Failing Forward

[innerdude]

I'm very sympathetic to your view, @Imaro, and I like your most recent post, @Ilbranteloth.

There's absolutely a level of degree involved with how far on the sliding scale of pre-authoring / "just in time" GM-ing I go.

And to a point, I think @pemerton is purposefully trying to describe the far end of the "just in time" spectrum to highlight how different it is compared to what we might call a "classic" pre-authored story of the kind prevalent in the 2e era.

I haven't played Burning Wheel (yet), but much of what @pemerton is describing is very much tied to Burning Wheel's ethos, where it goes out of its way to tell GM's not to impose some pre-defined set of encounters, or plot, or whatever on the players. Character progression is tied to a very, very different set of action resolution constraints than D&D is. Characters literally cannot progress unless they forced to encounter things that intersect with their stated goals and beliefs. A GM trying to send characters through a mostly linear "pre-authored" story in Burning Wheel is a recipe for disaster.

Some of the difference is related to the "scale" of the pre-authoring. At the "30,000 foot view of world building" level, it's likely going to be heavily pre-authored, but even now I'm more open to getting player input at that level.

At the "10,000 foot view" of "What are my players likely to care about and interact with in a general goal sense?" view, the GM should be getting regular input. It wouldn't be unusual for my players to suggest NPCs they know, and I would incorporate them into the fiction. They might suggest a place they've visited, or an organization they align with, and I would incorporate that into the fiction. If they meet one goal or objective and need a new one, I would definitely be taking input from them, and trying to frame scenes around what they give me.

At the "500 foot view" of, "I'm trying to frame a set of 4-5 scenes for this session and next," it should all be very tightly wound around what the players have been doing, saying, and asking. GM's should keep things very fluid from a pre-authoring standpoint. Anything a player suggests that relates to their goals and intent should be seriously considered.

As an aside, I will say that I could never have GM'd this way with Pathfinder. No way. It was an impossibility. I was prepping 3+ hours a week for my Pathfinder sessions. Only after I switched to Savage Worlds was I even willing to try this style. Now I prep maybe 90 minutes, total, in an entire month.

Now, at some point in my games, the "30,000 foot view" pre-authored stuff may come into view. There's definitely things going on in the background that may have far-reaching impacts on the world at large, or regionally / locally on the PCs. But almost never would I allow a "30,000 foot view" pre-authored state of fiction to interrupt or contradict the 10,000 foot, or 500 foot views. And if I did allow the "30,000 foot view" to creep in to the lower "elevations," it would be transparent to the players, would have been widely foreshadowed and framed to the characters, and the resulting consequences would be obvious and consistent. And even then, I would seriously consider changing it if I felt that it was going to cause problems with the player's goals.

Now, to @pemerton, he might think what I've described still gives too much pre-authorship control to the GM. And for his group it may be true. For my group, this seems to create a very healthy balance. By the same token, at some point there is a line that shouldn't be crossed where the players are fully setting up the scene frames. It's a pretty well accepted maxim that letting players set up both the challenge AND the solution is pretty dissatisfying in play.

 

[Manbearcat]

In my most recent game a player took their followers out into the junkyard and then got them to weld two massive metal statues. And then she drove her cult into a tribal frenzy and called upon the crowd to carry them to the gates so their dreadful visage would drive away their enemies...

...and failed her roll and the crowd agreed to sacrifice her inside them in a Wicker-man style so their dreadful visage would drive away their enemies.

I didn't create the city, the junkyard, the followers, or initiate actions building statues or driving crowds into a tribal frenzy. They were all player authored. Please explain how this episode was steered by my 'pre-disposed interests'.

Who decided she should be burned in them... even though honestly it's not exactly clear from your statement what the outcome of the failed roll exactly was. Either way who decided it.

I also find it hard to believe that you as DM didn't author anything (the junkyard, the city, the followers, etc.) unless this is a co-authored game as opposed to an improv game, in which case it's not exactly what is being discussed.

Just a quick commentary on the above. I'm fairly certain chaochou is GMing Apocalypse World and the player in question is likely a Hardholder (gang-leader/warlord). They probably made a Leadership move and then had a failure (and marked XP) on a Seize By Force of Go Aggro move (I'm thinking the former, but I'm missing elements of the fiction that triggered the move). That failure would trigger the GM to make an appropriate hard move that follows from the fiction and observes the game's rules, agenda, and principles (which are explicit). It looks like chaochou chose to Turn Their Move Back On Them...which makes sense.

If I'm right (or anywhere near it), he absolutely followed the system's explicit rules, agenda, and principles to T. If that is true, then, by definition, he cannot be subverting the game's intended player agency by suspending the resolution mechanics so that he can generate content which moves play in a trajectory he (as GM) is in favor of (GM Force). He's doing the job (and doing it well) that the game demands of him. And that game is a dynamic, free-form game where you're expected to minimally prep the setting, the bad guys/movers and shakers/angles of conflict (Fronts), use the players PC build flags, always observe the rules/your agenda & principles, throw it all into a meat-grinder and improv your ass off as all kinds of weirdness (and player action declarations) will shake out.

 

[Manbearcat]

Fantastic post. You've captured the spirit of how I approach the pre-authoring / "in the moment" GM-ing continuum better than I could have. I think one of the other ingredients to this, and one of the reasons why I'm now such a big fan of "in the moment" GM-ing, is I've found a system that supports it so robustly (Savage Worlds). I'm guessing one of the reasons the 4e supporters are such a fan of it as well, is that 4e seems to support "on the fly" encounter prep easily, which is a somewhat radical departure from other versions of D&D (if I'm speaking out of hand, @pemerton, @Manbearcat, et. al., let me know).

That is exactly right. 4e's math is transparent, its tiers have independent genre conceits that synergize with PC build and the Quest feedback, its encounter budgeting is tight while its antagonists are trivially built, its noncombat conflict resolution mechanics aim at and deliver Indiana Jones, and its combat engine aims at and delivers "The Rocky/John McClain Rally", "X-Men", and "The Pirates of the Caribbean Swashbuckling" narratives. The system is weighty but streamlined, evocative, and well-oiled (with its outcome based design yielding predictable, GM side, outputs). A proficient GM can run a game with minimal prep, lots of improv and expect good results.

 

[Manbearcat]

In the common tongue, what you're saying is pre-authorship dming, due to our natural human tendencies, attracts railroaded decision points by players due to GM Force to realise the "human investment", whereas in "story now" dming this natural human tendency detracts from this "human investment" and thus the GM Force?

Pretty close, but I think you lost me toward the end there a little bit.

The first part is dead on. I would change your second part to:

whereas in "make continuity-observing, coherent/challenging/conflict-ridden crap up" "just in time" for "story now" dming this natural human tendency to impose your own vision (of which you are invested in) is mitigated because (a) fun and interesting (to you as well as the players) games emerge when you don't do that, (b) you don't have to prep so intensively (thus removing that investment in the first place), and (c) the system helps you to not need to do that (as merely following the orthodox play procedures and guidance produces a fun game and obliges the players their system-inherited agency to affect the trajectory of play...

What I think is happening in this debate is that people are arguing from exclusive points, I think many DMs are combination of both. I would consider myself more in the pre-authorship camp, not because I believe it to be better, but because I have less confidence in my own storytelling ability and instant DMing if I have not invested enough prep time.

In my prep time, I'm able to determine NPC motivations/reactions, create connections, note important details and identify possible scenarios allowing me to better prepare for the session. Without that prep time, I'm running everything on the fly and the richness of the details may be lost and holes in the storyline may be revealed.

I'm not sure if that is happening across the board. I tried to make it clear that my points where clearly under the rubric of "advantages to low-prep, high-improv GMing and systems" and how that sort of play doesn't inexorably lead to "non-living, non-breathing, flat and uninteresting worlds". Its just that the only part of those settings that are relevant to play is (1) what makes this on-screen situation interesting/compelling/at conflict with a (or all of the) PC's agenda RIGHT NOW and (2) what immediately relevant off-screen material will produce interesting stuff to follow up with.

I'll use your post to quickly round out the GMing style with its disadvantages (of which you canvass):

1 - Maintaining Continuity
2 - Consistently Generating Interesting and Relevant Content That Challenges and Produces Dynamic Decision-Points

Low-prep, high-improv games that prioritize a focus on situation are demanding mentally on GMs in different ways than high-prep, low-improv games that prioritize a focus on setting. A hefty portion of you're cognitive workload while running such a game is very asymmetric ("how do I challenge this particular thing while providing insurance for this other thing while maintaining fidelity to this third thing and make the whole thing interesting and sensical?"). This is why I'm always evaluating system components/games from a "mental overhead" perspective. The more balls a GM has in the air at once (from a system perspective), the more difficult it is to perform well in the two potential problem areas above.

 

[Imaro]

Just a quick commentary on the above. I'm fairly certain chaochou is GMing Apocalypse World and the player in question is likely a Hardholder (gang-leader/warlord). They probably made a Leadership move and then had a failure (and marked XP) on a Seize By Force of Go Aggro move (I'm thinking the former, but I'm missing elements of the fiction that triggered the move). That failure would trigger the GM to make an appropriate hard move that follows from the fiction and observes the game's rules, agenda, and principles (which are explicit). It looks like chaochou chose to Turn Their Move Back On Them...which makes sense.

If I'm right (or anywhere near it), he absolutely followed the system's explicit rules, agenda, and principles to T. If that is true, then, by definition, he cannot be subverting the game's intended player agency by suspending the resolution mechanics so that he can generate content which moves play in a trajectory he (as GM) is in favor of (GM Force). He's doing the job (and doing it well) that the game demands of him. And that game is a dynamic, free-form game where you're expected to minimally prep the setting, the bad guys/movers and shakers/angles of conflict (Fronts), use the players PC build flags, always observe the rules/your agenda & principles, throw it all into a meat-grinder and improv your ass off as all kinds of weirdness (and player action declarations) will shake out.

The question isn't whether he followed the system's rules, agenda or principles... it's whether DM biases, preferences, etc. steer the game (and there was no qualifier of them having to suspend the resolution mechanics, in fact the point is that even in following the mechanics your biases and preferences can't help but show through). Now if I understand the paragraph above... even in choosing the "Turn their move back on them" @chaochou could have chosen numerous other outcomes such as his leadership being challenged by someone else in the tribe or perhaps the tribe fell to infighting among themselves but he didn't he chose to have the followers put the player in the burning effigy as his "move" because of his own preferences and desires. I mean this whole tangent started because you wanted to bring the effect of human psychology/preference into it when making your case for a pre-authoring DM being pre-disposed to railroading... are you now saying that it's possible or even likely for a DM to first be totally aware and of his conscious and subconscious preferences, interests, biases, etc. and also be capable of total impartiality when improv 'ing in the game? If not then the DM is exerting force that isn't necessarily directed at creating the best story but also in guiding the "story" in a direction in line with his own wants... he can't help but do so since these things (biases, preferences, etc.), whether we acknowledge them or not, affect everything we do.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Just a quick commentary on the above. I'm fairly certain chaochou is GMing Apocalypse World ...

OK, I watched some Youtube stuff, Dungeon World, Apocalypse World, I'll check out Burning Wheel when I get a chance. Now I get it a bit more, and yes, the DM has a lot less influence, depending on the players, although they still have influence, and can have quite a bit depending.

More importantly, I've also discovered what I'm not interested in. While I can see the appeal of a shared world-building game, as I'll describe it, although it's probably not the best description, it doesn't really hold much interest for me. I like my world to be much, much more involved. That's why I love the Forgotten Realms.

And frankly, while some might object to the secret history and background plots interfering with the player agency, I also find that more realistic, and more the way I'd like it. If you're playing a modern day cop story, and trying to work your way into the city's underworld, there's a lot of things that are going to act upon you. I don't see that any different than a world where magic exists, and there are all sorts of people, good and evil, vying for power in the world. Races and cultures, etc.

People make choices every day, and they have some control over their little part of the world, but the world is in control an awful lot of the time.

Ultimately, while there may be some very, very gifted role-players, and there might even be a group of those people playing together, that's definitely not the case here. Starting with me. I'm great at building layers upon layers of plots, events, organizations, and such. I love doing it, even if it doesn't make it into play. But a lot of these techniques are very helpful in running a good game.

Apocalypse World seems like it would be a better fit for this style of play, in the Mad Max genre, because the world is a simpler, more brutal place. But I can't imaging a game system like that generating the Realms, for example.

It reminds me of the story-telling genre, which a number of us tried at the time. The 'newest thing' that brought 'real role-playing' to the genre, etc. Interesting, and somewhat cool, but ultimately more a niche product within an already niche hobby.

Cool stuff, and there are certainly a lot of innovations, that in some fashion would work really well in what I'm doing, and others like me. But ultimately not my cup of tea.

Ilbranteloth

 

[pemerton]

You do realize you are still deciding things as the DM... you decided the Dark Elf would appear, you decided he would drop rocks on your PC's, you decided he had the mace and so on...

I didn't know that that was in dispute.

What I'm not deciding is what the PCs want (eg no fetch quests, no "adventure hooks", etc), nor whether or not they get it (no pre-authoring that the mace is not in the tower, etc).

the DM can only provide input based on what they know

But what the GM knows when pre-authoring is different from what the GM knows when using scene-framing and "fail forward".

In [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION]'s example, the GM knew that some giant statues had been created by the PC because the player introduced that into the fiction, via action declaration.

In my example, I (as GM) knew that a mace existed because a player introduced it into the fiction via backstory authorship and Belief authorship. And I knew that the mace was not in the tower, or at least not evidently so, because the players declared a Scavenging check which then failed.

This is the difference that I am interested in: the players' choices and contributions establish both constraints within which, and material by reference to which, the GM authors things. It is very different from pre-authoring.

Yet you created the Dark Elf outside of play and then waited for an opportunity to introduce him through a failed check... or am I misunderstanding what you posted earlier?

I created the Dark Elf as an NPC who might be introduced, yes. But the circumstances of his appearance, whether he was to be friend or foe, whether or not he had the mace - none of those things were pre-authored.

He became a foe in virtue of being introduced as part of the narration of a failed check. And because he was thereby established as a foe, he seemed an apt person to have the mace in his possession, when it turned out that the PCs could not find the mace in the tower.

Given my preferences and priorities, this is very different from writing down, in advance of play: "Dark elf antagonist, wields the nickel-silver mace which he has looted from the ruined tower, will try to interfere with the PCs' water supplies and will attack them if they leave the tower via the defile."

But the input from the DM will still be within the DM's own interests, just like the players' input will be based on their interests, although they will probably be quite different than what he would come up with on his own.

But this falls under a growing category of things that I ask, "why is that bad?" I don't think it is.

Well, obviously not everyone thinks that pre-authorship is bad. I don't think that pre-authorhsip, per se, is bad: as I've already said, my BW game uses the pre-authored GH maps and some general GH backstory. (I wouldn't be surprised if that's more pre-authorship than [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] is using in the game he has referred to.)

But I'm not a big fan of pre-authorship of key antagonists, plot foci, etc, because that tends to render the player's choices more-or-less irrelevant, or reduce them to choices concerning mere colour or marginal considerations ("Do we travel by horse or by wagon?"). Suppose, for instance, that [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] had just decided that the PC's followers try to sacrifice here Wicker Man-style: what would be the point, then, of the player making the roll to rouse her followers into a frenzy and urge them to use the effigies to drive away their enemies? Suppose, in my own case, that I had just decided that the mace was in the hands of the dark elf and hence not in the tower - what would have been the point of the players making a check to try and find it?

I'm not denying that my contributions reflect what I think is interesting. I've already quoted Paul Czege upthread:

It's intentional as all get out. . . . I frame the character into the middle of conflicts I think will push and pull in ways that are interesting to me and to the player. I keep NPC personalities somewhat unfixed in my mind, allowing me to retroactively justify their behaviors in support of this.​

But, as I said, the players' choices and contributions establish both constraints within which, and material by reference to which, the GM authors things.

 

[pemerton]

Apocalypse World seems like it would be a better fit for this style of play, in the Mad Max genre, because the world is a simpler, more brutal place. But I can't imaging a game system like that generating the Realms, for example.

Slightly tangential, but not completely so - this reminded me of the following from Ron Edwards, discussing Tweet's Over the Edge:

Karaoke. This is a serious problem that arises from the need to sell thick books rather than to teach and develop powerful role-playing. Let's say you have a game that consists of some Premise-heavy characters and a few notes about Situation, and through play, the group generates a hellacious cool Setting as well as theme(s) regarding those characters. Then, publishing your great game, you present that very setting and theme in the text, in detail.

From Over the Edge (Atlas Games, 1994; author is Jonathan Tweet):

How to Use the Setting

When I first played OTE, it was on about ten minutes' notice. I had some notes on major background conspiracies, a few images of various scenes, and a primitive version of the current mechanics. No map, no descriptions of businesses, people, places, or any of the other useful tidbits that are crammed into the previous two chapters. [He ain't kidding, and actually it's the previous four chapters, 152 pages total, in the second edition - RE] Naturally I winged it.

That night were born Total Taxi, Giovanni's Cab's [sic], Cesar's Hotel, and Sad Mary's, all now landmarks in the Edge. Things just happened. I faked it. Since there's nothing that couldn't happen, anything I dreamt up was OK.

Now, however, you have a background explaining who, what, where, and when. You're in a completely different situation from where I was back on that first manic evening.

[The rest of the section concerns converting the reader-GM's in-play mistakes about the canonical setting into opportunities, as well as altering it to taste; the suggestion that he may instead put himself directly into Tweet's improvisational shoes at the outset is, to my eyes, vividly absent - RE]

[several pages later] Could vs. Should

... The first time I played OTE, I had a few pages of notes on the background and nothing on the specifics. I made it all up on the spot. Not having anything written as a guide (or crutch), I let my imagination loose. You have the mixed blessing of having many pages of background prepared for you. If you use the information in this book as a springboard for your own wild dreams, then it is a blessing. If you limit yourself to what I've dreamed up, it's a curse.​

All I see, I'm afraid, is the curse. The isolated phrases "mixed blessing" and "(or crutch)" don't hold a lot of water compared to the preceding 152 extraordinarily detailed pages of canonical setting. I'm not saying that improvisation is better or more Narrativist than non-improvisational play. I am saying, however, that if playing this particular game worked so wonderfully to free the participants into wildly successful brainstorming during play ... and since the players were a core source during this event, as evident in the game's Dedication and in various examples of play ... then why present the results of the play-experience as the material for another person's experience?​

In my experience, it is possible to build up a pretty rich gameworld on the basis of material lightly prepped in advance (eg a few maps, the names of a few gods, kingdoms, etc) and then seeing what happens to it in play. The demands of play will force authorship: and conversely, if something isn't authored because not needed in play, then what would its existence have added to the game experience?

 

[Sadras]

What I'm not deciding is what the PCs want (eg no fetch quests, no "adventure hooks", etc), nor whether or not they get it (no pre-authoring that the mace is not in the tower, etc).

But what the GM knows when pre-authoring is different from what the GM knows when using scene-framing and "fail forward".

But I'm not a big fan of pre-authorship of key antagonists, plot foci, etc, because that tends to render the player's choices more-or-less irrelevant, or reduce them to choices concerning mere colour or marginal considerations ("Do we travel by horse or by wagon?").

How would you run the 4e module Cairn of the Winter King? I guessing you are familiar with the module as sometime ago you mentioned you were to run a blend of it with another adventure.

There are set key antagonists, with items ("mace"..etc) already predetermined in the various rooms of the cairn and there are a few fetch quests. How is your running of it different from mine with your "story-now" approach?

In my experience, it is possible to build up a pretty rich gameworld on the basis of material lightly prepped in advance (eg a few maps, the names of a few gods, kingdoms, etc) and then seeing what happens to it in play. The demands of play will force authorship: and conversely, if something isn't authored because not needed in play, then what would its existence have added to the game experience?

A player asks me which kingdoms host training centres for wizards? Which kingdoms are at war? Which is the deity of agriculture? What is a particular deity's emblem?...etc. With pre-authorship I have those details out the way already instead of having to think on the spot. In fact having those details already thought out allows me to improve on "story-now" instances.

 

[LostSoul]

Who decided she should be burned in them... even though honestly it's not exactly clear from your statement what the outcome of the failed roll exactly was. Either way who decided it.

I also find it hard to believe that you as DM didn't author anything (the junkyard, the city, the followers, etc.) unless this is a co-authored game as opposed to an improv game, in which case it's not exactly what is being discussed.

Here's the thing:

You play with certain people because you like their ideas. This means that, for a pre-authored game, you like the content that the DM pre-authored. It also means that, for a no-myth game (or whatever - pemertonian-scene-framing, fail-forward, etc.), you like the content the DM authors as the scene plays out.

No one wants to get rid of bias.