Failing Forward

[grendel111111]

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.

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.

Let me start by saying... very valid approach, I see how it goes in your games.

So lets look at an alternative:

1) DM knows if it is the ring or not but players have no idea. (This could be preauthored long before during world creation, decided when the ring was found, or rolled for when the player said they wanted to investigate the ring).
2) Gandalf suspects it is the ring and so uses knowledge (evil ring things) to get information.
3) If successful he discovers that the ring might be the one ring and you should throw it in the fire to check. He does it and the one ringness of it is discovered or disproved (continue as your example above of it either being or not being the ring.).
4) If unsuccessful he does not know how to determine if it is the one ring and so must now go and research or quest to find the answer. (this is what happened in LOR).
5) Having gone on a quest and discovered that you need to throw it in the fire he returns and does just that (but now time has passed and the dark lords power has increased). (note this could take a very small amount of table time, but might shift in game time forward a large amount of time). Proceed as above in your example of it either being or not being the ring.

Going from the premise that both approaches are fine and valid here are the differences I can see.

In Pemerton's example:
Gandalfs player determines the way to check the one ringness of the ring.
If it is the ring or not is determined by Gandalfs skill in Rings-wise check. If he is good at knowledge then it is the ring. (If his knowledge roll is bad it is either not the ring or is not determined).

There is no room for "you are knowledgeable and so know it is not the ring". I realise that from your point of view that would be an undesirable outcome, but it's one I like to have there.

In the second example the players are just as in the dark about if it is the true ring, The difference is that the DM knows. But the DM knowing does not reduce the dramatic tension of the game for me. Just like the DM knowing how to circumvent a trap without triggering does it, does not diminish the tension of the trap for the players (who need to discover it for themselves).

I think that the key to doing either approach well is that "it's the way you enjoy playing".

 

[grendel111111]

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

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.

I don't think it would be more shocking, but I do not see why the DM knowing before hand would be less shocking for the players (Unless the DM just can't not give everything away).

When the players discover about the brother they won't think, "Well that's no surprise, the DM knew already".

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.

The timing of the authorship is not really an issue for me. The DM can decide 1 second before the dice is rolled, or even roll himself to find out the outcome seconds before or at the same time as the players do. My preference is for things like knowledge checks to reveal information, rather than decide the truth, and for rolls to match the outcomes rather than the action.

 

[Balesir]

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.

Gandalf does not make anything true by throwing the ring in the fire in either scenario, here. The truth was simply unknown. If I roll a die - assuming I do so fairly - the result is going to be what it will be. I have no say in it. I simply find out what it is when I roll the die. This is absolutely no different from my frame of reference than if some entity had decided in advance what the die was going to roll.

Likewise, when we discover something in the world, we can have no proof that what we discover was true before we discovered it. We just assume that it was, based on our previous experience of the world. In the same way, we can have no absolute proof that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. Years of previous sunrises do not constitute proof, they merely indicate a persistent habit.

There is no room for "you are knowledgeable and so know it is not the ring". I realise that from your point of view that would be an undesirable outcome, but it's one I like to have there.

That possibility is easily done in the paradigm [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is describing. The player just needs to ask a different question: "given the knowledge I have, is there any reason that this cannot be the One Ring?" Roll the dice, add the skill, success = "Yes, there is a reason you know why this cannot be the One Ring"; failure = "No, there is no reason you know of why this could not be the One Ring." Simple.

In the second example the players are just as in the dark about if it is the true ring, The difference is that the DM knows. But the DM knowing does not reduce the dramatic tension of the game for me. Just like the DM knowing how to circumvent a trap without triggering does it, does not diminish the tension of the trap for the players (who need to discover it for themselves).

I agree with this completely. From the players' point of view, I don't see that the techniques differ much at all. The difference is all on the GM side, which is why I was wondering about advantages of pre-authoring, from the GM's point of view (the obvious disadvantage being all the prep work required). At the moment I am thinking it has to do with a sort of safety net, or a comfort for when one is uncomfortable with improvising in a complex context. In any case, I'm not sure that prep that is useful for improvisation is significantly less voluminous, although less of it may be actually required.

I think there may also be something about "a thing doesn't really exist/isn't really true until the GM knows it" out there - but I would count that as just a cognitive trap, and an unhelpful belief.

 

[Balesir]

My preference is for things like knowledge checks to reveal information, rather than decide the truth, and for rolls to match the outcomes rather than the action.

Checks modified by character skills or knowledge do reveal information - or rather, they might reveal information. The information was, in the game world, there all along. Remember that skill checks involve a die roll, they are not simply decided by whether or not the character has the skill. If there were no unknown factors in play, then making the check would be redundant. Randomness, whether in the real world or in the game, only ever amounts to unknown factors. Sometimes they will even be unknowable.

 

[pemerton]

In Pemerton's example:
Gandalfs player determines the way to check the one ringness of the ring.
If it is the ring or not is determined by Gandalfs skill in Rings-wise check. If he is good at knowledge then it is the ring. (If his knowledge roll is bad it is either not the ring or is not determined).

There is no room for "you are knowledgeable and so know it is not the ring".

In my post I deliberately left it open how Gandalf's player knows, in character, how to test the ring. There are multiple ways to work that out, from player fiat to a linked test using Rings-wise to GM pre-authorship which the player learns via a test. In the context of BW, Luke Crane discusses various options and approaches in the Adventure Burner.

As I said to [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] upthread, I use some pre-authorship in my BW game (eg maps, very general GH historical background, the existence of a pyramid in the Bright Desert that orcs wanted to break into, etc). My point is simply that an absence of pre-authorship doesn't vitiate engaging with an "objective" world.

 

[Manbearcat]

The difference is all on the GM side, which is why I was wondering about advantages of pre-authoring, from the GM's point of view (the obvious disadvantage being all the prep work required). At the moment I am thinking it has to do with a sort of safety net, or a comfort for when one is uncomfortable with improvising in a complex context. In any case, I'm not sure that prep that is useful for improvisation is significantly less voluminous, although less of it may be actually required.

I agree with you (obviously). Advantages for the GM:

1) Less prep work.

2) The improvisational paradigm of play allows for the GM to "play to find out what happens", thus being surprised by the trajectory of the narrative.

3) The lack of temptation to subvert player action declarations + the authentic outcomes of the resolution mechanics (typically covertly) which shoehorns play toward your heavily prepped material (of which you will inevitably be invested in its manifestation during play).

This 3 is also an advantage for the players as it is insurance that their agency is maximized with respect to dictating outcomes (the aggregation of which becomes "story").

I think there may also be something about "a thing doesn't really exist/isn't really true until the GM knows it" out there - but I would count that as just a cognitive trap, and an unhelpful belief.

Agreed. 100 % a cognitive trap. Your mental framework may predispose you toward believing that game content exists external to actual play, but it isn't true. GM's prep is not establishing content. Nothing exists in an RPG until it is introduced into our shared imaginary space via conversation at the table (which can take place during player orientation, character creation, or actual play). Every single element of setting and situation is "Schrodingers" until it is declared/confirmed via that conversation or play procedures.

 

[TwoSix]

Agreed. 100 % a cognitive trap. Your mental framework may predispose you toward believing that game content exists external to actual play, but it isn't true. GM's prep is not establishing content. Nothing exists in an RPG until it is introduced into our shared imaginary space via conversation at the table (which can take place during player orientation, character creation, or actual play). Every single element of setting and situation is "Schrodingers" until it is declared/confirmed via that conversation or play procedures.

I foresee absolutely no chance that you get pushback on this idea from the other players in this thread. No chance at all.

 

[Zak S]

Agreed. 100 % a cognitive trap. Your mental framework may predispose you toward believing that game content exists external to actual play, but it isn't true. GM's prep is not establishing content. Nothing exists in an RPG until it is introduced into our shared imaginary space via conversation at the table (which can take place during player orientation, character creation, or actual play). Every single element of setting and situation is "Schrodingers" until it is declared/confirmed via that conversation or play procedures.

Well there is an important hair to split:

If you want something to have the character of a _puzzle_ (this includes actual puzzles as well as encounters and mapping challenges and other complex kinds of multi-step secrets) then it helps to have a thing prepped.

It doesn't "have its own reality" but it sure as hell makes it easier to create a puzzle-style challenge and the kinds of challenges related to that.

 

[Manbearcat]

Well there is an important hair to split:

If you want something to have the character of a _puzzle_ (this includes actual puzzles as well as encounters and mapping challenges and other complex kinds of multi-step secrets) then it helps to have a thing prepped.

It doesn't "have its own reality" but it sure as hell makes it easier to create a puzzle-style challenge and the kinds of challenges related to that.

Oh yeah. You'll get no disagreement from me on this split hair. I only prep what is absolutely assured to see immediate play time and is essential in alleviating (undesirable) mental overhead and play-bogging table handling time concerns (which dovetails with continuity/interesting content concerns on something such as a complex, mentally engaging puzzle style challenge that will see play time).

But even those elements (as you agree with) are effectively in a state of superposition until they are confirmed during play.

 

[Zak S]

But even those elements (as you agree with) are effectively in a state of superposition until they are confirmed during play.

Yes. That's how I do it: It isn't a thing until the players interact with it (even if they don't know they're interacting with it).

However, I do know other people who are pretty serious about the world being a work of imagination with its own integrity (in some creative way or for some creative reason I don't really get, but whatever creativity is weird) that you should never violate once written down. Like that's the advice Raggi gives in the LOTFP Grindhouse Edition. I don't see much point in arguing with him about it.