Reddit reviews Play Unsafe: How Improvisation Can Change The Way You Roleplay

More than just requiring it, Dungeon World is particularly good at teaching improv.

The biggest thing is to focus on the GM Moves. You're improvising, but you're improvising within a very rigid system. The GM Moves aren't suggestions. When you GM Dungeon World, literally all you do is make GM Moves. Especially at first, you should keep the GM Moves in front of you 100% of the time, and you shouldn't be afraid to take a minute each time before you speak to deliberately look at the GM Moves and pick one.

Probably the biggest mistake newer GMs make is to think that GM Moves are things you do to punctuate your improv - like you're just riffing and then, when you want to "make something happen", you do a GM Move. That's how player moves work (to a degree), but it's not how GM Moves work, and playing like that will cause the game to stall out, especially when players are rolling a lot of successes.

GM Moves are the only kind of thing you do as GM. If you're talking, you're making a GM Move. New GMs usually quickly grasp the idea of making a GM Move every time the players miss a roll, but you also make one every time they look to you to see what happens next. Every time. When the PCs are having a conversation with an NPC, every time they look to you to find out how the NPC responds, they're looking at you to see what happens next: make a GM Move. Every single conversational turn should be a GM Move. You won't manage that, but the closer you get, the better the game will be.

Even when they roll a hit, when they succeed, as soon as they look to you, make a GM Move. Don't invalidate their success, but don't let success take the steam out of the game either. If they Defy Danger and roll a 10, cool. If they keep talking and say what they do next, cool - don't interrupt them. If they dodge out of the way of the falling pillar and then look at you to see what happens next, guess what, make a GM move. Don't do anything involving the falling pillar - they already succeeded at avoiding that, no double jeopardy and no hurting people for rolling successes - but that doesn't mean don't do anything: make a GM Move (maybe reinforcements show up, maybe the silence after the crash of the pillar is broken by a dragon's roar, etc.).

Don't wait for the game to stall out. GM Moves aren't just consequences for bad rolls, and they're also not just a way to kickstart a game that's running out of steam. GM Moves are just your half of the conversation. If you do it right, the game won't need kickstarting - it won't run out of steam in the first place.

For the most part, go with "hard" GM Moves when someone misses a roll. Every other time the players look to you, go with "soft" GM Moves.

Fronts and Monster Moves are the same thing. If you understand how GM Moves work, they just give you situation-specific GM Moves, which can make improv a little easier. If you treat them as conventional prep without understanding GM Moves and what they do to keep the game flowing, your game will stall out and you also won't be "playing to find out what happens".

The other big thing is to stop worrying about being fair. Play by the rules. That cuts both ways: don't screw players over unfairly, but also don't let them off the hook. And letting them off the hook is by far the bigger problem most of the time. It's not up to you to make sure they survive. There is no principle about building "balanced" encounters. If you want to play a tactics game, don't play Dungeon World. If you want to play Dungeon World, don't pull punches. Put things that make sense in the world and the story in front of the characters, and don't worry about putting things that are of the "appropriate difficulty" in front of the players. Uneven fights are fun.

Read the Dungeon World Guide for sure.

Personally, I think Dungeon World is far, far easier to play after playing Apocalypse World (the game it's based on) - it's easier to see how and why things work the way they do without all of the D&D flavor elements, which can be misleading. I would seriously consider running a campaign of Apocalypse World (typically about 6-10 sessions) unless the theme turns you off completely.

In terms of improv for RPGs, I really like the book Play Unsafe. It's a quick and easy read that has a lot of actual, concrete advice and instruction. I found it really helpful both as a player and a GM once we started playing more narrative games.

> I want to start a Pathfinder group with two players who just want to have fun and don't mind if it's not a real campaign

You're wanting to use one of the most complicated, rules intensive, and prep-heavy games on the market. In a perfect world, that's the first thing I would change.

There are a variety of TTRPGs out there in all genres that require little, or often times explicitly no prepwork of any sort to play very nicely. For instance, when I play Blades in the Dark, I keep my stuff in a 3-ring binder. It gets shut when we finish the session, it gets opened when we start, and I don't touch it otherwise.

But the normal response is "but I want to play Pathfinder because (insert whatever reason here) and no other game will do".

Read this and this and do yourself a favor and read this and take what you can from it.

There are a few other tricks, but that's a pretty reasonable starting point.

Other than the best solution, which is to play a no-or-low-prep game.

Another consideration: are you sure you want to play a TTRPG not not a legacy boardgame like Decent, or Gloomhaven, or some other legacy game like that? Especially if you're mostly interested in the mechanical aspects of fighting and such, it's a good consideration.

Practice. Most of the literature on how to do this comes from Improvisational theater. There is also this book which bridges the gap as it where.

The first that come to mind are Apocalypse World and all the subsequent variants, especially Dungeon World and Monster Hearts. They specifically demand that you ask questions and use the answers, then play to find out what happens. They forbid you from preparing elaborate adventures on rails.

Also, Donjon has system mechanics for this. Players get to manufacture reality when they roll well.

There's a book called "Play Unsafe" that does a pretty good job of describing improvisational techniques from theatre, for use in Roleplaying. It's a bit short though.

Check out Steven Lumpkin's awesome GM'ing for apocalypse world on itmejp's channel. Rollplay R&D

1> Stop with the maps to start. Draw far cruder diagrams and handwave more. Positioning is far less important

2> Stop the automatic skill rolls. No one rolls unless called for. Succeed automatically a lot more

3> Don't do initiative. REALLY REALLY don't go from person to person, make the ACTION swing back and forth to people though.

4> Explain moves aren't 'buttons' like they are in 4e. They're pattern matching (like voicerecognition on their phone) that only sometimes goes off. Oftentimes, just what they narrated, happens.

5> Do not prohibit them by getting XP from failing. If you're not going to cause complications worthy enough for XP from a roll, don't do the roll. Then they KNOW if they do ambitious stuff with a interesting chance of failure, XP can come.

6> Do not swap to giving Xp from killing stuff. XP is key in DW.

7> Use up their resources can make min maxers whiney. Ask them why they're whining in the game where picking up a kobold and tossing him into their ranks requires little more in the way of rolls than hitting them with a sword.

8> Don't succumb to tiny +1 -1 bonuses on efforts. Make the consequences of failure bigger, or make the action impossible or easy.

9> If they are suffering from OverCautiousItits around doors. Make a move for "If the party treats doors like an archeological dig site, roll 2d6+number of people in the party examining a door. 10+ the door falls open silently without prompting, 7-9, it does and the people on the other side hear them coming, 2-6, something bad happens elsewhere in the plot advancing a grim portent. Cutaway to a mysterious scene of things getting worse"

10> Really get them in trouble with the law in interesting ways when they are criminal

11> Read Play Unsafe, and prompt them for descriptions of things all the time and build off them.

12> Always strongly foreshadow a particular type of trap and give palpable hints to it's existence.

alternatively go ahead and read Graham Walmsleys 'Play unsafe' bring that to the table as a GM or a Player and see how you can make a RPG session become those nights stories you remember . http://www.amazon.co.uk/Play-Unsafe-Improvisation-Change-Roleplay/dp/1434824594

i recently read a book called play unsafe about improving your GMing style and abilities, largely by practicing improvisation techniques. i found it enjoyable and with lots of usable ideas and advice. it's a quick read at 44 pages.

i got the reference to that book from the introduction of another book that i am reading called "Unframed, The Art of Improvisation for Game Masters." it in turn is from a selection of titles on game mastering that i picked up from the (still current) bundle of holding worldbuilder's toolkit which also seems pretty decent. there is a lot of material in those books that i am sure will give pretty much any gm some new ideas and help improve their game.

The most important thing is for her to make a character that's interesting to her. Ask, what's the best way this character could possibly end up? What's the worst? If both answers would be interesting to see exactly how, then it's probably an interesting character to play with.

The second thing is to avoid stoic lone wolves with no families.

This book helps explain how doing the obvious thing is usually best: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Play-Unsafe-Improvisation-Change-Roleplay/dp/1434824594

My first comment was more about "rants" in the show, but I also wanted to answer some of your other points.

First of all, on having to improvise or "help, my party killed the encounter I prepped for two hours":

I would be lying if I said, that I was never miffed when my players destroyed an encounter too quickly, or found a solution that invalidated what I had prepared. However, to be honest, it bothers me less and less. There are two reasons: One, I do not prepare as much, or as strictly, as I used to, because you simply cannot prepare how things play out at the table, and two, I got more relaxed when improvising, and that improved my improvising skills.

What I learned in my time as a GM, is that you should never prepare for a certain outcome or development of an encounter. As a GM I only provide a problem, and while I think about possible solutions, I let my players choose their approach. That simple frame of mind is often enough to change my attitude from sad/angry, because I don't get to show my planned encounter, to ecstatic that my players found a solution I did not anticipate. And by communicating this to my players (being exited and/or complimenting them on their solution), I make them feel better about themselves and maybe that will please them enough to overlook my so-so approach at improvising. ;)

I understand that improvisation can be a very daunting task, especially to newer GMs, but that problem can't be solved by being properly/better prepared (per definition improvising is what you do, when you've got nothing prepared for the situation). Instead you can only get better by practicing. And by being thrown into the cold water.

When I was in high school I was rather shy and conscious about speaking in front of people. Nowadays I have no problems with improvising a lecture provided I know what I'm talking about. That change did not happen over night. It happened because I was repeatedly forced to give presentations in front of ever bigger audiences.

I hated it. I had stage fright, I was shaking and sometimes felt downright sick. But that was what I needed to experience in order to get better. The important thing was not getting better at making presentations or taking classes on rhetoric. No, I just needed to get used to the feeling of standing in front of people to be able to relax. As soon as you're relaxed, your brain starts working again. And that, to me, is the essence of improvising: Pushing aside the anxiousness, relaxing and then just talking/reacting to what your players give you.

So my tip would be to ignore the inner voice that says that you can't do it, or that compares you to someone like Skid, who is really great at improvising, and to remember, that, hey, you're here with friends and to have fun, not to win the world championship of improvisation. ;)

Another thing, I learned from the book "Playing Unsafe" is that when people try to improvise "well", that will often result in "bad" scenes ("The harder you try, the more you fail."). If, instead they focus on making an average scene, the scenes tend to become great ("When you try to be average, that's when you're good.").


Secondly, the importance of combats:

I agree that combats can be very fun and enjoyable, but sometimes get a bad wrap. I believe this is due to either GMs having too many combats in a row or not varied enough combats.

Also, there is the issue that the narrative can easily be lost when initiative is rolled and the players and GM enter "tactical mode". I think that a good GM can counter that quite easily, but I know that it can be hard, as a player, especially if your party is in a terrible situation.

The lack of variance of combats is partly on the GM, if they do not offer the party any reason or possibility to change tactics, and combat after combat plays out exactly the same. And partly it is on the designers of adventure modules, who sometimes fill dungeons with a lot of combat without any significance or uniqueness, that only drain the party's resources.

For example take a look at the recent encounter on the stone bridge. The combat described in the module was more or less boring and has no real significance to the story (unless Troy thinks of something). While the designers added the tactic of bull rushing PCs off the bridge, they did not even give the giants the necessary feat. As such it was unlikely to play a large part in the combat and became or more or less a standard battle against two large, strong melee creatures.

I once ran an encounter from a module which was designed similarly, but much better. The PCs are on a bridge full of commoners, trying to enter a city, when suddenly the sky darkens and a squad of riders on flying dragon-winged rams descend and begin attacking indiscriminately. Part of their tactic was also to push PCs off the bridge using their mounts (who had improved bull rush).

These "Doomguides" could, on their mounts, position themselves more or less anywhere on or near the bridge which allowed them to actually bull rush every turn, if they wanted to. But the bull rush was only part of their tactic, they also had the Spirited Charge and Ride-By-Attack feat and Smite Good, so they were capable, yet elusive enemies due to their flying mounts.

On top of that, the bridge was filled with commoners, who panicked and scrambled to reach the city's gate, which created difficult terrain and dealt minor non-lethal damage on anyone not moving with the crowd, so casters had to make concentration checks. Finally, the city's gates were about to be closed, because the guards wanted to protect the city without regard for the people. The PCs could interact with the crowd, or the guards, or disregard all of it and concentrate on the Doomguides.

Now compare that to the stone giants on the bridge who were forced to move up, then around the party to have a chance to bull rush, all while taking attacks of opportunity. And that was the main draw of the combat. The only thing that kept that combat from being boring was the Xorn robe that one giant possessed and the fact that Troy made two encounters in parallel (which was a great idea, by the way!).

Of course, the encounter described above is an extreme example and it was major set piece of the module (though the module also had three(!) more encounters of similar extent), while the stone giants on the bridge are one among many encounters, but it goes to show, what is possible in Pathfinder if you are willing to invest a little time into design.


Thirdly, "encounter killers":

I'll try to keep this point short, but first I have to bluntly ask: What do you expect of your players in combat encounters? (The following is firmly tongue-in-cheek, by the way, so take it with a big grain of salt ;P)

In this Cannon Fodder, you and Troy talk about some spells and effects shutting down encounters hard and "killing" it. You mention Charm Monster, Sleep and Web (which I, personally, find is an odd example for "encounter killers"). In earlier Cannon Fodders (e.g. #44) Troy mentions that he dislikes Grease and Web and similar spells. Also, you talk about how massive damage can take away from the fun (again, #44). That leaves me with the question: Do you allow your players any effective strategy at all?

If I'm not "allowed" to shut down my enemies with save-or-suck effects (e.g. Charm Monster, Sleep), cannot use battlefield control (e.g. Grease, Web) and "should" not do massive damage, what else is left? Should I just twiddle my thumbs and cast healing spells? :P

OK, now somewhat back to a more serious discussion - I know, of course, that a lot of this is just ranting on the players when they got the better of you, not because you really want your players to stop using these strategies. It's only when a player overuses a certain strategy, that it becomes annoying (though non-casters, like Nestor, do not necessarily have alternative strategies as readily available to them).

But you do get my point, right? While playing chess, you wouldn't tell your opponent that the queen is too strong, and that using it would take away from the fun of the game, would you? No, because the queen is part of the game. The same goes for save-or-suck effects, battlefield control and characters who deal a lot of damage in Pathfinder.

In a more recent Cannon Fodder (#65, #66? Somewhere along these lines), Troy mentions that, to him, a good combat in Pathfinder would last about 12 to 15 (!) rounds. I can't think of a more boring thing to do in Pathfinder (no, seriously!). What is supposed to be happening in these dozen rounds? If the PCs are supposed to be hit and get hit every round, they simply cannot last that long, unless either their HP are seriously inflated or their damage is pitiful, and if both sides keep missing, nothing is happening - how is that any fun?!

Personally, I like these controlling spells and shutdown effects, and I like talking about their advantages and disadvantages, how to use them effectively and how to counter them. So if anyone is interested in an actual debate - aside from my ranting above - on certain "encounter killers", like Charm Monster, I'm happy to oblige.

Wow, that got even longer than I thought. To anyone who stuck with this comment until here, thank you very much and I'm interested to hear, what you think.

Have a nice day, everyone and happy gaming!

https://www.amazon.com/Play-Unsafe-Improvisation-Change-Roleplay/dp/1434824594 is excellent at teaching that. So are the fronts chapters in Dungeon World.

Create hooks not plots, improv and do what's obvious to you.

Remember you're playing to see what happens. If you're planning out every detail, you're writing a book.

I can't recommend this book enough.
https://www.amazon.com/Play-Unsafe-Improvisation-Change-Roleplay/dp/1434824594

Learning to gm like this will bring you the most interesting and rememberable play you've ever experienced. Just remember that it's a skill and you will get better with time.

Clearly you are looking for Graham Walmsley's Play Unsafe.

You can get it on Amazon (regular book or kindle) or Lulu or even in PDF form from the indie RPGs un-store.

I have used the techniques therein to improv whole games outta basically nothing. Very good resource.

Here is a very brief book about improv as it relates to RPGs.

The basic principle is to let your players guide the story by saying Yes. Your player will say, " my character jumps onto the table grabs the chandelier and swings across the room lands on the bar and kicks the sword out of his hand" some dms would say "no you can't do that"

When confronted with a player that wants to do something cool say yes and then add to what he wanted to do. So, when he says, say, " my character jumps onto the table grabs the chandelier and swings across the room lands on the bar and kicks the sword out of his hand." You say "OK, so give me an athletics roll" you set the Dc in secret, to say 16. But you also think that it would be cool that the NPC with the sword saw him coming. So he rolls good, with a 23. So you say, " Ok, you jump up on the table, grab the chandelier, swing across the room and land on the bar. You land adroitly in a crouched and ready position. What's your AC?" He says "14." You say, " well he watched you swing across the room and readied an attack he hits you with a 16 as he stabs you in the belly.

The difference is in the first example the dm put up a wall to possible options for the player.

In the second example the dm used judo-like fluidity to humor the player's desire while deepening the action of the fight.

This book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1434824594?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_search_detailpage

was pretty helpful to me and my players. The other is trained in improv and talks about interesting and easy ways to roleplay a character or NPC.