When Player Driven Adventures Don't Pan Out

[Reynard]

I guess they'd tell you that it's a "writers' room"?

I sense some dismissiveness, which I think is unwarranted. I feel that it is totally reasonable to be put off by the idea that we stop the narrative to sit around and decide what would be cooler to have happen next. Not all narrative games do that, of course, but some do, and they aren't fun (for me).

 

[Lanefan]

Going back to earlier discussion in the thread arund players doing "homework" between sessions: IME that's a big ask if it's an all-the-time thing. People tend not to think much about the game during the week, as life takes over and other things are top of mind.

Even just once in a while homework, e.g. when they find a book with lots of useful info in it and I email them the salient bits during the week hoping not to have to then recap it all during the next session, often only gets done by one or two players.

As for player-driven, I'd love it if the players drove more of what they do. Even something as simple as looking at the setting map, seeing an interesting-looking site, and saying in character "What's that place all about?" would be a good start, as opposed to me having to point it out and-or invent some reason for them to go there.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I sense some dismissiveness, which I think is unwarranted. I feel that it is totally reasonable to be put off by the idea that we stop the narrative to sit around and decide what would be cooler to have happen next. Not all narrative games do that, of course, but some do, and they aren't fun (for me).

What if "cooler" was replaced with "more realistic" or "more appropriate for the setting" or "fit in more with how everyone viewed the fictional position?"

 

[Thomas Shey]

What if "cooler" was replaced with "more realistic" or "more appropriate for the setting" or "fit in more with how everyone viewed the fictional position?"

It might move around who would have a problem with it, but it wouldn't change the fact its a pacing thing a fair number of people are going to be manifestly uninterested in.

 

[thefutilist]

I sense some dismissiveness, which I think is unwarranted. I feel that it is totally reasonable to be put off by the idea that we stop the narrative to sit around and decide what would be cooler to have happen next. Not all narrative games do that, of course, but some do, and they aren't fun (for me).

Do you have an example of a game that does it?

I ask because I play a lot of Narrative games and discussion about what happens next is generally considered broken. You want to give someone the authority to decide what happens next, as a general rule that is.

 

[aramis erak]

Can you provide some examples of flat player-drive play where the GM is not providing some sort of outline / actualizing a premise that spurs action / fronting opportunities?

All the "player-driven" games I run still start with the GM fronting something (even if its based on/in reaction to session 0 style setup from the players).

Burning Empires: the session zero process is extensive and puts player plots up front for the GM to fill in. The GM can front if needed, but generally, the conflict, and due to the scene budget, much of the story is indeed player established before play, and continues to be player driven by use of the Invasion mechanical metaplot conflict.

I'll note that BE assumes 3 players plus GM, and each player has 1 color scene (no rolls), 1 interpersonal (a conversation with another character, be they PC or NPC; no rolls, but may culminate with a single roll to resolve if needed), and 1 building scene (3 rolls). That's 3 per "Maneuver" (the budgetary unit); the GM gets 10 scenes (3 color, 3 interpersonal, 3 building, and 1 conflict) per Maneuver... as long as all 3 of his "Figures of Note" (FON) survive; lose 1 each color, IP, and building per missing or player opposition FON. Note that the book calls the interpersonal scenes "interstitial" - but really, interpersonal is more reflective. And PC's can institute a conflict either as the culmination of an interpersonal or in place of a building scene... one per side per maneuver. At 2-3p, all PCs are FON's on one side; the GM gets 3 FON on the opposition side. At 4p, the GM gets 2 FON, and the third opposition FON is a PC; at 5, the GM gets 1 FON, and the opposition has 2 PC FON's... RAW. Were I to run it again, I'd use 4 FON per side for a 4p game, and take the extra 20 to 60 minutes per maneuver.

Truth is, BE is so heavily player driven that I used most of my scenes to react to player initiatives. It was quite intense. And stupidly easy to run, once you get past character gen.

 

[Reynard]

What if "cooler" was replaced with "more realistic" or "more appropriate for the setting" or "fit in more with how everyone viewed the fictional position?"

Not really. For me is is the mere fact of a communal discussion about the outcome of some narrative role that bugs me. I don't mind individual players have authority in the moment. I love Fate, and one of its major mechanics of play is players creating real, tangible narrative outcomes with their actions. It's the "writer's room" I don't like.