Failing Forward

[Sadras]

First, a caveat:

There can be no guarantee that a game is 100 % safeguarded against GM Force. Therefore, I certainly don't offer it. There are only means to mitigate against it. These means come in the form of GM incentives, streamlined/intuitive resolution mechanics (which works to ensure that unwanted mental overhead which distracts a GM from excelling at free-form/improv is minimized), and a clear/transparent/coherent top-down agenda of play and principles for the GM to follow. Games that are meant to be improv/freeform-friendly have the guidance, incentives, and system means in play to support it (we can do examples here if need be).

On with the brief, less involved answer:

The premise I'm working from is that humans are inclined to want to share a creation in proportion to their own investment in it. This investment might be emotional. It might be blood, sweat, and tears. It might be pride/vanity.

The investment (any or all of the above) of pre-game prepped setting and situation (specifically of the granular, high resolution variety) is going to be significant when compared to a game where GM prep is considerably less (typically setting and situation are of much lower granularity/resolution and are firmed up during play with improved content being generated as required; "just in time" or "story now"). Consequently, the seductive forces of "human investment" are less potent. Less potent means less likely to be given sway as the primary motivation for future content introduced into the shared imaginary space during play (rather than content introduction via player decision-points, the output of the resolution mechanics, and following the game's agenda and GMing principles).

In the common tongue, what you're saying is pre-authorship dming, due to our natural human tendencies, attracts railroaded decision points by players due to GM Force to realise the "human investment", whereas in "story now" dming this natural human tendency detracts from this "human investment" and thus the GM Force?

What I think is happening in this debate is that people are arguing from exclusive points, I think many DMs are combination of both. I would consider myself more in the pre-authorship camp, not because I believe it to be better, but because I have less confidence in my own storytelling ability and instant DMing if I have not invested enough prep time.

In my prep time, I'm able to determine NPC motivations/reactions, create connections, note important details and identify possible scenarios allowing me to better prepare for the session. Without that prep time, I'm running everything on the fly and the richness of the details may be lost and holes in the storyline may be revealed.

 

[Maxperson]

AD&D has no magic for learning local customs, nor any skill system for that either.

Ask them. Explaining you are from far away and want to learn works wonders. If language is a barrier, charades is pretty much universal and gets across that you are from far away. Once they know you aren't from around these parts, you will get much more latitude on etiquette.

In my post I talked about instances where players have the resources to learn the relevant backstory. But the example I gave is one where this is not the case. It's an example involving dumb/blind luck.

There are very, very few instances here you are truly "blind" and dependent on blind luck. However, it occasionally happens and realism like that is welcome as far as I'm concerned. It's rare and adds to the game experience by putting the party in a situation that reflects how life works. Life isn't perfect and you won't always have information at your fingertips to make the best of the situation you are in.

The last sentence is not in dispute. That's why, in my BW game, when nothing turned on which way the PCs were drifting on the ocean we didn't both worrying about which way they were drifting.

To me, there's something wrong when choices don't matter. If my PC is lost on a raft in the middle of the ocean, I want the decision to go north or south to have different consequences, even if I have no idea what those consequences are until discovered.

But I prefer a game in which choices matter and the players know that and why they matter. Choosing blind - sticking your hand into the GM's bag and seeing what colour ball you pull out - doesn't give the choice very much meaning, in my view.

It gives great meaning. Discovery of the unknown and uncontrolled is a blessedly wonderful thing. Choosing to go south when lost in the ocean and encountering the jungles of Chult adds to the game immensely. There's no way to achieve the same kind of surprise and discovery when you are the one creating or helping to create what is happening.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

What I think is happening in this debate is that people are arguing from exclusive points, I think many DMs are combination of both. I would consider myself more in the pre-authorship camp, not because I believe it to be better, but because I have less confidence in my own storytelling ability and instant DMing if I have not invested enough prep time.

I agree, I think most people fall closer to the middle of this continuum. But there is merit in discussing the extremes.

I'm like you, I tend to pre-prep quite a bit, although it becomes less and less as a campaign continues. That's partially because the campaign itself becomes a sort of pre-prep. You've already identified the motivations and such of the major NPCs, you just don't necessarily know what they've been up to.

And you don't need to, unless/until the PCs encounter them again, or they do something that has an impact greater than the world immediately around them. That's where the just-in-time approach comes into play.

So I get the sense that as things progress, you'll shift from one technique towards another, and at times it will go the other way. The real key, is not to be so fixated on one approach that you can't use another. The reality is that most of us use some degree of both already, whether we realize it or not.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Imaro]

This isn't true.

In pre-authoring world location content, you decide subjects, but the players still-in the moment--decide their reactions to those subjects (and one of the cool things about that is you can actually enable situations with more options if you pre-author rather than just go "Uhhh....there's one door!") .

So if we presume the GM wants the players not to be railroaded, (ie you CARE about giving the players their say), pre-authoring content is often the best way to do that because it means you aren't just leaning on your (often repetitive or uni-valent) instincts.

Like in the moment you might go (as a GM) "There's a Frog Temple!"--if you have time to prep you can go "Ok there are eight temples and the order and number you choose to visit them will determine your experience in ways I can't predict".

This was sort of what I was getting at... I don't believe either has a tendency towards "railroading" when done by a DM who is adept at the particular playstyle they have chosen. @Manbearcat (as well as @pemerton I believe) makes the argument that pre-authoring and human nature pushes towards railroading... but that is totally ignoring certain styles of pre-authoring. One, which you mention above, being the pre-authoring of multiple choice points... another being the pre-authoring after a decision point has been decided upon by the players (the players make plans and let the DM know at the end of a session what direction/decision they have made, ie... the players decide to make an excursion into the Caves of Doom vs. the Forsaken Tower). My post was more to show that in either case a DM can succumb to railroading the PC's but that is more a function of the DM than either of the actual playstyles.

 

[Imaro]

On with the brief, less involved answer:

The premise I'm working from is that humans are inclined to want to share a creation in proportion to their own investment in it. This investment might be emotional. It might be blood, sweat, and tears. It might be pride/vanity.

The investment (any or all of the above) of pre-game prepped setting and situation (specifically of the granular, high resolution variety) is going to be significant when compared to a game where GM prep is considerably less (typically setting and situation are of much lower granularity/resolution and are firmed up during play with improved content being generated as required; "just in time" or "story now"). Consequently, the seductive forces of "human investment" are less potent. Less potent means less likely to be given sway as the primary motivation for future content introduced into the shared imaginary space during play (rather than content introduction via player decision-points, the output of the resolution mechanics, and following the game's agenda and GMing principles).

Yes and what I'm saying is that even in improvisation the DM can have biases, desires for a campaign outcome or even specific character outcomes he has mentally invested himself in, even a predisposition to forcing a structure of story onto the game... that can shape how he/she directs the outcomes of created material and failed outcomes. The very fact that the type of "story" you and @pemerton seem concerned with creating has rules of pacing, tension, etc. is mental incentive to use DM force (railroading) if the PC's actions/decisions are not generating this template for "story". In other words I don't see one style as more susceptible to railroading than the other, it boils down to how the DM implements the particular tools of his chosen style and whether he can keep his own interests from overriding the agency of his players.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Yes but the temptation to steer failure outcomes towards your own predisposed interests as DM is just as likely as a pre-authoring DM steering outcomes towards the creations he wants to explore... in other words how can the later be a concern when pre-authoring but in improv there is no concern around the DM steering the direction of the "story" being created towards what he is most interested in improv'ing around?

Prove it.

I don't really see this as a helpful response.

It's absolutely steered towards a DMs predisposed interests. They can be very broad interests, but a DM can only present the options that are in their head. That doesn't mean that it will necessarily steer the story in a certain direction, but it will have an impact. Is that bad? Well, it's pretty much a given. The DM will run a game that caters in part to their own interests. How much is a variable, and whether that bothers the players is another variable.

In a prepped adventure, the temptation may be to keep the party within those predisposed interests. In a non-prepped scenario, there may not be a predetermined 'end-game' or even direction. And in theory, the actions of the players/characters can/will have an impact on the story and direction that is taken. But in practice I highly doubt that every DM is willing and capable to allow 'anything' to happen. The DM will have an influence on the direction of the story, even if they are determining the majority of things via random tables.

But if people didn't want the DM to have an impact on the story, they wouldn't play the game with a DM. There are enough resources to run a campaign entirely with random encounters and no DM. They aren't very enjoyable, even those that have a set story line like the Catacombs books did, because the input of the DM is crucial to an interesting game.

Not all DMs that prep railroad, just like not all that don't prep don't.

The tools are the tools. Just-in-time DMing is one of those tools. Prepping, which includes the use of published materials even as simple as a Monster Manual, are tools as well. The ideal to me seems to be that prep is focused on people, places, monsters, things, NPC motivations, plots and schemes, and such and a pool of available resources, and that the game play itself be one of more of a just-in-time approach. How much is dependent upon the individual DM and their skill at improv in the moment. Part of the purpose of good prep is also to help out when the DM is having an off night.

There will be a blend. I know that I don't usually predetermine where a specific treasure will be found, nor which monster, if any, will be guarding it. The players are in a dungeon right now, and the map, and certain fixtures, including some monsters are predetermined in their location, although for me that usually means undead, constructs, or bound guardians in a specific location. If they are intelligent creatures, the overall number and type might be known, but their exact location at a given point in time is not. The creature in the crypt is known, and the traps, puzzles, and such are often predetermined as well. The state of a given trap (has it been triggered), possibly not.

I might have pulled or randomly rolled some magic items that will potentially be found in the near future, but I don't know where. When possible I prefer for them to be in the hands of a creature that will use them. But I might not assign them until I randomly roll a given encounter. It also doesn't mean that I won't go to the sourcebooks and pull something else out.

But it is all shaped by my predisposed interests in that the stuff that's happening in the world around them is what I decided would be happening. If, how and when the PCs interact with these elements is a variable, much like a wandering monster. Sometimes I will roll randomly, sometimes the situation will seem like a good opportunity and I'll decide that it occurs there.

The results of those events might also be determined randomly or by me. Some as a result of character action, some not.

When I stop looking at the extreme arguments, and start looking at the tools and techniques themselves, I realize I've been doing a lot of this for years, just not acknowledging it as a specific approach. Getting a better feel for them, and utilizing them more efficiently is a good thing.

Ironically, how much I direct the actual story also varies from time-to-time, and usually has to do with being unprepared. Not in the sense of preparing specific locales, events and such, but having a pool of resources, which includes my own head, being ready when needed when following the story and where the PCs decide to go with it. I really like going deep with the research and prep. It's fun. But I can do that in areas where it makes the most sense, and will be applicable in many possible scenarios. Colorful NPCs, interesting plots and schemes and ways that things tie together in the world, waiting to be discovered, or not. Detailing a dungeon room by room, outside of basic descriptions and a map, or planning out the expected course of the night's game is not. Without control of the players, it may be a lot of effort for something that doesn't benefit the session at all.

The specific situation is important as well. If they are in a dungeon, then you can get more into the nitty-gritty of the next several areas they might explore. Their options are limited by the nature of the dungeon, although they don't have to follow any particular path, the number of paths to consider is limited. But most of the time, the best approach seems to be prepared for anything, by having NPCs, monsters, treasures, and potential plot points (rumors and motivations) available.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Imaro]

What's your threshold for, or measure of, GM force?

In my own case, I can tell you absolutely that I spend a lot of time thinking about the game, the characters and what may happen in the game, for both my 4e and my BW campaign. I come up with ideas for antagonists, possible locations, situations etc.

To give a concrete example from my BW game:

After the session in which the PCs escaped the orcs in the desert and took shelter at an oasis with a friendly naga guardian, I thought that I wanted to use a dark elf in the game. (Looking at the chapter on Maeglin in the Silmarillion even led to me re-reading the whole of that book!)

In the next session, when the PCs travelled to the ruined tower, I used the dark elf as a failure result for two checks: a failed orientation check led the PCs to a waterhole which had been recently fouled. Investigation of the excrement suggested that it was elvish. Pursuing the perpetrator led to a brief encounter with the dark elf, who escaped (but lost his knife when he through it and the PCs kept it). Another failed check (I can't remember what, now - maybe the failed attempt to track the dark elf) meant that when they got to the tower the dark elf had also got there first, and hence had had a chance to fill the well with rubble.

In the session when the PCs left the tower, I also used the elf - he dropped a deadfall on the PCs as they were walking through a defile in the Abor-Alz. And this was when it was revealed that he was wielding the nickel-silver mace.

That the dark elf would have the mace had already been anticipated, though, by the player of the mage: in an email following the session where the mace wasn't found, that player conjectured that the mace would be in the hands of the dark elf.

To me, this seems to be a GM doing his/her job. It's my job to manage the fiction and, of particular relevance to this particular matter, to come up with consequences for failure and to frame the PCs into challenging situations.

With this concrete example in mind, can you explain the relationship you see to pre-authoring? To me, it makes a difference that the initial encounters with the dark elf and his filthy deeds were triggered by failed checks; that the mace only came into play at all because a player wrote it into his PC's backstory and Beliefs; that the ruined tower came into play at all only because the same player had it written into his PC's backstory; that the dark elf was intended to (and, in play, did) provide material for the elven ronin PC to play off his Belief that he "will always keep the Elven ways"; etc.

I'm not sure how this would all have been pre-authored, though. If the checks to move through the desert had succeeded, for instance, then there would have been no occasion to introduce the dark elf into play in the way that I did. I might still have used the dark elf as an antagonist with the deadfall - but that itself was triggered by the players deciding to have their PCs leave the tower.

I'm very unclear in what respect you are suggesting that pre-authorship vs "just in time"/"story now" made no difference here, in respect of the balance of GM and player agency.

I think there's a few misconceptions about pre-authoring in your post above...

First, in no way does pre-authoring necessarily force the Dark Elf to appear or not appear (this seems to be the biggest misconception about pre-authoring in this thread)... all pre-authoring has to do is establish him as a potential antagonist (which seems to be exactly what you did). Some examples of ways pre-authoring can do this... there could have been a percentage chance he appeared (independent of success or failure of a skill check) in the dessert... there could have been a trigger action that caused the PC's to be noticed the Dark Elf... there could have been a timeframe set out by the DM that determined when or even if the Dark Elf was present at the tower when the PC's get lost/fail their orientation check, and so on....

So if all the failure/success of the skills do (insofar as the chance of the Dark Elf showing up) is make it a go/no go decision then there are plenty of randomizers a pre-authored campaign could use to produce the same uncertainty.

As to PC backstory being a part of a pre-authored campaign... I'm unclear how these two things are at odds??(unless we are speaking strictly about pre-made adventures, and even those can have selectable PC backgrounds that tie into the overall campaign). In a pre-authored campaign a good DM is going to author things that tie into the PC's backgrounds into his campaign world... so I'm unclear on why there couldn't have been a mace or the tower... or is this more about how you chose to have it come into play (due to a failed check)?? Because if that's the crux of this "big" difference I have to say I don't see it as all that important (it's just a different randomizer... a percentage chance based on what skill is used vs. what the DM thinks the objective chances should be in the world.)

Now what I do find interesting in the difference between procedures is that in the pre-authored method challenges can arise irregardless of success or failure of a skill check, thus tension can ramp up and new challenges can appear at anytime... while in your methodology it seems tension, new challenges, etc. only appear upon failure. That's the biggest difference that I see...

 

[grendel111111]

AD&D has no magic for learning local customs, nor any skill system for that either.

The divination magic in AD&D is overwhelming short-range (ie for dungeon use) and aimed at geographical exploration (Secret Door Detection, Clairvoynace etc), or finding treasure (Locate Object, Treasure Finding, etc) or detecting hostile beings (Enemy Detection, ESP, etc). This reflects the game's origin in dungeon exploration and looting.

And yet even with out a "skill set" we were still able to talk to people and interact with them, discover information and rumors and make informed decisions? The concept of being limited to the options on a character sheet was a phase that some RPG's went through and has hopefully been left well behind.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I think there's a few misconceptions about pre-authoring in your post above...

First, in no way does pre-authoring necessarily force the Dark Elf to appear or not appear (this seems to be the biggest misconception about pre-authoring in this thread)... all pre-authoring has to do is establish him as a potential antagonist (which seems to be exactly what you did). Some examples of ways pre-authoring can do this... there could have been a percentage chance he appeared (independent of success or failure of a skill check) in the dessert... there could have been a trigger action that caused the PC's to be noticed the Dark Elf... there could have been a timeframe set out by the DM that determined when or even if the Dark Elf was present at the tower when the PC's get lost/fail their orientation check, and so on....

So if all the failure/success of the skills do (insofar as the chance of the Dark Elf showing up) is make it a go/no go decision then there are plenty of randomizers a pre-authored campaign could use to produce the same uncertainty.

As to PC backstory being a part of a pre-authored campaign... I'm unclear how these two things are at odds??(unless we are speaking strictly about pre-made adventures, and even those can have selectable PC backgrounds that tie into the overall campaign). In a pre-authored campaign a good DM is going to author things that tie into the PC's backgrounds into his campaign world... so I'm unclear on why there couldn't have been a mace or the tower... or is this more about how you chose to have it come into play (due to a failed check)?? Because if that's the crux of this "big" difference I have to say I don't see it as all that important (it's just a different randomizer... a percentage chance based on what skill is used vs. what the DM thinks the objective chances should be in the world.)

Now what I do find interesting in the difference between procedures is that in the pre-authored method challenges can arise irregardless of success or failure of a skill check, thus tension can ramp up and new challenges can appear at anytime... while in your methodology it seems tension, new challenges, etc. only appear upon failure. That's the biggest difference that I see...

As I've been working on things, it dawned on me that pre-authoring is much like you describe, and that it's a tool that can be leveraged by in-the-moment authoring.

The way I'm looking at it now (and really, how I've been doing it in part, now that I've taken time to study it), is that in-the-moment authoring, or even what I might call 'reactive DMing' is dependent upon the skill of the DM combined with the resources they have available.

What resources? Well monsters, spells, magic items, etc. which are all provided in the core books in most systems (although you can always add/modify), campaign settings and supplements, etc. These are all more or less presumed.

But part of those resources is the prep work of the DM. Building a roster of interesting NPCs, with their own motivations and potential secrets. Ties to secret villainous organizations, and the motives and current operations of those organizations. What are they doing and why? Independent villains in the area, what are they doing and why? Maps for general types of dungeons - natural caves, towers, ruined keeps, crypts, etc. that are not assigned to anything in particular, until they are 'discovered' in the course of an adventure, at which point they now have a place on the map.

Basically, prepping can be an extremely helpful process for in-the-moment authoring, you have the NPCs, interesting locations, secrets and rumors, you just don't actually know where they are located. In the case of mobile things like NPCs and creatures, they could be in different places in different sessions. Physical locations, even 'known but forgotten ones' have at most a general location until the actual physical location is determined. If you want something to be in a specific physical location, that's fine too. But most of what's around it is still mutable.

Basically you pre-author a wide variety of building blocks to have available at a moment's notice as needed.

In addition, I think that the concept in the in-the-moment authoring that is often missed (particularly if we use the term 'fail forward') is that it's not reliant upon the failure of a skill check. New story elements, drawn from the resources prepared, or entirely improvised based on the situation, can occur at any time. It really has nothing to do with a skill check.

Having said that, some people advocate that a failed skill check and present one of these moments in time where a new story element can be introduced. It doesn't have to be, it can be. It's specifically allowing a skill check to be more than a skill check - it's a plot point. Whether that occurs because of the skill check, or a separate fate check, or the DM just adds it in is also irrelevant. It's recognizing that a skill check is a point in time where a result is determined - it's often already a logical point in the flow of the game for the players to discover something new, for an event to occur, or a setback.

However, by this definition, it doesn't have to be tied to failure, and as I said to an actual skill check either (yet another reason why 'fail forward' is not a great term). If we look at it from a broader perspective, it's looking at the exploration event from a wider angle and determining what more can be added that is more than just a simple check.

For example, during the course of a combat, there is great potential for a lot of things to occur besides just life and death. Capturing and interrogating an opponent, they can unwittingly divulge information, they can be carrying important documents, keys, or other objects, they could retreat and/escape leading the PCs to something important, etc.

Well, the same things apply to an exploration encounter. They can find documents, information, objects, or even creatures or NPCs depending on the circumstance. The point is that the DM is always reacting to what's going on, and that reaction can be the introduction of something new.

It really has nothing to do with skill checks at all. It's more about being prepared with enough material (or improv chops) to be able to react to the actions of the PCs. A well prepared DM will find it much easier to support this type of play.


Ilbranteloth

 

[Ilbranteloth]

This was sort of what I was getting at... I don't believe either has a tendency towards "railroading" when done by a DM who is adept at the particular playstyle they have chosen. @Manbearcat (as well as @pemerton I believe) makes the argument that pre-authoring and human nature pushes towards railroading... but that is totally ignoring certain styles of pre-authoring. One, which you mention above, being the pre-authoring of multiple choice points... another being the pre-authoring after a decision point has been decided upon by the players (the players make plans and let the DM know at the end of a session what direction/decision they have made, ie... the players decide to make an excursion into the Caves of Doom vs. the Forsaken Tower). My post was more to show that in either case a DM can succumb to railroading the PC's but that is more a function of the DM than either of the actual playstyles.

Yes. I think DM skill and DM disposition is what drives railroading. A DM who railroads will do so regardless of the tools in play.

But a published adventure, or a DM pre-authored adventure certainly encourages that type of play to stay within the bounds of what's been authored.

Ilbranteloth