Failing Forward

[Imaro]

Could I? Sure. Do I think the system pushes me away from it, especially if I've embraced a mindset that I shouldn't be doing it? Yes. I mean, I know you CAN give players full agency if you're running an adventure path, but I sure think there's a better chance it could be a railroad than if I'm playing Fiasco.

But an adventure path isn't the only pre-authored type of campaign... there's the sandbox, funnily enough an earlier poster described this pre-authored type of campaign as a pinball game where he bounced around almost aimlessly. Now I don't agree that describes all sandboxes (or even the majority of them, and mine are built after character creation so as to incorporate charcter needs into them) but don't you find it interesting that the same type of campaign (pre-authored) can invoke almost opposite "feelings" in people (railroad vs. aimless) depending on how it's run? That IMO, that makes me believe it's more about who is running it than using pre-authored techniques in and of themselves.

EDIT: Emphasis mine... What you stated there, IMO, is the key to it all and is independent of the tools used... a state of mind that must be embraced is exactly what I've been getting at.

 

[TwoSix]

But an adventure path isn't the only pre-authored type of campaign... there's the sandbox, funnily enough an earlier poster described this pre-authored type of campaign as a pinball game where he bounced around almost aimlessly. Now I don't agree that describes all sandboxes (or even the majority of them, and mine are built after character creation so as to incorporate charcter needs into them) but don't you find it interesting that the same type of campaign (pre-authored) can invoke almost opposite "feelings" in people (railroad vs. aimless) depending on how it's run? That IMO, that makes me believe it's more about who is running it than using pre-authored techniques in and of themselves.

EDIT: Emphasis mine... What you stated there, IMO, is the key to it all and is independent of the tools used... a state of mind that must be embraced is exactly what I've been getting at.

Well, sure. Part of what I mean by using techniques are approaches that are system-independent, they are by necessity a mindset you can bring with you. You simply have to align the techniques you choose to use both with the system and the needs of the players. You can use certain approaches with lots of different systems, but that doesn't mean some systems aren't more aligned with some approaches than others.

 

[pemerton]

I mean honestly if you don't want your preferences discussed or questioned why post on a "discussion board"... if you've got it all figured out about everyone else's playstyles as well... what exactly are you looking to discuss??

Upthread, [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] asked you for play examples that illustrated your contention that "fail forward" leads to railroading. Can you give one?
[MENTION=27570]sheadunne[/MENTION] has actually posted his own experience - of sandbox play feeling like "pinballing". I've posted my reasons for preferring my style, and given illustrations. Your response seems to be that choosing to introduce a dark elf in response to a failed check is a type of railroading, which I don't really get.

What I'm interested in this: can you see why a reasonable person (eg me) might think that it reduces the influence on the fiction of player action declarations to have the player declare that such actions fail by reference to pre-authored fiction taking the form of secret backstory?

 

[pemerton]

every failure pushes the PC's towards the Misty Lake where I've thought of a really cool encounter involving a hydra...

How would that work? For instance, how would a failed attempt to find a mace, or to read the magical aura of an angel feather, push the PCs towards the Misty Lake?

But an adventure path isn't the only pre-authored type of campaign... there's the sandbox, funnily enough an earlier poster described this pre-authored type of campaign as a pinball game where he bounced around almost aimlessly. Now I don't agree that describes all sandboxes (or even the majority of them, and mine are built after character creation so as to incorporate charcter needs into them) but don't you find it interesting that the same type of campaign (pre-authored) can invoke almost opposite "feelings" in people (railroad vs. aimless) depending on how it's run?

The differences between APs and sandboxes are pretty well known.

But I'm also surprised that you can't see that a "sandbox" that is built after PC creation is clearly getting closer to the sort of non-pre-authored approach that I prefer. It is deferring authoring until after the players have built their PCs and thereby, at least in certain ways, signalled their interests for play.

 

[Imaro]

What I'm interested in this: can you see why a reasonable person (eg me) might think that it reduces the influence on the fiction of player action declarations to have the player declare that such actions fail by reference to pre-authored fiction taking the form of secret backstory?

I never said I couldn't... in fact all I've done in this thread is question as well as compare/contrast the details of your playstyle (as you have presented it) with the similarities I think might be there with certain styles of pre-authoring that I am aware of and have used... in other words discussion, I'm sorry if I in some way offended you or made you feel like I was attacking you but I honestly don't undersatnd the purpose of this thread if it's not for our techniques/playstyles/etc. to actually be discussed.

Now in all honesty I do find it telling that while I have asked, compared, and contrasted things about your playstyle, all you and a few other posters have done is define pre-authoring as opposed to trying to understand how it could work differently for others or why others don't view the tools and techniques in the same way as yourselves. It is you and a few other posters who can't accept that we run pre-authored games that aren't railroads and (at least for us) the techniques and tools themselves don't influence us to railroad.

 

[Imaro]

How would that work? For instance, how would a failed attempt to find a mace, or to read the magical aura of an angel feather, push the PCs towards the Misty Lake?

On a failed roll to find the mace you instead find a small wooden box on the Dark Elf containing a map to the misty lake...

On a failed roll to read the angel feather aura... you feel nothing radiate from the feather but you do detect magic radiating from a rolled up parchment (map to Misty Lake) being pocketed by a thief in the market... he notices you and begins to hurried;ly push his way into the crowd...

The differences between APs and sandboxes are pretty well known.

Yes and both fall under the pre-authored umbrella..

But I'm also surprised that you can't see that a "sandbox" that is built after PC creation is clearly getting closer to the sort of non-pre-authored approach that I prefer. It is deferring authoring until after the players have built their PCs and thereby, at least in certain ways, signalled their interests for play.

And I'm surprised that you can't see it still falls firmly under "pre-authored" as in not "created in the moment". See I get that it's a step closer to your style... the problem is that you refuse to acknowledge that it is still pre-authoring and by extension pre-authoring actually can be used for campaigns about character dramatic needs and character driven goals... because you're not trying to discuss or understand the other side, you've already made your mind up about it.

 

[Aenghus]

There are different sorts of pre-authoring and some types are more innocuous than others. Minutia of different cultures, day to day life, architectural styles, fashions, cooking, language, stories, ideals and taboos can really add to a game when used appropriately (a subjective judgement) and consistently. This is a very subjective topic, some referees, players and groups see this sort of detail as time-wasting nonsense preventing or delaying them from making progress (however they define "progress".

Every little piece of detail is also a potential point of failure - it's amazing how a player can seize on a tiny point of detail and construct an elaborate theory around it, becoming very emotionally invested in it, or point it out as evidence of unseen antagonists in the setting, or evidence of inconsistency in the portrayal of the world. Players who see the detail merely as a smokescreen to hide deliberate pre-authored traps to invalidate the hopes and dreams of the players and/or PCs probably aren't going to appreciate it as the creator intended.

Then there are pre-authored elements which are created to be important or notable - mysteries to the solved, load-bearing plot elements to be protected or blown up, dark secrets to be discovered or kept secret, conspiracies to be exposed, opposed or aided, locations to be explored, wondrous artifacts to be found, etc.

Such elements have a much higher chance to invalidate PC actions and goals than the incidental detail. There is no guarantee all the players will appreciate these elements as the author intended. Often the creator is emotionally invested in his creations, understandably, but I personally don't think the authenticity of the setting should be prioritised over everything else in a RPG. The more rigid and pre-authored the setting, the less freedom of action and proactivity it successfully allows. What matters it if PCs can do anything in a setting if the hidden backstory of that setting means it feels like 99% of all actions are irrelevant or futile.

I find most players are very sensitive to failure especially in risky endeavours. In some cases it takes only a few failures of tasks that seemed reasonable to the players to expect success at (but maybe not the the referee) to make the players turtle up and get defensive and paranoid, which can slow a game down to a crawl.

Sometimes a plot element fails, for whatever reason, and can no longer serve the purpose for which it was originally intended. It seems tougher for pre-authored referees to adapt or let go of such a plot. I find this is a hard test for a referee - some stick to their guns, and go down with their leaky plot-ship, often accompanied by that campaign ending, or in worse cases the group breaking up.

 

[Maxperson]

But that's what I mean! If you change the encounter from the stated stakes, you change the odds! You've impacted the mechanics because of your pre-authoring. If the PC says, "I want to cross the desert", and the DM says, "OK, that's difficult, you only have a 30% chance of that happening without complication", and they roll that 30%, and then you introduce a canyon in the middle because of your secret map, you've changed the stated stakes and odds, unless crossing the canyon has a 100% chance of success.

Now, if the assumed way you play your game is more of the traditional type where the players don't state their intent specifically, and more of a "Well, let's start crossing the desert and see what happens," than THIS DOESN"T APPLY TO YOU. In the type of game, the players are EXPECTING the DM to provide them with color encounters because the focus of the game is specifically about encountering those encounters. In those games, worlds with detailed maps and NPCs acting based on hidden agendas is both expected and celebrated. I am not judging you for playing this way. I OFTEN PLAY THIS WAY MYSELF. But it's a technique I use based on the game and players at hand. If I was a player in your game, I'd play your way because I'm familiar with the technique. If I was a player in [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s game, I would play his way, because I'm familiar with the technique. You see how the trick here is to be familiar with as many techniques as possible so you can play in, and more importantly be comfortable with, as many play styles, games, and players as possible?

I've never seen a DM say, "One roll to cross a desert". Crossing a desert is a journey the generally takes days to weeks.

 

[pemerton]

On a failed roll to find the mace you instead find a small wooden box on the Dark Elf containing a map to the misty lake...

On a failed roll to read the angel feather aura... you feel nothing radiate from the feather but you do detect magic radiating from a rolled up parchment (map to Misty Lake) being pocketed by a thief in the market... he notices you and begins to hurried;ly push his way into the crowd...

And has a player stated a Belief for his/her PC that s/he travel to the Misty Lake? Or has a player given any sort of informal or implicit signal that s/he is interested in the Misty Lake? Where is the Misty Lake coming from, in this imagined scenario?

And I'm surprised that you can't see it still falls firmly under "pre-authored" as in not "created in the moment". See I get that it's a step closer to your style... the problem is that you refuse to acknowledge that it is still pre-authoring and by extension pre-authoring actually can be used for campaigns about character dramatic needs and character driven goals... because you're not trying to discuss or understand the other side, you've already made your mind up about it.

Let's focus on character-driven goals.

In this hypothetical sandbox, the GM has not authored in a Misty Lake (let's suppose); but one of the players authors for his/her PC the goal of travelling to the Misty Lake to speak with the spirit of said Lake, so as to learn such-and-such piece of backstory information - maybe to learn where the ancient vorpal sword Excelsior can now be found.

What does the GM do?

If the answer is that the GM introduces a Misty Lake into the sandbox - then how are you talking about some approach which is different from my preferred approach?

If the answer is that the GM does not introduce a Misty Lake into the sandbox - then the campaign is exhibiting the very feature that I, personally, dislike, namely, the use of GM's pre-authored secret backstory (the secret, in this case, being the absence of a Misty Like), to determine in advance that a certain player (and PC) goal must fail.

There is a third possibility, I guess, namely that the players will never come up with goals or orientations for their PCs that can't be satisfied within the pre-authored sandbox. One reason for this might be because, like [MENTION=27570]sheadunne[/MENTION], the players are simply "pinballing". Another might be that the GM, knowing the players so well, has already answered all the character-driven goals that they might come up with in the initial design of the sandbox. This second reason seems improbable to me, based on my own practical experience both of campaign setting design and of the way that actual play drives player imagination and character development. What's your experience in these respects?

 

[Maxperson]

1) Pre-authoring is work.
2) People don't like to waste their work.
3) It creates an opportunity to drive the players in the direction seeing your work, rather than going where their play might drive them.

Here are my counters to that.

1) Pre-authoring is also fun. If it isn't, the DM is using the wrong style of game for himself.
2) Nothing is wasted. If something I create now isn't used because the party alters direction or goals, it becomes something to be used later. I may have to alter it slightly, but it's not like I just toss it in the garbage. Given that I haven't had a railroading DM since just after high school, this seems to apply to most DMs. I suppose I could have gotten really lucky, though.
3) They will see it eventually if appropriate, if not, then not. I have way too many ideas that are great to ever put them all into play, so losing some is no big deal. This probably also applies to most DMs. DMs tend to be the creative sort.

I'm not saying it will happen. I'm saying it merely creates an opportunity. I know I've fallen into it in the past, when I've created some really cool ideas for encounters that I wanted the players to experience. Was it a bad experience for the game? No, the players enjoyed what I showed them. Did I deprotagonize my players to do it? Yes, I did. Is that a problem? Totally depends on what the DMs and players want to get out of the game.

And I'm not saying that it can't happen, but our playstyle is not prone to it. Cool ideas to test out and show players can come up in your playstyle just as easily I think.