Failing Forward

[JamesonCourage]

No one is saying pre-authoring is bad, or that if you pre-author you're a lousy DM who loves to railroad his players.

I'm pretty sure it was stated, not insinuated, that pre-authored games are more likely to slip into railroading. It's a statement I agree with.

I'm getting mixed signals.

Also, I tend to disagree with that. My first games as GM (when I was much younger) tended to be all improv, because I hadn't developed world building skills. And yet, I railroaded way more back then. I made stuff up on the fly, and forced a lot of it on my players (not that they didn't have fun overall or anything).

I think that's natural for kids to do. Or for many new young adults, even. An idea strikes you on the fly, you pat yourself on the back for having such a cool idea on the fly, and you force it to happen on the fly.

 

[TwoSix]

I'm getting mixed signals.

Also, I tend to disagree with that. My first games as GM (when I was much younger) tended to be all improv, because I hadn't developed world building skills. And yet, I railroaded way more back then. I made stuff up on the fly, and forced a lot of it on my players (not that they didn't have fun overall or anything).

I think that's natural for kids to do. Or for many new young adults, even. An idea strikes you on the fly, you pat yourself on the back for having such a cool idea on the fly, and you force it to happen on the fly.

Not seeing mixed signals there. Pre-authoring makes you more likely to railroad because you want to show off your creation. Doesn't mean you WILL, simply that it's easier to slip into than if you didn't have the material. Every approach to RPG has pros and cons, that's the whole reason to discuss them in the first place!

I do agree with you, though, that improv improperly channeled into a structure can easily become a railroad. Heck, one of my last campaigns was pretty much a choo-choo I improved the entire way, but that's what my particular group of players was looking for.

 

[Umbran]

Not seeing mixed signals there. Pre-authoring makes you more likely to railroad because you want to show off your creation.

One can equally say that pre-authoring helps you avoid railroading, because the design stands as an objective object that isn't altered after creation, so the GM has less temptation and opportunity to shove the characters around. Meanwhile, creating on the fly means you can create obstacles to drive characters in given directions when they go off the "desired" path.

I think, in this discussion, railroading is a bugaboo, a phantom issue that folks claim is important, but is rather orthogonal to the matter at hand.

 

[TwoSix]

And? How often does *anyone* get to know *everything* in their way before they begin?

How is, "You crossed half the desert, and found a canyon in the way" really different from, "You picked the lock, and find there's a monster on the other side of the door"?

Honestly, it sounds like a social contract issue around the limitations of statement of intent, which is something that needs to be discussed with players during the game. I mean, one of the main roles of the DM in a more narratively driven game is specifically to arbitrate the limitations of a player's intent within the confines of their shared narrative.

So, if the DM thinks crossing the desert is too arduous of a task to do in one roll, then it should be broken up into smaller, more manageable subtasks.

And honestly, putting a monster behind a door in a dungeon makes sense as a complication of a pick locks roll, right? That seems a solid way to "fail forward" to me!

Because I'm really pretty sure you're going to lose an argument that says that GMs can't spring monsters on players unaware.

Well yes, I would lose arguments I didn't make, even if you feel I'm making them by extrapolation.

But seriously, you can go ahead and throw surprise monsters at the players whenever you want, you have my permission. (You're welcome!) But for certain kinds of games, that might be bad cricket.

 

[TwoSix]

One can equally say that pre-authoring helps you avoid railroading, because the design stands as an objective object that isn't altered after creation, so the GM has less temptation and opportunity to shove the characters around. Meanwhile, creating on the fly means you can create obstacles to drive characters in given directions when they go off the "desired" path.

I think, in this discussion, railroading is a bugaboo, a phantom issue that folks claim is important, but is rather orthogonal to the matter at hand.

One can equally say a lot of things, but my own experience lends me to believe that a DM who has something they really want the players to see will often bend things so that they happen, whether that thing is a pre-written scenario or simply a cool encounter they have in their mind. Where one gets on board the railroad is as soon as the DM decides that the players' intent or the results of the dice rolls are immaterial to the presentation of the next scene.

 

[Balesir]

In the context of this discussion, yes, I am saying something contrary, and, in fact, essential. Basically, it is Poe Dameron's question to Kylo Ren in The Force Awakens: "Do I talk first or you talk first? I talk first?"

In one school (which is often typified by sandbox play) the GM requires that the PCs choose a direction and take an action before anything of interest will happen. In the other, (often typified by AP or published module play) the GM will present at least an initial default antagonist for the players to oppose.

Um, yes. I agree. If this is contrary, I wonder what point you thought I was trying to make? The AP approach and the sandbox approach differ, no question. In one the GM sets the dramatic need (by having the bad guys act first), whereas in the sandbox the GM presents a range - call it a smorgasbord or a menu - of dramatic needs that the players get to choose from among.

Now, you could argue that the sandbox players can pick another dramatic need that is not on the table, but since that hasn't been prepared for it wouldn't then be pre-authored, would it?

You can say that these are the same, if you twist around the roles and put "quotes" around them, and to a certain extent for single-author fiction you'd have some point. But, in an RPG, there's an outright physical difference - which person is driving the primary action at the table, GM or player? Given that the player and GM are different roles, I don't think it serves us in the discussion to try to sweep the difference under the carpet of "quotes".

First off I will say that "protagonist" and "antagonist" (the quotes here aren't to twist them around - just call them out as labels) are roles in stories that, by their nature, are labels used from a point of view in non-fiction, but tend to be defined by the storyteller in fiction (such as RPGs). In an RPG the player characters are (ideally) the protagonists because they are the ones from whose viewpoint the story is being witnessed.

The point of my origianl quotes was to describe how, in villain driven plots, the villain is the original protagonist - they "talk first". The heroes are, from a strict (ancient greek) perspective, antagonists. Once play begins, though, the perspective leads the PCs become protagonists as they take up the dramatic need to "stop the bad guy(s)".

Secondly I'll say that, although offering a menu of options to players in this regard is definitely qualitatively different from the "take it or leave it" approach of the fixed scenario, I personally consider the divide between GM authored and player authored dramatic needs a more profound divide. As to which of the three methodologies is "best", I don't think it's a meaningful question. Some of the best restaurants trim back their menu to a minimum of options or even a fixed succession of courses to ensure that everything is of the highest quality, but for some people no amount of a la carte choice can replace cooking something for yourself. These are different strokes...

 

[Umbran]

Honestly, it sounds like a social contract issue around the limitations of statement of intent, which is something that needs to be discussed with players during the game.

And here, I have to say that, once again, some folks (like you and pemerton) take the discussion into forms I think are not normally taken at actual tables.

Raise your hand if you've ever discussed, "limitations of statement of intent," with your players? I'm going to guess maybe you and pemerton, and *virtually nobody else* uses that kind of language with their players. You'd do well to bring it back down to Earth.

Now, allow me also to rephrase my question, such that it is more clear. You said:

"But what your pre-authoring did was say "Ok, you rolled a success on your desert crossing check, but now there's mountains, so you have to make a climbing check also." You increased the odds of the players failing without telling them ahead of the first roll."

And I asked, "And?" You didn't actually say why this was a point to raise. It *reads* as an implication that the player should generally know the odds of failure for extended endeavors before they begin, and I don't think that's supported by the general RPG oeuvre. Not knowing how hard things will be is pretty nominal. We keep stats and maps secret from players *all the time*, so you're goig to have to do some explaining as to why here, it is worth pointing out.

And honestly, putting a monster behind a door in a dungeon makes sense as a complication of a pick locks roll, right? That seems a solid way to "fail forward" to me!

And so is, "You run into a chasm as you are crossing the desert". So, in fail forward, these are okay, but they are somehow something to be pointed out in a pre-authored scenario?

Well yes, I would lose arguments I didn't make, even if you feel I'm making them by extrapolation.

Reductio ad absurdum does have its places - the chasm and the monster use the same logic. So, I repeat - if the monster is okay, why does the chasm bear discussion?

 

[pemerton]

If the players cannot learn from a fouled waterhole that there are possibly enemies around that are fouling waterholes and/or that they might run across more fouled waterholes, then your method of gaming also has limitations.

I'm sure my approach has limitations - or maybe limits would be better. As I've already discussed with [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION], it's not really appropriate for mysteries of the sort that (I believe) he enjoys GMing and playing. And obviously it is not going to deliver a Gygaxian dungeon-exploration experience.

On fouled waterholes - with a failed check, the players (and PCs) can learn of the presence of enemies. This happened in my BW game, as I've explained upthread.

On a successful check, the players (and PCs) won't get that information. But having or not having that information isn't a tactical advantage. As I also said upthread, in my game knowledge of backstory is mostly about theme and drama, not getting the drop or getting a head start.

However, your paragraph shows where the misunderstanding is coming from. What you are describing has nothing to do with the spirit of the game. The game is D&D

<snip>

You have chosen a playstyle to use in the game of D&D that would be violated by a DM narrating the scene like that.

This is not a D&D thread - it's in general. In the post I was talking about a Burning Wheel campaign, and referred to the spirit of that game (ie the spirit of BW). Though as it happens, I think that 4e is also best run in a similar spirit - I think the best GM's book for 4e is the BW Adventure Burner!

 

[TwoSix]

And here, I have to say that, once again, some folks (like you and pemerton) take the discussion into forms I think are not normally taken at actual tables.

Raise your hand if you've ever discussed, "limitations of statement of intent," with your players? I'm going to guess maybe you and pemerton, and *virtually nobody else* uses that kind of language with their players. You'd do well to bring it back down to Earth.

Well, duh. Seriously, bro, I used the word "c***block" like twenty posts ago, and now I'm talkin' too fancy? ROFLMAO.

Of course I don't talk like this in real life. I don't normally type the same way I speak because nobody does that. IRL, people also can't quote me word for word and make studied counterpoints to my arguments, so of course this method of discussion makes me (and most people, I imagine) more verbose. You dig?

And I asked, "And?"

"Conjunction junction, what's your function?"

You didn't actually say why this was a point to raise. It *reads* as an implication that the player should generally know the odds of failure for extended endeavors before they begin, and I don't think that's supported by the general RPG oeuvre. Not knowing how hard things will be is pretty nominal. We keep stats and maps secret from players *all the time*, so you're goig to have to do some explaining as to why here, it is worth pointing out.

I would say [COLOR=#A00000"FOR THIS TYPE OF GAME[/color] that yes, the player should know the odds (and the stakes), so they're able to make determinations as to what other sorts of resources might be expended. Take this as *advice*, not as a prescription or judgment as to what you should do in your game.

And so is, "You run into a chasm as you are crossing the desert". So, in fail forward, these are okay, but they are somehow something to be pointed out in a pre-authored scenario?

It's pointed out because of the critical difference. Did the chasm appear because the player failed his roll to cross the desert, or did the player fail his attempt BECAUSE the chasm was there? And by fail, I mean the player said "I'm going to cross the desert," the DM says "OK, roll, you need a 15 or higher on the d20", the player rolls an 18, and the DM says "OK, you've crossed halfway across the desert when you reach the Chasm of Bloodied Unicorns, which none of you knew have heard of".

Reductio ad absurdum does have its places - the chasm and the monster use the same logic. So, I repeat - if the monster is okay, why does the chasm bear discussion?

They're both either OK or not OK for the same reason: Did the DM make something happen despite what the players and dice rolls told him?

 

[pemerton]

In fact I'm trying to determine what type of game actively wants for players not to be able to render the fiction in accordance with their desires via action declarations...

On the negative side, the main thing I don't want is a GM's secret backstory to be a block or constraint on action resolution that the players can't overcome, which dooms their action declarations to a futility that isn't known in advance, and perhaps is not even known after the event (if the players don't know that the secret backstory explains why they failed).

Again... inevitable at a certain point if a campaign is to maintain a semblance of logical cohesion

The second half of what you say is the answer to the question you ask in the first half.

That is: a game in which pre-authored fiction has been established by the GM but is not known to the players is one in which their action declarations are not able to render the fiction in accordance with their desires. [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] has elaborated more on this in some recent posts upthread.

For instance: if the GM has already decided that the waterhole at the edge of the desert, on the way to the ruined tower in the foothills, is fouled, then even if the players succeed in their check to navigate to the waterhole they will not have got what they wanted (ie safe journey through desert to tower), because they will have to do extra stuff to get the water they need.

This is what, in my game, I aim to avoid. If, in the interests of consistency in the fiction, something isn't possible - for instance, because the dark elf is dead, an attempt to meet the dark elf in the foothills can't succeed - then I will explain as much and no action declaration will occur.

the moment the GM gets it in his head he wants to use one of the things he's statted up outside of play... whether he acknowledges it or not he's putting constraints on action declaration... such as pre-determining an NPC will be an antagonist... or even that on the next failure he will find a way to use this particular idea, NPC, etc.

I don't see how this is a constraint on action resolution. What is being constrained? What action can the players not declare with some prospect of success?

So a pre-drawn map is pre-authoring... even if certain areas of it haven't been used in the fiction yet?

Well, in my game it is, because we answer general geographical questions via reference to the map rather than via action resolution. The relative locations of Hardby, Greyhawk, the Bright Desert, the Gnarley Forest, the elven realm of Celene, etc are all pre-authored elements of the fiction.

Contrast, say, the location of the mace. This was not pre-authored. There was no prior fiction by reference to which the attempt to find the mace was adjudicated. Rather, the location of the mace was determined as a consequence of action resolution - namely because the check failed, the mace was not in the tower where the PCs were looking for it.

If the backstory of an NPC has no effect in actual play... why write it up?

Because fleshing out some ideas in advance can help with adjudication. Here is the backstory as it appears on the sheet:

He turned on his uncle, a Captain of the White Tower, when ordered not to flee from the attacking orcs. He was wounded, then exiled; he wanders the Cairn Hills and Abor-Alz.​

In the list of the NPC's life paths, there is also a note next to "Soldier-Protector" that this "overlaps with Alenihel [the elven ronin]". That is, there is a note that the timelines of the PC and NPC can intersect.

The only bit of this conjectured backstory that has actually become part of the shared fiction is the bit about wandering the Abor-Alz.

The fact that a Dark Elf... as opposed to a regular elf, a half-elf or whatever appeared... the fact that he was antagonistic... his backstory (which you said was not used but was still created, and as I asked before if you never use the stuff... why create it?) In other words you pre-authored this antagonist, it wasn't created by one of your players it was created by you...

The appearance of the dark elf was not pre-authored, though. It was narrated in response to a failed check, the occurrence of which wasn't known until it actually happened at the table.

As I said, the only bit of the fiction that was established in advance was the possibility of an antagonistic dark elf appearing in the world. To me, that seems pretty thin as far as shared fiction goes.

Does this mean there are aspects of these NPC's and gods that are pre-authored. As an example would it be possible for a player through action declaration to make the Raven Queen the goddess of daisies as opposed to death or is the fact that she is the godess of death a pre-authored fact?

As I'm sure you've seen me post before in other threads, my 4e game uses the default setting and cosmology as presented in the 4e core books. The Raven Queen's status as a god of death is established by the entry in the PHB which everyone has read before the game starts.

On the other hand, whether the Raven Queen is a nice person or a nasty person is up for grabs. In WotC's published material (eg E1 Death's Reach) she is presented as essentially decent and well-meaning. In my campaign that's not really the case - the backstory for her that has emerged during play tends to imply that she is self-serving, manipulative and extremely power hungry.

So in your game are the PC's ever surprised? I don't mean one particular PC but the PC's as a whole... or does everything eventually work out to point to exactly what one of the PC's suspected

Do you mean players or PCs?

The players can be surprised, yes. By small things - like the discovery of the skull mask in the priest's chamber in the last BW session - or by bigger things, like finding the Black Arrows in the (formerly, now ruined) private workroom of the mage PC's brother.

What I'm saying is that for the right group of players (and mine are definitely like this) the combination of the two... a world that has pre-set conditions (providing some unknowns, the chance to discover things they may have been interested in as goals but didn't think of in the beginning, a reason to research things, exploration, etc...) but that also allows their character's stories to take center stage (mainly in discovering how they achieve at realizing, fail at realizing, or change their character's goals) provides an even richer play experience... for me and my group.

OK. But by drawing this distinction between your preferences and mine, I take it that you are agreeing that there is a difference in techniques.