When Player Driven Adventures Don't Pan Out

[zakael19]

Players adding to the fiction, especially setting, is not player-driven? I'm definitely listening.

It's not. And that was why I asked the question and have several other posts positing that player-driven is the same as simply playing with a good table. They are the same. Now, rulesets can ease player-driven or make it more difficult, but from the descriptions of player-driven from @RenleyRenfield and @Campbell, it is the same as playing a campaign of D&D with session zero and a character backstory. I have responded to both of them, which is how I came up with my initial take.

And thank you for Wuthering Heights example. Seemed like a cool session. The mechanics seem interesting, as does the storyline. I like the ghost, and in particular, the comments on the story about using it for a Vampire game. It seems like it would fit in well to that type of narrative.

Players can add color to the setting without having any measurable impact on where things go. Like taking a sheet of paper with an outline printed and filling it in. There's a difference between "collaborative world-building" and then active character-drive play imo. For instance, I do a lot of the former in my Thursday Daggerheart game, but the actual structure of how I'm designing scenarios is pretty classic "situations not plots" where the flow of narrative writ large is following from what I posited as premise & themes of the game.

I'm taking into account what the players said when they built their characters to add like, NPCs and situations, but they're not really driving where things go, yeah? Here in the city of Verella, they're going to resolve the Cultist activity. I left the like, how do you find them, and who do you approach and all that to them, but that's as you said fairly classic play.

Contrast above (GM fronted scenarios with space for players to make small scale decisions) with stuff @pemerton has talked about before in some 4e games, where the like themes of play directly follow forth from a character's priorities and background. A player making their character a paladin of Pelor with a goal of "I must overcome the darkness that's beset my order's former home" means that now we're going to play to find out "can the paladin overcome the darkness in their order's former home" and the GM is going to make some thoughts about what that might be, and then we'll figure out what similar priorities the other PCs might have that coincide.

I think that makes sense? Does it show the kinda difference in how character-driven play might be done vs GM fronted "situation not plot" play?

Edit: here's another more high level example. In Stonetop, the player set goals they'd like to try and accomplish. "Unlock this Arcana," or "find an Exceptional Engineer to build that Mill" or whatever. Proactive things they want to do within the space of the game. As the GM, I'm also called upon by the game to "make their lives not boring" and bring Threats into play as the game demands. For their goals, I offer ideas on how we might go about doing that ("ok, you want to find an Exceptional Engineer? I think Gordon's Delve would make the most sense there based on its mines. Do you want to like, plan an expedition and ask around or just send your Followers on a trading caravan?"), for the Threats I take what was established by the players as the themes and threads of the setting that they highlighted via Playbook choice and explicit session 0 desires and build forth directly.

 

[Scott Christian]

Players can add color to the setting without having any measurable impact on where things go. Like taking a sheet of paper with an outline printed and filling it in. There's a difference between "collaborative world-building" and then active character-drive play imo. For instance, I do a lot of the former in my Thursday Daggerheart game, but the actual structure of how I'm designing scenarios is pretty classic "situations not plots" where the flow of narrative writ large is following from what I posited as premise & themes of the game.

I'm taking into account what the players said when they built their characters to add like, NPCs and situations, but they're not really driving where things go, yeah? Here in the city of Verella, they're going to resolve the Cultist activity. I left the like, how do you find them, and who do you approach and all that to them, but that's as you said fairly classic play.

Contrast above (GM fronted scenarios with space for players to make small scale decisions) with stuff @pemerton has talked about before in some 4e games, where the like themes of play directly follow forth from a character's priorities and background. A player making their character a paladin of Pelor with a goal of "I must overcome the darkness that's beset my order's former home" means that now we're going to play to find out "can the paladin overcome the darkness in their order's former home" and the GM is going to make some thoughts about what that might be, and then we'll figure out what similar priorities the other PCs might have that coincide.

I think that makes sense? Does it show the kinda difference in how character-driven play might be done vs GM fronted "situation not plot" play?

Yes, it does. Thank you for the detailed explanation. I appreciate you taking the time to detail the difference.

 

[zakael19]

Yes, it does. Thank you for the detailed explanation. I appreciate you taking the time to detail the difference.

No totally, thinking through stuff like this helps me kind of evaluate my own games and how I’m running them differently for different tables!

 

[RenleyRenfield]

Then how is it different from any D&D campaign run by a decent or good DM? Even in the adventure paths I have played in, which last a good year, all the things you listed: milestones not dictated, being generally broad, GM inserts some for plot, being able to change, and allowing for buy-in, are present. They originate through a character's background and session zero. I've never really played in a group the past twenty-five years that didn't utilize this. The only thing different is it seems your players get to make up more of the fiction. Aside from that, the play seems identical as far as being player-driven.

Well, in some ways its not. If you see them as similar or same, then I don't have much more to add. My point was to merely debunk how milestones are limiting or scripted and whatnot. we good

Then how is it different from any D&D campaign run by a decent or good DM?

But I do want to comment on this you said ^ (this is all for me to expound on about me, not a commentary on you in any way). This is an aside but it is related to player driven because many modern design games which come with tools like milestones and moves - make player driven games succeed so well!

It reminds me of when I said "This is just training wheels for the GM or players!" And until I played the games for a while, saw them in action and saw what they were doing for real (not just over a one or few game stint) - it did feel like "a good GM will just be already doing this."

What you say here is very much how I felt when I first started using things like GM Principles, and playing games with true Success with Complications and game-fiat roll resolution and so on.

Except I never really used to play with good GMs. Most were abusive, authoritative, and demanding in the most petty and limiting ways of "this is my game" or "this is my world" , or "Well that's how I rule the roll". I still on rare occasion run into a less-than-fun or even not-supportive GM quite often...

It is these games like PBTA and Cortex, and tools like Milestones and GM Principles that seem to be the source of the very best GMs. The most fun I have is almost exclusively now in this systems, these games where the players drive and the GM facilitates.

I am sad to admit that I have not had a GM run a fun D&D/Pathfinder/GURPS/BRP game for me in over two decades.... they never are fan of the characters, they never take player driven goals into main plot, they never make rulings that support player narrative...

Again, this is just me, and what I have seen that made any GM go from "meh" to "pretty darn good" was many modern design tools that oddly seemed unneeded, but very much were

 

[Scott Christian]

I am sad to admit that I have not had a GM run a fun D&D/Pathfinder/GURPS/BRP game for me in over two decades.... they never are fan of the characters, they never take player driven goals into main plot, they never make rulings that support player narrative...

I am really sorry to hear that. I have been lucky. All my DMs (all six of them) over the past twenty years have been spot-on, as have been most of the players. I feel lucky. Hopefully, your luck will change, and you'll roll a 20 with your next DM.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

In our west marches, we use a structure where players gather leads, and use them to launch voyages (outings, single or multi-session to go follow up on something) to go somewhere in the sandbox and do something. One cute thing we did is that while finding information out in the world is a valid source of leads, so is backstory-driven stuff the player completely invented (and to any degree of specificity), so long as a GM approves it, and our plans exist, but are loose enough to incorporate more stuff from the players. Our players tend to want to play the map, so they do it sparingly, but it was setup in such a way we really could have gone in a personal arc centric direction if the players wanted.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, in some ways its not. If you see them as similar or same, then I don't have much more to add. My point was to merely debunk how milestones are limiting or scripted and whatnot. we good


But I do want to comment on this you said ^ (this is all for me to expound on about me, not a commentary on you in any way). This is an aside but it is related to player driven because many modern design games which come with tools like milestones and moves - make player driven games succeed so well!

It reminds me of when I said "This is just training wheels for the GM or players!" And until I played the games for a while, saw them in action and saw what they were doing for real (not just over a one or few game stint) - it did feel like "a good GM will just be already doing this."

What you say here is very much how I felt when I first started using things like GM Principles, and playing games with true Success with Complications and game-fiat roll resolution and so on.

Except I never really used to play with good GMs. Most were abusive, authoritative, and demanding in the most petty and limiting ways of "this is my game" or "this is my world" , or "Well that's how I rule the roll". I still on rare occasion run into a less-than-fun or even not-supportive GM quite often...

It is these games like PBTA and Cortex, and tools like Milestones and GM Principles that seem to be the source of the very best GMs. The most fun I have is almost exclusively now in this systems, these games where the players drive and the GM facilitates.

I am sad to admit that I have not had a GM run a fun D&D/Pathfinder/GURPS/BRP game for me in over two decades.... they never are fan of the characters, they never take player driven goals into main plot, they never make rulings that support player narrative...

Again, this is just me, and what I have seen that made any GM go from "meh" to "pretty darn good" was many modern design tools that oddly seemed unneeded, but very much were

It sounds like you just don't care for traditional games and traditional GMing styles. As you say, that's just a personal, subjective thing, and can't be reasonably extrapolated into "good GMs do this thing I like, and bad GMs don't". By your standards, I and any GM for any game I've really enjoyed in my 35 years in the hobby aren't good GMs, because I don't enjoy games where the players have any control in play outside their PCs.

 

[Distracted DM]

I think this really depends on the type of players you have at your table. I have some players who're very active and will pursue leads, take hooks, pursue their own motivations that they find throughout the game. I have others that're strictly reactive and basically just enjoy the ride. Then I have some that're in the middle, or that I can't quite figure out.
Obviously the GM and the game and situation/adventure/campaign being run are huge factors as well in this whole biz.

I think as the GM we can take it for granted that we have the whole world living in our heads- because we have 90%+ of the picture, we can feel like the answers are obvious, that there should be something happening, that the players have lots of avenues they can take. Players, I think, have to make do with a lot less certainty. I've learned as a player to ask A LOT of questions to try to fill in the picture as much as possible.. but some people just aren't going to ask those questions for a variety of reasons.

All that to say, players might stall out because they don't have enough to go on. So you need to jump-start the momentum with something that they can react to, because reacting is easier and they can be more certain about it. Then once they're rolling, you can hope to keep that momentum going. It's not a perfect science, I've struggled with it in the past as well.

 

[pemerton]

Players adding to the fiction, especially setting, is not player-driven? I'm definitely listening.

Players can add color to the setting without having any measurable impact on where things go.

Yes, exactly this.

 

[pemerton]

And thank you for Wuthering Heights example. Seemed like a cool session.

No worries, and thanks!

Players adding to the fiction, especially setting, is not player-driven? I'm definitely listening.

Well, what you described was more specific than "adding to the setting" - you said " the GM said: 'It is a two-day trip underground to the petrified forest. Describe to me what the journey is like and what you encounter.'" This is the players describing setting, and events, in a way that is pretty disconnected from particular actions that they're declaring. And as I read it, it didn't seem to be connected to their PCs' prior knowledge of the area.

As @zakael19 posted, it seems to be mostly about the players contributing colour.

that was why I asked the question and have several other posts positing that player-driven is the same as simply playing with a good table.

<snip>

it is the same as playing a campaign of D&D with session zero and a character backstory.

So, here is a bit from another actual play post that I linked to upthread; the system being played is Burning Wheel:

Thoth took Alicia into his workroom, through the secret entrance that leads onto the docks; and Aedhros had no choice but to go with him.

<snip>

Today's session began with the Surgery attempt to treat Alicia's mortal wound.

<snip>

The session then focused predominantly upon Thoth. His Beliefs are I will give the dead new life; Aedhros is a failure, so I will bind him to my will; Cometh the corpse, cometh Thoth! And the player leaned heavily into these. Thoth also has a rather idiosyncratic pattern of speech - something of a lisp, and at least a hint of a European, perhaps German, accent.

Thoth wanted to go to the docks to find corpses, of those who had died at sea.

<snip>

A die of fate roll indicated that one corpse was available for collection, and Aedhros helped Thoth carry it off.

<snip>

When the body was back in the workshop, Thoth used his Second Sight to read its Aura, looking for traits. This test failed, and so Thoth learned that the corpse had been Stubborn in life - perhaps why this particular sailor had not evacuated the Sow - which is a +1 Ob to Death Art.

<snip>

Thoth successfully performed Taxidermy - against Ob 5 - to preserve the corpse, with a roll good enough to carry over +1D advantage to the Death Art test but did not what to attempt the Ob 7 Death Art (with his Death Art 5) until he could be boosted by Blood Magic. And so he sent Aedhros out to find a victim

Aedhros had helped collect the corpse, and also helped with the Taxidermy (using his skill with Heart-seeker), but was unable to help with the Death Art. He was reasonably happy to now leave the workshop; and was no stranger to stealthy kidnappings in the dark. I told my friend (now GMing) that I wanted to use Stealthy, Inconspicuous and Knives to spring upon someone and force them, at knife point, to come with me to the workshop. He called for a linked test first, on Inconspicuous with Stealth FoRKed in. This succeeded, and Aedhros found a suitable place outside a house of ill-repute, ready to kidnap a lady of the night. When a victim appeared, Aedhros tried to force a Steel test (I think - my memory is a bit hazy) but whatever it was, it failed, and the intended victim went screaming into the night. Now there is word on the street of a knife-wielding assailant.

Aedhros's Beliefs are I will avenge the death of my spouse!, Thurandril will admit that I am right! and I will free Alicia and myself from the curse of Thoth!; and his Instincts are Never use Song of Soothing unless compelled to, Always repay hurt with hurt, and When my mind is elsewhere, quietly sing the elven lays. Having failed at the most basic task, and not knowing how to return to Thoth empty-handed, Aedhros wandered away from the docks, up into the wealthier parts of the city, to the home of the Elven Ambassador. As he sang the Elven lays to himself, I asked the GM for a test on Sing, to serve as a linked test to help in my next test to resist Thoth's bullying and depravity. The GM set my Spite of 5 as the obstacle, and I failed - a spend of a fate point only got me to 4 successes on 4 dice.

My singing attracted the attention of a guard, who had heard the word on the street, and didn't like the look of this rag-clothed Dark Elf. Aedhros has Circles 3 and a +1 reputation with the Etharchs, and so I rolled my 4 dice to see if an Etharch (whether Thurandril or one of his underlings or associates) would turn up here and now to tell the guards that I am right and they should not arrest me. But the test failed, and the only person to turn up was another guard to join the first in bundling me off. So I had to resort to the more mundane method of offering them 1D of loot to leave me alone. The GM accepted this, no test required.

Then, repaying hurt with hurt, Aedhros followed one of the guards - George, as we later learned he was called - who also happened to be the one with the loot. Aedhros ambushed him from the darkness, and took him at knife point back to the workshop

The GM's job here is to "facilitate", by framing the scenes and narrating consequences of failure. The obstacles (difficulty numbers) are determined by the system (there are long lists of tasks and difficulties for the various skills). And what structures play, fundamentally, is the Beliefs, Instincts and similar elements of the PCs: these guide the GM in their framing and their consequence narration.

Also important, and building on this, is that failure is primarily about failure of intent, not necessarily failure of task. So when Thoth's player fails on Aura-Reading, it's not the case that he reads no aura. Rather, the GM narrates that the aura he reads is not the one he was hoping for (even in death, the corpse is Stubborn). When I, playing Aedhros, fail my roll to Sing, it's not the case that Aedhros sings out of tune; rather, his singing has the opposite to desired effect: rather than helping him centre himself, the GM narrates a guard coming to hassle him, which only draws him back into the sordid world of Thoth from which he is hoping to free himself and Alicia. And then I declare a Circles test, which is - mechanically - an attempt to reframe the situation, by brining in an Elven NPC who will stick up for Aedhros. But this fails too, and so the GM doubles down and brings in another guard. And Aedhros bribes them, once again being dragged back into the sordid world of Thoth. And then he ambushes the guard George and takes him back to Thoth.

I don't think this is just the same as D&D run and played at a good table. I've approximated to this sort of play using AD&D (back in the late 1980s) and using Rolemaster (through the 90s and the first decade of this century). But their tools are not as good. They don't integrate Beliefs and similar elements into PC build; they don't have an analogue to Circles; they default to failure on a roll equals failure at the task; etc. I have a pretty good sense of the extent to which they can be drifted towards this sort of player-driven play, but I would never try and do it these days: because Burning Wheel does it straightforwardly, right out of the box, with no problems of mechanic or technique.