Failing Forward

[pemerton]

Whether the DM or players make the changes is completely beside the point.

What changes? There are no changes. Authoring is not changing the fiction - it is bringing it into being.

There is zero perception on my part that this Schrodinger's aspect of whether it was or was not the one ring was ever in play. I have never discussed the books or movies with anyone and received the slightest indication that they felt that a character not knowing a truth within the fiction made that truth in doubt to the larger story.
I want the experience of being in the story that way.

To me this seems to miss [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION]'s point about immersion.

For Gandalf and Frodo, sitting in Bag End, the truth is not known. There is doubt - and the possibility that the ring is not the One.

So experiencing being in the story would mean experiencing that doubt - which, mechanically, means not knowing how the dice will roll.

To me (and, in light of his post, I think also [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION]), learning the GM's pre-authored fictional truths is not experiencing being in the story at all, but rather having the meta-experience of learning the content of an already-written story.

Relating this back to the example that you described as changing: the players in my BW game, both for themselves and in character, are wondering and debating the nature of the mage PC's brother. Was he evil before he was possessed?

Unexpectedly, when looking for something quite different (the mace), they find the black arrows in his (now ruined) private workroom. This is a new, and hitherto unexpected, sign which suggests (i) that he was evil before being possessed, and (ii) that he had some connection to the killing of the elven ronin PC's master. It is new to the characters. And it is new to the players - so, for instance, they don't have to play at being shocked, because they are shocked.

The revelation wouldn't be more shocking if I (as GM) had decided it in advance.

I think this is the sot of thing that Balesir was intending to get at in his reference to immersion and discovery.

the fact that we have a "player driven" option, in which the character drives the action, and the player has an avatar of a character, that "character driven" means "character drives events". It is a drift in language use I was trying to elucidate here. "Character driven" has little to do with how events unfold. Character driven stories are rather the opposite - they are less about how events unfold, and more about how *character* unfolds.

Which is to say that, in the terms I'm using, "character driven" and "player driven" are more orthogonal than we might at first think.

<SNIP>

Ultimately, "I get to author things," is not a guarantee of anything, including player engagement.

In the "player driven" game that uses scene framing, "fail forward" etc, the events are also reflective/expressive of "character driven" action in your sense of that term - the unfolding events also reflect the unfolding of the PC.

It's true that, in fiction generally, there can be character-driven stories where the events are not driven by the character, but I think that has to be harder to pull off in RPGing (doesn't it?) because of the place of player action declarations in RPG play. If players are declaring actions for their PCs, then player and hence PC choices drive events (but, in scene-framing, "fail forward" play are also expressive of the character in the "character driven" sense). But if events are not driven by character choices, then it becomes much harder for the game to be character driven, because of the divorce between the authorship of events (the GM) and the authorship of the character's inner responses (the player).

On "authoring" in general, I'm not advocating for player authorship in this thread. (Though it can have a place, I think.) In all the examples of play I've given and linked to, the framing of challenges and the authorship of the backstory is primarily with the GM. I see the discussion in this thread as not being primarily about the identity of the author, but the timing of the authorship.

 

[Zak S]

It's impossible to not fail forward in a properly run game.

You only call for a die roll when there are consequences to failure.

You didn't open the door? One more wandering monster check. Tension ratchets up.

The game just went forward.

Fail to climb? You got hurt. You are more vulnerable. Tension ratchets up.

The game just went forward.

It's like people have never seen a horror movie.

 

[pemerton]

It's impossible to not fail forward in a properly run game.

You only call for a die roll when there are consequences to failure.

You didn't open the door? One more wandering monster check. Tension ratchets up.

The game just went forward.

Fail to climb? You got hurt. You are more vulnerable. Tension ratchets up.

The game just went forward.

It's like people have never seen a horror movie.

I'm pretty confident that D&D games have been run where climb checks were made, any damage taken was healed with clerical spells, and nothing else happened during the ingame day (and that nothing else would happen was quite predictable to the players). So the climb check, the taking of damage, the use of memorised spells, etc was all just record keeping but didn't lead to any ratcheting-up of tension.

I think this would be especially common in 2nd ed AD&D and 3E games, which maintain many of the resolution mechanics from AD&D but don't use the dungeon, "horror movie" framing that connects those mechanics to the ratcheting up of tension.

I would see the self-conscious exposition and development of "fail forward" techniques as a way of trying to further develop RPGs into these non-dungeon, non-"horror movie" fictional contexts while also ensuring some sort of forward momentum or development (whether that's the ratcheting up of tension or some other sort of emotional pressure).

 

[Imaro]

What changes? There are no changes. Authoring is not changing the fiction - it is bringing it into being.

To me this seems to miss @Balesir's point about immersion.

For Gandalf and Frodo, sitting in Bag End, the truth is not known. There is doubt - and the possibility that the ring is not the One.

So experiencing being in the story would mean experiencing that doubt - which, mechanically, means not knowing how the dice will roll.

Or not knowing whether the DM had pre-authored that ring being or not being "The Ring"... right? Effectively for everyone but the DM, regardless of what approach is taken, it seems the same uncertainty exists...

To me (and, in light of his post, I think also @Balesir), learning the GM's pre-authored fictional truths is not experiencing being in the story at all, but rather having the meta-experience of learning the content of an already-written story.

Either way the GM is authoring... not seeing the difference (except again in the DM himself not knowing) in whether he author's ahead of time or not, either way the DM decides what the truth is whether pre-authored or authored in the moment.

Relating this back to the example that you described as changing: the players in my BW game, both for themselves and in character, are wondering and debating the nature of the mage PC's brother. Was he evil before he was possessed?

Unexpectedly, when looking for something quite different (the mace), they find the black arrows in his (now ruined) private workroom. This is a new, and hitherto unexpected, sign which suggests (i) that he was evil before being possessed, and (ii) that he had some connection to the killing of the elven ronin PC's master. It is new to the characters. And it is new to the players - so, for instance, they don't have to play at being shocked, because they are shocked.

The revelation wouldn't be more shocking if I (as GM) had decided it in advance.

I think this is the sot of thing that Balesir was intending to get at in his reference to immersion and discovery.

Would it have somehow been less shocking? I guess again on a fundamental level I'm not seeing what the gain is outside of a DM getting to be surprised as well... but for the players, unless you're announcing that you just determined these things what is the practical difference? Personally I think a DM who knows his players and their character's well enough can pre-author large aspects of the game while still having a character/player driven game... do you agree? If not, why not?

 

[BryonD]

What changes? There are no changes. Authoring is not changing the fiction - it is bringing it into being.

The One Ring was the One Ring. Gandulf did not make that true by throwing it into the fire. He brought nothing into being. He discovered a pre-authored truth.
There is appeal to this paradigm.

To me this seems to miss [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION]'s point about immersion.

keyword: seems

For Gandalf and Frodo, sitting in Bag End, the truth is not known. There is doubt - and the possibility that the ring is not the One.

Right, they are characters. The truth exists. They don't know what it is.

So experiencing being in the story would mean experiencing that doubt - which, mechanically, means not knowing how the dice will roll.

For a great many aspects of the game this is true. Will I hit the orc with this swing of my sword?

To me (and, in light of his post, I think also [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION]), learning the GM's pre-authored fictional truths is not experiencing being in the story at all, but rather having the meta-experience of learning the content of an already-written story.

Sounds like bad DMing.
As has been stated numerous times now, the bulk of the story is undetermined and many highly unexpected changes happen along the way.
You keep forcing everything into 0% or 100% absolutes and missing the great value in between. You say you don't like preauthorship and you make that as a baseline statement.
I present examples of preauthorship and you leap all the way to "not experiencing" anything more than "an already-written story". I honestly find the presentation of this dichotomy to be a shame.

Unexpectedly, when looking for something quite different (the mace), they find the black arrows in his (now ruined) private workroom. This is a new, and hitherto unexpected, sign which suggests (i) that he was evil before being possessed, and (ii) that he had some connection to the killing of the elven ronin PC's master. It is new to the characters. And it is new to the players - so, for instance, they don't have to play at being shocked, because they are shocked.

The revelation wouldn't be more shocking if I (as GM) had decided it in advance.

I'm not sure that shocking is a relevant obligation.

Again, as I feel compelled to keep repeating, I get that you way is fun to you and I get why. I am not rejecting the fun of you approach.
But if nothing is preauthored then there is no opportunity for the players to truly be in the shoes of the characters discovering truths which are completely beyond their control and then having an interesting story which plays off of that. I am NOT trying to convince you that this is a more insightful or better truth. But it is a great truth for a lot of people. You keep arguing against it as if you feel a need to beat in down in order to validate your own taste.

Which brings us back to talking past each other.

 

[pemerton]

Or not knowing whether the DM had pre-authored that ring being or not being "The Ring"... right? Effectively for everyone but the DM, regardless of what approach is taken, it seems the same uncertainty exists...

Either way the GM is authoring... not seeing the difference (except again in the DM himself not knowing) in whether he author's ahead of time or not, either way the DM decides what the truth is whether pre-authored or authored in the moment.

Would it have somehow been less shocking? I guess again on a fundamental level I'm not seeing what the gain is outside of a DM getting to be surprised as well... but for the players, unless you're announcing that you just determined these things what is the practical difference? Personally I think a DM who knows his players and their character's well enough can pre-author large aspects of the game while still having a character/player driven game... do you agree? If not, why not?

For me, there are two aspects to this.

One aspect is player contribution - when the GM is authoring in response to, and as part of the adjudication of, players' action declarations for their PCs, then the players are contributing to the content of the shared fiction in a fundamental way. They are driving it (to use that nebulous term) even though the GM is the one who is actually authoring it.

The second aspect is more practical, but not unconnected. It was an element in my recent discussion with [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] upthread. I think that when the GM authors material in this player-driven context, it is more likely to actually engage the players, and the dramatic concerns they are expressing for, and via the play of, their PCs.

In my experience, these two aspects interact, each generating positive feedback that strengthens the other.

Now you (as does Umbran also upthread) conjecture that a good GM who knows his/her players can achieve the dramatic engagement by deft pre-authoring. In my own experience this hasn't tended to be so - the pre-authoring tends to become an anchor that weighs the game down, dragging effort and attention away from the players' central concerns onto things that matter only because the GM decided, in advance, that they should matter.

I'm pretty sure - from talking to other RPGers, and reading their posts - that I'm not the only person ever to have had this sort of experience (which at least in its stronger form tends to get labelled as railroading). That's not to say that everyone has had it. But I think it was a desire to avoid this sort of thing, while still achieving dramatically engaging play, that led to designers like Crane, Edwards et al consciously emphasising "fail forward" (and related devices, like scene-framed play) as a technique.

 

[pemerton]

The One Ring was the One Ring. Gandulf did not make that true by throwing it into the fire. He brought nothing into being. He discovered a pre-authored truth.

<SNIP>

if nothing is preauthored then there is no opportunity for the players to truly be in the shoes of the characters discovering truths which are completely beyond their control and then having an interesting story which plays off of that.

This is not true.

First, Gandalf didn't discover a "pre-authored" truth. Putting to one side JRRT's conceit that divine creation of the world is akin to authorship, Gandalf was not living in a book. He was living in a world like ours. He discovered a truth, but it was not an "authored" truth.

The analogue to this in an RPG is, as a player playing one's PC, learning a new fact about the gameworld.

Let's stick with the LotR example. Gandalf's player declares in character "I believe this is the One Ring - what else would explain the Dark Lord's increasing interest in the Wilds west of the Misty Mountains? If I'm right, it won't grow hot in the fire, and Black Speech runes will appear when it's hot," and then says "I throw the ring into the fire!"

In BW, this would be resolved as a Rings-wise check, with an augment from Dark Lord-wise or some similar knowledge skill reflecting the conjectured link between the identity of the ring and the movements of evil forces.

When the check is made and resolved - if successful, the ring is the One and behaves as predicted, if not then it is not the One and the GM narrates something else appropriate ("fail forward") - the players, in character, learn something new about the gameworld. They didn't choose it - the dice did that. It was not under the players' control.

It's true that Gandalf's skill in ring lore made him more likely to be right than would otherwise be the case, but that is entirely appropriate - when a person skilled in ring lore sincerely conjectures that a particular ring is the One, it should be more likely that s/he is right than when an unskilled person does so. In this respect the non-pre-authorship approach deftly solves the problem of how to reflect knowledge skills in play other than by playing 20 questions with the GM. (I think [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] already made this point upthread.)

What is under the player's control is forcing a determination of a particular issue. By declaring that the ring is thrown into the fire, Gandalf's player forces the table to address the question of whether this ring is the One, and forces the generation of some answer within the fiction. But forcing things to be authored is not the same as authoring them.

To give a parallel example: the key for a classic D&D dungeon might have one room labelled as the orcs' barracks, with a notation that 30% of the time the orcs are sleeping and so make no noise, but 70% of the time are carousing and so can be heard via listening at the door, with a +10% bonus to the chance of success. A player, by declaring that his/her PC listens at the door, forces the GM to roll the % dice and find out whether the orcs are sleeping or carousing. But no one back in 1977 ever thought that this meant the player was authoring the gameworld and hence not learning a truth beyond the PC's control.

You keep arguing against it as if you feel a need to beat in down in order to validate your own taste.

What I am arguing against is one particular contention, namely, that GM pre-authorship is a necessary condition of an objective, consistent, etc gameworld (different posters use slightly different terminology) which the players, as their characters, learn about rather than create.

That claim is not true. And it is an attempt to present what ispurely an aesthetic preference (for pre-authorship) as if it rested on a fundamental truth about the metaphysics of fictions and their creation.

 

[Zak S]

I'm pretty confident that D&D games have been run where climb checks were made, any damage taken was healed with clerical spells, and nothing else happened during the ingame day (and that nothing else would happen was quite predictable to the players). So the climb check, the taking of damage, the use of memorised spells, etc was all just record keeping but didn't lead to any ratcheting-up of tension.

That is why I included the phrase "properly run".

See:

It's impossible to not fail forward in a properly run game.

If you can climb, fail, and nothing happens then the GM either should not have made you roll (there was no time pressure, you had hours to set up ropes, etc) or the GM should have set up something that activated if the players didn't act fast enough.

 

[pemerton]

That is why I included the phrase "properly run".

I thought that might be your response!

But I think you're being a little harsh on GMs and tables who follow the game rules and procedures as written, but who end up with games that lack the time pressure/dynamics/ratcheting up that you mention because those rules and procedures don't relate the making of rolls to those pacing/pressure concerns.

There's even a whole school of play, some of whose exponents have posted in this thread, who think that "proper play" requires making those rolls even in the absence of serious pressure, because the function of the rolls isn't to generate a particular dynamic at the table, but rather is to determine outcomes within the fiction as part of a simulation process, whether or not those outcomes will relate to any sort of pressure/tension/etc.

For the adherents of that school, I'm inclined to think that "fail forward" is not a concept/technique that they need to worry about. I'm less inclined to say that their games are not being properly run!

 

[Zak S]

There's even a whole school of play, some of whose exponents have posted in this thread, who think that "proper play" requires making those rolls even in the absence of serious pressure, because the function of the rolls isn't to generate a particular dynamic at the table, but rather is to determine outcomes within the fiction as part of a simulation process, whether or not those outcomes will relate to any sort of pressure/tension/etc.

For the adherents of that school, I'm inclined to think that "fail forward" is not a concept/technique that they need to worry about. I'm less inclined to say that their games are not being properly run!

Then it's a moot point.

As you say: If you want a game that's purely simulatory then they don't need "fail forward" mechanics.

If you aren't bound by the simulatory urge then you can just set up scenarios such that you aren't having people roll unless failure would have a consequence. (i.e. "properly run" the game)

But I think you're being a little harsh on GMs and tables who follow the game rules and procedures as written, but who end up with games that lack the time pressure/dynamics/ratcheting up that you mention because those rules and procedures don't relate the making of rolls to those pacing/pressure concerns.

This is straight up what I'd call "a GMing mistake". It's like taking 20 minutes to look up a spell or talking over your players so much they can't get anything done--you have, at that point, failed in one of the absolutely necessary skills that no mechanical reinforcement can cure.

A partial answer to borderline cases (i.e. 13-17 year olds who can be excused for not knowing better but will still read the book and take its advice) is to put the words "Do not ever have a player roll unless you at least want to create the impression there would be a consequence to failure" in the DMG and next time there's an edition and they hire me to work on it.