankly doing themselves a disservice by having all the structural integrity of a bovine s excrement. It's painful to read and frankly leads me to being dismissive of this misplaced passion in many ways.

Depends on what you mean by "spoonfed"...

For clarity, I mean a one-way consumption, not a give-and-take between the people at the table.

Is there an alternate definition I'm not aware of? Shades of grey so to speak?

Depends on what you mean by "spoonfed"...

For clarity, I mean a one-way consumption, not a give-and-take between the people at the table.

Is there an alternate definition I'm not aware of? Shades of grey so to speak?

On another thread, it was repeatedly used as an insult directed at people who think that fiction shouldn't require the reader/viewer to play guessing games to make sense of what's shown on the screen and fill in massive gaps with their own speculation and inference.

"Oh, so you want the plot to make sense and actually connect this series of EPIC! action scenes? Can't you figure out what's going on by yourself? You're just lazy and want to be spoonfed."

On another thread, it was repeatedly used as an insult directed at people who think that fiction shouldn't require the reader/viewer to play guessing games to make sense of what's shown on the screen and fill in massive gaps with their own speculation and inference.

"Oh, so you want the plot to make sense and actually connect this series of EPIC! action scenes? Can't you figure out what's going on by yourself? You're just lazy and want to be spoonfed."

Oh snap, that was not my intention! I should have used 'consumption versus participation' wording - engaged in helping weave the story rather than have it thrust upon one's self. I'm in no way decrying a consumption-based entertainment regimen but I don't feel most RPGs blossom under such conditions.

On another thread, it was repeatedly used as an insult directed at people who think that fiction shouldn't require the reader/viewer to play guessing games to make sense of what's shown on the screen and fill in massive gaps with their own speculation and inference.

"Oh, so you want the plot to make sense and actually connect this series of EPIC! action scenes? Can't you figure out what's going on by yourself? You're just lazy and want to be spoonfed."

Oh snap, that was not my intention! I should have used 'consumption versus participation' wording - engaged in helping weave the story rather than have it thrust upon one's self. I'm in no way decrying a consumption-based entertainment regimen but I don't feel most RPGs blossom under such conditions.

And I agree on that. I've seen games turn into "you're along for the ride on my story".

I asked because I didn't want to assume.