When Player Driven Adventures Don't Pan Out

[Campbell]

One of the things we at our table to coordinate more player driven play is establishing one personal milestone/goal per player character and another group milestone/goal with lists of options as examples so if a player is having trouble coming up with a specific motivation or goal, they can pick something and then we can expand on it as a group.

@RenleyRenfield brought this practice into our play group, inspired by Marvel Heroic Roleplay's milestone. He could probably speak to how he tends to use these milestones to help seed the game's setting and orchestrate play.

 

[Micah Sweet]

One of the things we at our table to coordinate more player driven play is establishing one personal milestone/goal per player character and another group milestone/goal with lists of options as examples so if a player is having trouble coming up with a specific motivation or goal, they can pick something and then we can expand on it as a group.

@RenleyRenfield brought this practice into our play group, inspired by Marvel Heroic Roleplay's milestone. He could probably speak to how he tends to use these milestones to help seed the game's setting and orchestrate play.

To me that mechanizes a process that should be more freeform. I don't see a need to generate personal and group milestones as part of a game process. Discussing it person to person feels far more natural to me than making a list.

 

[hawkeyefan]

That's funny. I see the exact opposite advice for the most part. And definitely in the real world, when I talk to other GMs (other than the ones I play with), they decry the build-first technique.

For the record: Most of them are paid GMs or under 25 years old.

So there’s hope for the future!

Character motivations are the responsibility of the players.

Sure, but if they’re not considered when creating “hooks” or other content, then as has been pointed out, you’re relying on luck for things to line up.

If those motivations are considered when creating elements of the game world, then things tend to remain related to what one or more PCs want, and it’s easier to maintain momentum.

 

[Scott Christian]

In the sort of character-oriented player-driven play that several posters in this thread have posted about, normally the GM and the players work together to establish characters and a situation that all fit together. Apocalypse Worlds "first session" is an especially clear example of this, but there can be other ways to do it.

But anyway, in successful player-driven RPGing a degree of compatibility between what the GM is doing and what the players are doing isn't left to chance!

One of the things we at our table to coordinate more player driven play is establishing one personal milestone/goal per player character and another group milestone/goal with lists of options as examples so if a player is having trouble coming up with a specific motivation or goal, they can pick something and then we can expand on it as a group.

Both of these seem oddly conflicting with my thoughts on player-driven play.

Coming to the game as an orchestrated event that already has the PC's goals established seems to negate some of the fiction, and more importantly, interaction with that fiction, that allows for a character to change. As a player, I have started with this, and it seems kind of "canned." Again, that is how it feels to me. I know, accept, and am happy it works for others.

But my character's motivations and milestones come about from seeing and interacting with the world, its NPCs, and the group I am adventuring with. My last character had no desire to settle down and own a bar until he saw the atrocities that befell so many kind and caring people. He wanted a place they would feel safe, yet he himself still wanted to live comfortably. If I would have plotted that as a milestone from the beginning, there is almost no way the other experiences would have even happened, yet alone impacted the character enough to go out of their way and make sure they happened.

This is just my take though. I get there can be differences, and I respect that.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Both of these seem oddly conflicting with my thoughts on player-driven play.

Coming to the game as an orchestrated event that already has the PC's goals established seems to negate some of the fiction, and more importantly, interaction with that fiction, that allows for a character to change. As a player, I have started with this, and it seems kind of "canned." Again, that is how it feels to me. I know, accept, and am happy it works for others.

But my character's motivations and milestones come about from seeing and interacting with the world, its NPCs, and the group I am adventuring with. My last character had no desire to settle down and own a bar until he saw the atrocities that befell so many kind and caring people. He wanted a place they would feel safe, yet he himself still wanted to live comfortably. If I would have plotted that as a milestone from the beginning, there is almost no way the other experiences would have even happened, yet alone impacted the character enough to go out of their way and make sure they happened.

This is just my take though. I get there can be differences, and I respect that.

I don’t think that the approach being advocated for is one where PCs cannot change their motivations or adopt new ones based on what happens in play. It’s more that they have ones at the beginning of play that help establish that they’ve existed in this place prior to play beginning.

I’ve seen similar labels to “canned” used to describe this… “forced” and “inorganic” come most readily to mind. And while I understand that people feel this way, it strikes me as very odd that of the two options… one, where people have a motivation and actively pursue it, and the other, where people don’t have a motivation but something of interest happens… that the first seems somehow less valid than the second.

 

[Campbell]

So, the process my group uses is about avoiding some of the prat falls we have experienced in more open ended play. Stuff like making sure the characters are compatible with each other and that there are reasons for the characters to work together, making sure the characters have things they are invested in so they have something actionable to look to when they are not sure what to do next.

The other thing is that it's tailored to play is not about adventurers or adventuring groups. The characters we play are just people trying to accomplish something in their normal lives. They have jobs, families, etc. Stuff that grounds them directly into the setting.

I get that some people might not want to work this sort of stuff out and prefer to just see what happens in play. My experience is that often leads to just taking cues from the GM, just doing random things in the setting or social division among players. Pick your poison, I guess. But when people say player driven play doesn't work when they are not willing to like try things to make it work that's kind of on them.

 

[Campbell]

I don’t think that the approach being advocated for is one where PCs cannot change their motivations or adopt new ones based on what happens in play. It’s more that they have ones at the beginning of play that help establish that they’ve existed in this place prior to play beginning.

I’ve seen similar labels to “canned” used to describe this… “forced” and “inorganic” come most readily to mind. And while I understand that people feel this way, it strikes me as very odd that of the two options… one, where people have a motivation and actively pursue it, and the other, where people don’t have a motivation but something of interest happens… that the first seems somehow less valid than the second.

Yeah. The lists are only a starting point, and milestones often get adjusted as part of the ongoing conversation of play. New goals are constantly getting set.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

To me that mechanizes a process that should be more freeform. I don't see a need to generate personal and group milestones as part of a game process. Discussing it person to person feels far more natural to me than making a list.

This is not how milestones work in our game at all as stated by @Campbell (I forget how much we may have changed from Marvel cortex, i'd have to go check...)

Coming to the game as an orchestrated event that already has the PC's goals established seems to negate some of the fiction, and more importantly, interaction with that fiction, that allows for a character to change. As a player, I have started with this, and it seems kind of "canned." Again, that is how it feels to me. I know, accept, and am happy it works for others.

This is also not correct. None of this statement is how our milestones work as stated by @Campbell

But my character's motivations and milestones come about from seeing and interacting with the world, its NPCs, and the group I am adventuring with. My last character had no desire to settle down and own a bar until he saw the atrocities that befell so many kind and caring people. He wanted a place they would feel safe, yet he himself still wanted to live comfortably.

This is how our game works. This is closer to how we make and use milestones almost word for word. Note that players always discuss and consider milestones in regards to play, plot, and other players too.

If I would have plotted that as a milestone from the beginning, there is almost no way the other experiences would have even happened, yet alone impacted the character enough to go out of their way and make sure they happened.

Again, this is incorrect, and makes some wrong-headed assumptions.

.............

So let's discuss what milestones, quests, or endeavors and such actually are, because its not fair to let people here make assumptions.

t’s more that they have ones at the beginning of play that help establish that they’ve existed in this place prior to play beginning.

Firstly, for your character creation, very first milestone ^^^ This is 100% correct. Just as backstory tells us where you came from and what brought you to this point. Your first milestone says what you are currently up to and why.

one, where people have a motivation and actively pursue it, and the other, where people don’t have a motivation but something of interest happens…

So this is very well put and goes into the purpose of milestones.

...

Firstly: Milestones are NOT dictated events.
They are not orchestrated to any specific result. They are not ever limiting or restricting on plot or play. quite the opposite!

Second: Milestones are intent or goal in broad, vague terms.
"I would like for my character to find a weapon of renown." What that weapon is, how they get it, what its renown is = we don't know. We play to find out.

Third: the GM gets the list of each player's chosen milestone and makes whatever plot they want from it, along with any of their own plot goals.
So this goes into, especially at the start, letting the GM know what things you are interested in, and what you as a player are excited to do. Think of milestones more as picking themes and ideas for play. "This sounds fun to me!" When and how its executed is all by normal play to find out.

Fourth: Milestones can change at any time.
If during play you decide that building a cozy inn is now what your goal is, and you are ready to put the previous goal of a special weapon in the back burner for now - this lets the GM know how you feel and what you are prioritizing. This helps both pacing and player interest in plots as the game organically changes. Milestones can even fail! and have to be removed and a new one chosen!

Fifth: Milestones let players "buy in" to tragedy, drama, or hardship.
The player chose it, it says "you get what you want but at a cost" somewhere in its milestone description. So now the player is already excited to both achieve what the milestone offers, but also roleplay the hardship that makes GMing fun and mysterious. Again, nobody defines what happens, so what the tragedy is could change!

Sixth: Milestones have 3 stages to let everyone know if progress is being made.
Its set up again, in "Story beat" terms - Not defined details!! So you have...
Beat 1: whatever starts/introduces this milestone into plot and gives the player a clue/hook to follow up on.
Beat 2: the character faces their first challenge or risk to show what opposes them in attaining this milestone goal.
Beat 3: the character gets to resolve the milestone, either to embrace the price it costs, or walk away from it forever but avoid harm/loss/suffering/"whatever your rpg has for price of power" if any...


Let's use Batman as an example:

Face the Mirror of your Foes!
Beat 1: You find out that Joker is behind a string of crimes and/or killings. (whenever this is roleplayed out the GM picks whatever clue or hook leads this on. Since we don't define this, we won't know till we play.

Beat 2: You face the Joker, and have to risk engaging with his mad schemes at the cost of revealing a bit of yourself behind the mask. (Again, we dont know what this is. A GM could make any situation and plot here. But we do know it is very in-line with batman to risk someone seeing the man behind the mask. But we dont even define here what that event is! Could be a lover, could be a villian, could be batman seeing his own madness behind the mask...)

Beat 3: You face the Joker for the final time, and you have to make a choice: Kill in and end his terror forever at a cost of losing a part of your self/sanity. Or let him go/send him to arkham, knowing you have only stalled his antics for a time. (See, we don't even say if this scene the player is successful in stopping whatever plot joker is up to. All we are doing is letting the player choose what emotion or hardship they want to lean into. How it goes, and if its even possible, are all part of normal play.)

Reward: Regardless of how anything turns out, the character gains whatever this milestone suggested they would gain for playing through it. Each milestone give a suggestion. In this case maybe it is a reward of "batman gets to upgrade his Batsuit against chemicals typical to what Joker and similar use". (whatever your RPG system has, i dunno.)


.........................

This is ASLO tied to what I said I suffered with earlier "This seems like training wheels for plot/roleplay!" for modern GM principles and design in other thread....
But it's not training wheels, I was just knee-jerk silly about not understanding it or seeing it enough in play (because no, that one time at a friends house or at a convention is not enough).

This is magic sauce that reveals no secrets, dictates no plots, does not force anyone to do anything = but instead gets everyone of the same mind and expectations as to how the game will go, and what might happen. This also helps other players know what is going on with your character too! it makes threading multiple player character personal plots together easy, as they are hinted at early and everyone is playing into them from the start!

 

[Scott Christian]

I don’t think that the approach being advocated for is one where PCs cannot change their motivations or adopt new ones based on what happens in play. It’s more that they have ones at the beginning of play that help establish that they’ve existed in this place prior to play beginning.

I’ve seen similar labels to “canned” used to describe this… “forced” and “inorganic” come most readily to mind. And while I understand that people feel this way, it strikes me as very odd that of the two options… one, where people have a motivation and actively pursue it, and the other, where people don’t have a motivation but something of interest happens… that the first seems somehow less valid than the second.

I agree. To have traits, ideals, connections, and flaws built into a backstory that the PC comes to the table with is excellent. It helps define their motivations and gives rationale to their actions. But predetermining a "personal milestone" when the character hasn't actually interacted with the GM's (and in some games player's) fiction, seems to downplay or dismiss much of the actual play. The same is true for a "group milestone" where "we can expand upon it as a group" prior to even embarking in actual play.

That said, I am fully aware that some games lend themselves much better to this than others. Some settings too.

Again, this is just my experience. (And please don't take that line as a copout, as in, I'm right, you are wrong. I know that's a tactic for some debates, and I am not fond of it. I mean it as simply, maybe my experience is not as broad as yours or just has been down different paths.)

 

[Scott Christian]

So, the process my group uses is about avoiding some of the prat falls we have experienced in more open ended play. Stuff like making sure the characters are compatible with each other and that there are reasons for the characters to work together, making sure the characters have things they are invested in so they have something actionable to look to when they are not sure what to do next.

The other thing is that it's tailored to play is not about adventurers or adventuring groups. The characters we play are just people trying to accomplish something in their normal lives. They have jobs, families, etc. Stuff that grounds them directly into the setting.

I get that some people might not want to work this sort of stuff out and prefer to just see what happens in play. My experience is that often leads to just taking cues from the GM, just doing random things in the setting or social division among players. Pick your poison, I guess. But when people say player driven play doesn't work when they are not willing to like try things to make it work that's kind of on them.

I am a little more confused now, so sorry if this comes off as ignorant. But it seems to me all you are describing here is a character's backstory and a session zero, which most people running a campaign do. Things such as:

• Making sure characters are compatible
• Having a reason to work together
• Giving a background that invests them in the setting

All of those are what backgrounds and session zero is about.