Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Failing Forward
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6815985" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I agree with both these posts. If you want the focus of the game to be on exploring the setting, then pre-authoring makes sense. So does adjudicating action resolution by reference to secret backstory.</p><p></p><p>But if the focus of the game is meant to be on the protagonism of the PCs (and their players), establishing and pursuing their dramatic needs, then pre-authored fiction can become a stumbling block - a <em>hassle</em>, as TwoSix puts it. The point of setting, in that sort of play, is to serve as a backdrop and context within which the character's dramas unfold.</p><p></p><p>Of course a given GM might use a bit of one and a bit of the other. I've already explained that I use pre-authored geography in my BW game, and pre-authored cosmology in my 4e game. But this pre-authored material isn't secret. And nor is it the main subject-matter of the PCs' dramatic needs.</p><p></p><p>I think this approach poses some challenges for RPGing. Which you recognise in the last sentence that I've quoted, I think, but which I want to explore a bit more.</p><p></p><p>In the approach to RPGing that [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION], upthread, called "mainstream", the second disjunct of the final quoted sentence comes into play. The GM - via the authoring of the backstory, the BBEG, etc - provides a menu (perhaps a very short menu) of possible dramatic needs, and the players (via their PCs) are expected, as part of the social contract of play, to engage with an item on that menu. I think this is the sort of approach that [MENTION=27570]sheadunne[/MENTION] has called "pinballing", because of - in his case - the lack of connection he as a player feels to the stuff that, in the fiction, his PC is meant to be engaged with and caring about.</p><p></p><p>What about the first disjunct? I'm not sure that the GM's solid grasp of the characters is enough, because - as per your Luke Skywalker example - the character may not be fully "given" or fully revealed when play begins. No matter how well the GM knows that Luke Skywalker's dramatic need is <em>to get off this podunk backwater desert planet</em>, that is not going to tell the GM that Luke's future dramatic need will be <em>to become a Jedi like my father</em>. So where does that change in need come from? Someone will have to deliberately choose it.</p><p></p><p>In the context of a film or novel, it is the (sole) author who makes that choice. But in the context of an RPG, who makes the choice? If the GM makes such a profound choice for a PC, that seems to interfere with the player's prerogative to play his/her PC. Suppose, then, that the player makes the choice. What happens then? If, in the campaign world, it is already established that Luke can't become a Jedi - that there is no in-fiction possible pathway that takes Luke from his present situation to the state of being a Jedi - then in a sense the story is over before it has begun. I think part of the motivation behind the RPG designers who gave us games that are very self-conscious about "fail forward", scene-framing and the like is to come up with techniques that avoid this sort of impasse. At a certain point during the campaign, the player signals (via whaterver formal or informal method is appropriate to the table and the system) that his/her PC has a new goal, and the GM - in accordance with the basic GMing principles of the system - is obliged to frame the PC into situations which will put that goal under the spotlight and the PC's mettle to the test.</p><p></p><p>It's always a bit invidious to rewrite an established piece of fiction as an RPG, but here's one way I could see Luke evolving in a BW version of Star Wars:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">The player creates the PC. He has some lifepath and/or trait that indicates that he is an orphan/adoptee. His Beliefs include "I must get off this backwater planet" and "I will pursue my true heritage". Perhaps the third one is "I will do a good job on the moisture farm" - this engages him tightly into the opening situation, and provides fodder for conflicting Beliefs down the way.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">The GM engages Beliefs 1 and 3 by framing Luke into the droid acquisition and cleaning situation. Luke wants to do a good job on the farm, by buying good droids and getting them cleaned up and working well. But the mysterious message from R2D2 is not only an obstacle to this - because it impedes R2D2's work - but also seems to offer a way off the planet.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Luke's player then tests Hermit-wise or Desert-wise or some similar appropriate skill to establish that Luke knows of a Ben Kenobi who lives not too far away. The actual check to get to Ben (Navigation, Survival, Driving/Piloting or whatever else seemed appropriate) fails, though, and instead Luke is caught by the Sand People. The GM plays the failure fairly soft, though: Luke is knocked unconscious and rescued by Ben Kenobi, so he gets what he wants - he finds the hermit - but he is at a disadvantage, not having the upper hand in the social encounter and also having lost some time, which then gives the GM licence to advance the timeline in other respects (eg have Stormtroopers come to the farm and shoot Luke's uncle and aunt).</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">The GM then decides that Ben tells Luke of his heritage, and presents him with his father's light sabre. This presents Luke's player with the choice of accepting Ben's version of events, and pursuing the Jedi path as his heritage; or contesting that - maybe Ben is lying, or mistaken, or confused about Luke's identity (as with the Black Arrows in my BW game, the ultimate in-fiction truth is not pre-authored). In the game that follows the movie, the player accepts what Ben has to say, and starts to pursue this newly-revealed heritage.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Much later on in the story, though, Luke confronts Vader, whom - to date - he has believed is the killer of his Jedi father. Having Vader declare "<em>I</em> am your father" must be the result of a failed check - it is moving the fiction in a direction that Luke (and Luke's player) did not want. Thinking about how that scene in The Empire Strikes Back might occur within the system framework of Burning Wheel, it looks like some sort of social/negotiation contest: having won the physical conflict, Vader is trying to persuade Luke to join with him and overthrow the Emperor, and Luke's player declares some sort of resistance or rebuttal action - "You killed him [and hence I can't join with you]" - and fails. If Luke's player had succeeded, the story would have moved in a different direction.</p><p></p><p>Not entirely on point for Luke's personal development, but also helpful to think about in imagining Star Wars as an RPG (and relevant to pre-authorship of geography): that Alderaan has been destroyed would be another instance of failing forward - the PCs arrive at the right interstellar coordinates, but the planet they were hoping to arrive at has been destroyed.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6815985, member: 42582"] I agree with both these posts. If you want the focus of the game to be on exploring the setting, then pre-authoring makes sense. So does adjudicating action resolution by reference to secret backstory. But if the focus of the game is meant to be on the protagonism of the PCs (and their players), establishing and pursuing their dramatic needs, then pre-authored fiction can become a stumbling block - a [I]hassle[/I], as TwoSix puts it. The point of setting, in that sort of play, is to serve as a backdrop and context within which the character's dramas unfold. Of course a given GM might use a bit of one and a bit of the other. I've already explained that I use pre-authored geography in my BW game, and pre-authored cosmology in my 4e game. But this pre-authored material isn't secret. And nor is it the main subject-matter of the PCs' dramatic needs. I think this approach poses some challenges for RPGing. Which you recognise in the last sentence that I've quoted, I think, but which I want to explore a bit more. In the approach to RPGing that [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION], upthread, called "mainstream", the second disjunct of the final quoted sentence comes into play. The GM - via the authoring of the backstory, the BBEG, etc - provides a menu (perhaps a very short menu) of possible dramatic needs, and the players (via their PCs) are expected, as part of the social contract of play, to engage with an item on that menu. I think this is the sort of approach that [MENTION=27570]sheadunne[/MENTION] has called "pinballing", because of - in his case - the lack of connection he as a player feels to the stuff that, in the fiction, his PC is meant to be engaged with and caring about. What about the first disjunct? I'm not sure that the GM's solid grasp of the characters is enough, because - as per your Luke Skywalker example - the character may not be fully "given" or fully revealed when play begins. No matter how well the GM knows that Luke Skywalker's dramatic need is [I]to get off this podunk backwater desert planet[/I], that is not going to tell the GM that Luke's future dramatic need will be [I]to become a Jedi like my father[/I]. So where does that change in need come from? Someone will have to deliberately choose it. In the context of a film or novel, it is the (sole) author who makes that choice. But in the context of an RPG, who makes the choice? If the GM makes such a profound choice for a PC, that seems to interfere with the player's prerogative to play his/her PC. Suppose, then, that the player makes the choice. What happens then? If, in the campaign world, it is already established that Luke can't become a Jedi - that there is no in-fiction possible pathway that takes Luke from his present situation to the state of being a Jedi - then in a sense the story is over before it has begun. I think part of the motivation behind the RPG designers who gave us games that are very self-conscious about "fail forward", scene-framing and the like is to come up with techniques that avoid this sort of impasse. At a certain point during the campaign, the player signals (via whaterver formal or informal method is appropriate to the table and the system) that his/her PC has a new goal, and the GM - in accordance with the basic GMing principles of the system - is obliged to frame the PC into situations which will put that goal under the spotlight and the PC's mettle to the test. It's always a bit invidious to rewrite an established piece of fiction as an RPG, but here's one way I could see Luke evolving in a BW version of Star Wars: [indent]The player creates the PC. He has some lifepath and/or trait that indicates that he is an orphan/adoptee. His Beliefs include "I must get off this backwater planet" and "I will pursue my true heritage". Perhaps the third one is "I will do a good job on the moisture farm" - this engages him tightly into the opening situation, and provides fodder for conflicting Beliefs down the way. The GM engages Beliefs 1 and 3 by framing Luke into the droid acquisition and cleaning situation. Luke wants to do a good job on the farm, by buying good droids and getting them cleaned up and working well. But the mysterious message from R2D2 is not only an obstacle to this - because it impedes R2D2's work - but also seems to offer a way off the planet. Luke's player then tests Hermit-wise or Desert-wise or some similar appropriate skill to establish that Luke knows of a Ben Kenobi who lives not too far away. The actual check to get to Ben (Navigation, Survival, Driving/Piloting or whatever else seemed appropriate) fails, though, and instead Luke is caught by the Sand People. The GM plays the failure fairly soft, though: Luke is knocked unconscious and rescued by Ben Kenobi, so he gets what he wants - he finds the hermit - but he is at a disadvantage, not having the upper hand in the social encounter and also having lost some time, which then gives the GM licence to advance the timeline in other respects (eg have Stormtroopers come to the farm and shoot Luke's uncle and aunt). The GM then decides that Ben tells Luke of his heritage, and presents him with his father's light sabre. This presents Luke's player with the choice of accepting Ben's version of events, and pursuing the Jedi path as his heritage; or contesting that - maybe Ben is lying, or mistaken, or confused about Luke's identity (as with the Black Arrows in my BW game, the ultimate in-fiction truth is not pre-authored). In the game that follows the movie, the player accepts what Ben has to say, and starts to pursue this newly-revealed heritage. Much later on in the story, though, Luke confronts Vader, whom - to date - he has believed is the killer of his Jedi father. Having Vader declare "[i]I[/i] am your father" must be the result of a failed check - it is moving the fiction in a direction that Luke (and Luke's player) did not want. Thinking about how that scene in The Empire Strikes Back might occur within the system framework of Burning Wheel, it looks like some sort of social/negotiation contest: having won the physical conflict, Vader is trying to persuade Luke to join with him and overthrow the Emperor, and Luke's player declares some sort of resistance or rebuttal action - "You killed him [and hence I can't join with you]" - and fails. If Luke's player had succeeded, the story would have moved in a different direction.[/indent] Not entirely on point for Luke's personal development, but also helpful to think about in imagining Star Wars as an RPG (and relevant to pre-authorship of geography): that Alderaan has been destroyed would be another instance of failing forward - the PCs arrive at the right interstellar coordinates, but the planet they were hoping to arrive at has been destroyed. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Failing Forward
Top