Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
5e* - D&D-now
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8534753" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I think my understanding of <em>playing to find out</em> is pretty typical - the participants (including the GM) collectively learn <em>what it is that happens next, in the fiction</em>. The use of the word <em>learn</em> is deliberate, and contrasts with <em>choose</em> or <em>decide</em>. There are techniques used - most typically the rolling of dice - which determine the parameters of outcomes and/or events at certain key moments; and there are constraints accepted and applied - some perhaps resulting from the dice rolls , others perhaps being general principles applied to concrete states of affairs (such as a description on a PC sheet) - which mean that whatever decision-making does take place is not unfettered but is shaped and directed.</p><p></p><p>A system of GM-fiat resolution does not count as <em>playing to find out</em> in this sense, because the GM does not <em>learn </em>what it is that happens next, in the fiction. Rather, the GM decides. I think there was a fair bit of advocacy for this approach to resolution in the 2nd ed AD&D era; and their are strong hints of it, at least, in some later D&D materials. The most overt form that it takes is the GM calling for a roll, but then narrating things much the same regardless of what the player rolls (perhaps overlaying slightly different colour depending on whether the roll is low or high - "With a lot of effort and sweat, you make it to the . . . ." vs "You easily make it to the . . . , barely raising a sweat".</p><p></p><p>A less overt form shifts the fiat slightly downstream in the overall cycle of play - the players fail the check to find secret doors, so the GM has a NPC tell the PCs where it is; or the players miss the turn off and so the GM has them come across the body of a dead NPC who happens to be carrying a map that shows the turn off; etc.</p><p></p><p>Both forms of fiat, but especially the second, can be used in combination with pre-authorship of the major events of play. The GM has decided that such-and-such a thing, or sequence of things, will happen in the fiction and then narrates the outcomes of declared actions, and frames subsequent scenes, so as to have those things happen. Here's an example, from the Prince Valiant Episode Book (pp 60-62; the author of the scenario is Mark Rein*Hagen):</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">You are hiking through the forest when you come across an abandoned hunting lodge, which is broken down and clearly hasn’t been used in many years. Exploring inside, you see a hunchback darting out of a secret passage in the fireplace and out the back door. The secret passage leads to a small dungeon where you hear clanking chains and eventually find a malnourished young boy locked in a cell. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Get the Adventurers to sympathize with Bryce [the boy], despite him not being a warrior type. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">They need to capture and question Quink the hunchback and find out who he worked for, to find out who did this to Bryce. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">The Adventurers must now scour the forest to find Quink, for which they likely need a tracker or some trick (such as food as bait) to find the wily hunchback. Your goal here is to make them realize that he is truly terrified of the person who ordered him to care for Bryce in the dungeon, and cannot name them. But it is possible to get many other details out of him. At the same time, they can talk to Bryce while healing him back to health, which only takes 2-3 days. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">As soon as they enter the duchy, it is immediately obvious that there has been a peasant revolt of some kind. . . </p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">In the distance, the Adventurers see the entire peasant army, numbering in the thousands, gathered outside the duke’s castle, parts of which are on fire, including the gatehouse. It appears they have come just in time to see the final storming of the castle. At this point the Adventurers’ actions can have a direct impact on the story. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Whatever happened, you need to have things end up with Bryce’s father, the duke, dead. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Bryce’s sister [Alia] is now left as the titular ruler of the castle . . . She receives the conquerors in the great hall (which is also the throne room), where she sits on the throne. One way or another, the Adventurers should be in attendance of this meeting, with Bryce trying to remain hidden from her. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Which way things go should be greatly affected by what the Adventures do and say at this time. If you can somehow get them to take different sides without coming into direct conflict it would be perfect. . . . No matter what, however, before they leave the Throne Room, Bryce step out of the crowd and reveals himself. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Unless the Adventurers step in, [the situation] quickly devolves into violence. Even if they do get involved, it ends in one single act of violence . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">At this point you need to have things wind up with someone trying to kill someone else as a result of the heated argument over what to do. . . . but no matter what happens, Bryce throws himself in the way and takes the wound himself instead of them, and by so doing proves his true nobility. Try to arrange it that Bryce does not die, but you can leave it up to chance if you want. But as he lies there wounded, first the castle folk (or maybe the Adventurers) bow to him, then the yeoman, then the peasants.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">What happens now is also mostly up to the Adventurers. Much of the peasant army will have left by now . . . If left up to Bryce, he would let Alia go, but that would be a mistake; she is an extremely capable and dangerous foe and would make trouble for years to come. The best solution would perhaps to have her become a nun, forcibly sworn to take the oath. Not matter what happens, if the Adventurers do not take Alia’s side in this, and she does not end up dead somehow, they will have an extremely capable and crafty enemy for life who will stop at <em>nothing</em> to take her revenge on them.</p><p></p><p>A group who plays this scenario as it is written is not playing to find out, because - as I hope the material I have quoted makes clear - all the major events of play are already set out: who the PCs will meet, what will be at stake in those encounters, what will happen to those NPCs, etc. There are many D&D modules that are broadly similar in this respect - two that come immediately to mind are Dead Gods (2nd ed AD&D) and Expedition to the Demonweb Pits (3E D&D).</p><p></p><p>There are approaches to the use of prep in play that do no involve pre-authoring the major events of play. Two quite different illustrations are the well-known module B2 Keep on the Borderlands; and town preparation in Dogs in the Vineyard. At least the latter is intended to support playing to find out. And Vincent Baker is very clear that prep for the game <em>does not</em> include pre-authorship of the major events of play (DitV, pp 137-38, 143):</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">Don’t play “the story.” The choices you present to the PCs have to be real choices, which means that you can’t possibly know already which way they’ll choose. You can’t have plot points in mind beforehand, things like “gotta get the PCs up to that old cabin so they can witness Brother Ezekiel murdering Sister Abigail...” No. What if the PCs reconcile Brother Ezekiel and Sister Abigail? You’ve wasted your time. Worse, what if, because you’ve invested your time, you <em>don’t</em> let the PCs reconcile them?</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">You’ve robbed the players of the game. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">If you’ve GMed many other roleplaying games, this’ll be the hardest part of all: let go of “what’s going to happen”. Play the town. Play your NPCs. Leave “what’s going to happen” to what happens. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">If you’re GMing by the rules, you have absolutely no power to nudge things toward your desired outcome. It’s best for everybody, I mean especially it’s best for you too, if you just don’t prefer one outcome to another.</p><p></p><p>I've used Keep on the Borderlands for an approach to play that is a bit like what Baker is describing here, but that's not really canonical with how the module actually presents itself, which is as a dungeon-crawler.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8534753, member: 42582"] I think my understanding of [i]playing to find out[/i] is pretty typical - the participants (including the GM) collectively learn [i]what it is that happens next, in the fiction[/i]. The use of the word [i]learn[/i] is deliberate, and contrasts with [i]choose[/i] or [i]decide[/i]. There are techniques used - most typically the rolling of dice - which determine the parameters of outcomes and/or events at certain key moments; and there are constraints accepted and applied - some perhaps resulting from the dice rolls , others perhaps being general principles applied to concrete states of affairs (such as a description on a PC sheet) - which mean that whatever decision-making does take place is not unfettered but is shaped and directed. A system of GM-fiat resolution does not count as [i]playing to find out[/i] in this sense, because the GM does not [i]learn [/i]what it is that happens next, in the fiction. Rather, the GM decides. I think there was a fair bit of advocacy for this approach to resolution in the 2nd ed AD&D era; and their are strong hints of it, at least, in some later D&D materials. The most overt form that it takes is the GM calling for a roll, but then narrating things much the same regardless of what the player rolls (perhaps overlaying slightly different colour depending on whether the roll is low or high - "With a lot of effort and sweat, you make it to the . . . ." vs "You easily make it to the . . . , barely raising a sweat". A less overt form shifts the fiat slightly downstream in the overall cycle of play - the players fail the check to find secret doors, so the GM has a NPC tell the PCs where it is; or the players miss the turn off and so the GM has them come across the body of a dead NPC who happens to be carrying a map that shows the turn off; etc. Both forms of fiat, but especially the second, can be used in combination with pre-authorship of the major events of play. The GM has decided that such-and-such a thing, or sequence of things, will happen in the fiction and then narrates the outcomes of declared actions, and frames subsequent scenes, so as to have those things happen. Here's an example, from the Prince Valiant Episode Book (pp 60-62; the author of the scenario is Mark Rein*Hagen): [indent]You are hiking through the forest when you come across an abandoned hunting lodge, which is broken down and clearly hasn’t been used in many years. Exploring inside, you see a hunchback darting out of a secret passage in the fireplace and out the back door. The secret passage leads to a small dungeon where you hear clanking chains and eventually find a malnourished young boy locked in a cell. . . . Get the Adventurers to sympathize with Bryce [the boy], despite him not being a warrior type. . . . They need to capture and question Quink the hunchback and find out who he worked for, to find out who did this to Bryce. . . . The Adventurers must now scour the forest to find Quink, for which they likely need a tracker or some trick (such as food as bait) to find the wily hunchback. Your goal here is to make them realize that he is truly terrified of the person who ordered him to care for Bryce in the dungeon, and cannot name them. But it is possible to get many other details out of him. At the same time, they can talk to Bryce while healing him back to health, which only takes 2-3 days. . . . As soon as they enter the duchy, it is immediately obvious that there has been a peasant revolt of some kind. . . In the distance, the Adventurers see the entire peasant army, numbering in the thousands, gathered outside the duke’s castle, parts of which are on fire, including the gatehouse. It appears they have come just in time to see the final storming of the castle. At this point the Adventurers’ actions can have a direct impact on the story. . . . Whatever happened, you need to have things end up with Bryce’s father, the duke, dead. . . . Bryce’s sister [Alia] is now left as the titular ruler of the castle . . . She receives the conquerors in the great hall (which is also the throne room), where she sits on the throne. One way or another, the Adventurers should be in attendance of this meeting, with Bryce trying to remain hidden from her. . . . Which way things go should be greatly affected by what the Adventures do and say at this time. If you can somehow get them to take different sides without coming into direct conflict it would be perfect. . . . No matter what, however, before they leave the Throne Room, Bryce step out of the crowd and reveals himself. . . . Unless the Adventurers step in, [the situation] quickly devolves into violence. Even if they do get involved, it ends in one single act of violence . . . At this point you need to have things wind up with someone trying to kill someone else as a result of the heated argument over what to do. . . . but no matter what happens, Bryce throws himself in the way and takes the wound himself instead of them, and by so doing proves his true nobility. Try to arrange it that Bryce does not die, but you can leave it up to chance if you want. But as he lies there wounded, first the castle folk (or maybe the Adventurers) bow to him, then the yeoman, then the peasants. What happens now is also mostly up to the Adventurers. Much of the peasant army will have left by now . . . If left up to Bryce, he would let Alia go, but that would be a mistake; she is an extremely capable and dangerous foe and would make trouble for years to come. The best solution would perhaps to have her become a nun, forcibly sworn to take the oath. Not matter what happens, if the Adventurers do not take Alia’s side in this, and she does not end up dead somehow, they will have an extremely capable and crafty enemy for life who will stop at [i]nothing[/i] to take her revenge on them.[/indent] A group who plays this scenario as it is written is not playing to find out, because - as I hope the material I have quoted makes clear - all the major events of play are already set out: who the PCs will meet, what will be at stake in those encounters, what will happen to those NPCs, etc. There are many D&D modules that are broadly similar in this respect - two that come immediately to mind are Dead Gods (2nd ed AD&D) and Expedition to the Demonweb Pits (3E D&D). There are approaches to the use of prep in play that do no involve pre-authoring the major events of play. Two quite different illustrations are the well-known module B2 Keep on the Borderlands; and town preparation in Dogs in the Vineyard. At least the latter is intended to support playing to find out. And Vincent Baker is very clear that prep for the game [i]does not[/i] include pre-authorship of the major events of play (DitV, pp 137-38, 143): [indent]Don’t play “the story.” The choices you present to the PCs have to be real choices, which means that you can’t possibly know already which way they’ll choose. You can’t have plot points in mind beforehand, things like “gotta get the PCs up to that old cabin so they can witness Brother Ezekiel murdering Sister Abigail...” No. What if the PCs reconcile Brother Ezekiel and Sister Abigail? You’ve wasted your time. Worse, what if, because you’ve invested your time, you [i]don’t[/i] let the PCs reconcile them? You’ve robbed the players of the game. . . . If you’ve GMed many other roleplaying games, this’ll be the hardest part of all: let go of “what’s going to happen”. Play the town. Play your NPCs. Leave “what’s going to happen” to what happens. . . . If you’re GMing by the rules, you have absolutely no power to nudge things toward your desired outcome. It’s best for everybody, I mean especially it’s best for you too, if you just don’t prefer one outcome to another.[/indent] I've used Keep on the Borderlands for an approach to play that is a bit like what Baker is describing here, but that's not really canonical with how the module actually presents itself, which is as a dungeon-crawler. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
5e* - D&D-now
Top