Failing Forward

[innerdude]

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.

And I'll be the first to admit, keeping the richness and details while maintaining consistency across scenes and NPC motivations is HARD without pre-authoring.

I can think of several points during sessions where I specifically wanted to keep the narrative open to player input, but as that input was coming was feeling a slow rise of panic --- "How am I going to integrate this? How do I keep this consistent? This basically contradicts this event that happened two sessions ago; how do I retcon that without it being clunky?"

To make that work, I ended up basically doing two things: Trusting my players, and staying true to the motivations of the NPCs. And I can honestly say, my players and I were far more satisfied with the outcomes than if I had just pre-authored the majority of it.

It's a difficult balance at times, but vastly more rewarding, at least in my experience.

 

[chaochou]

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

It's absolutely steered towards a DMs predisposed interests.

In my most recent game a player took their followers out into the junkyard and then got them to weld two massive metal statues. And then she drove her cult into a tribal frenzy and called upon the crowd to carry them to the gates so their dreadful visage would drive away their enemies...

...and failed her roll and the crowd agreed to sacrifice her inside them in a Wicker-man style so their dreadful visage would drive away their enemies.

I didn't create the city, the junkyard, the followers, or initiate actions building statues or driving crowds into a tribal frenzy. They were all player authored. Please explain how this episode was steered by my 'pre-disposed interests'.

 

[Imaro]

In my most recent game a player took their followers out into the junkyard and then got them to weld two massive metal statues. And then she drove her cult into a tribal frenzy and called upon the crowd to carry them to the gates so their dreadful visage would drive away their enemies...

...and failed her roll and the crowd agreed to sacrifice her inside them in a Wicker-man style so their dreadful visage would drive away their enemies.

I didn't create the city, the junkyard, the followers, or initiate actions building statues or driving crowds into a tribal frenzy. They were all player authored. Please explain how this episode was steered by my 'pre-disposed interests'.

There really isn't enough context here to answer the question posed... but I am curious, who decided since she failed her roll that the game suddenly went "Wicker Man" as opposed to "Mad Max"??

 

[innerdude]

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'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.

Fantastic post. You've captured the spirit of how I approach the pre-authoring / "in the moment" GM-ing continuum better than I could have. I think one of the other ingredients to this, and one of the reasons why I'm now such a big fan of "in the moment" GM-ing, is I've found a system that supports it so robustly (Savage Worlds). I'm guessing one of the reasons the 4e supporters are such a fan of it as well, is that 4e seems to support "on the fly" encounter prep easily, which is a somewhat radical departure from other versions of D&D (if I'm speaking out of hand, @pemerton, @Manbearcat, et. al., let me know).

It really has nothing to do with skill checks at all.

I think you covered this in the main body, saying it "can, but doesn't have to." I agree generally with that, but have found, like @pemerton , that the very act of a player calling for a roll can, and occasionally SHOULD be a call to introduce something new to the fiction that perhaps the GM hadn't considered before. The common motivation for me to do so is that adding a "just in time" element based on a check is a great way of reinforcing the player's decision to play their character as designed, and to reward the player for using their PC skills and resources in interesting ways.

 

[chaochou]

There really isn't enough context here to answer the question posed... but I am curious, who decided since she failed her roll that the game suddenly went "Wicker Man" as opposed to "Mad Max"??

I already told you, she decided to create the effigies and work the crowd into a frenzy. Whether that is Wicker Man or Mad Max or neither or both is therefore moot. Whatever you call it, it wasn't me.

Try again.

 

[Imaro]

I already told you, she decided to create the effigies and work the crowd into a frenzy. Whether that is Wicker Man or Mad Max or neither or both is therefore moot. Whatever you call it, it wasn't me.

Try again.

Who decided she should be burned in them... even though honestly it's not exactly clear from your statement what the outcome of the failed roll exactly was. Either way who decided it.

I also find it hard to believe that you as DM didn't author anything (the junkyard, the city, the followers, etc.) unless this is a co-authored game as opposed to an improv game, in which case it's not exactly what is being discussed.

 

[pemerton]

Manbearcat (as well as pemerton I believe) makes the argument that pre-authoring and human nature pushes towards railroading

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.


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.

For me it's fairly straightforward. In pre-authorship, the events, personalities, focus etc of the fiction are created, in advance, by the GM. The players engage with those things or the pre-authored game doesn't happen.

In scene-framed, "fail forward" play, the events, personalities, focus etc of the fiction are created, in play, by the interaction of player action declarations and GM responses.

Those are different things. They give a different weight and place to the GM's preferences as to the fiction.

I also find it hard to believe that you as DM didn't author anything (the junkyard, the city, the followers, etc.) unless this is a co-authored game as opposed to an improv game, in which case it's not exactly what is being discussed.

I don't find it hard to believe at all. In my BW game the mace and the ruined tower were authored by one of the players, as part of PC backstory.

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.

<snip>

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.

If the players are driving the game, then "options" will be presented that aren't in the GM's head. [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] has posted an example of this. So have I.

I set out in some detail how the dark elf antics happened in my BW game. That's an instance of how "fail forward" works. I don't even know what it would mean to say that a pre-authored game might work the same way. Can someone explain, with reference to the actual example (or chaochou's?)

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.

<snip>

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...

Having antagonists appear, and flourish or fail, independently of the players' action declarations and the success/failure of those checks (whether via random rolls, or pre-prepared timelines, or whatever), seems pretty significant to me. That is the GM deciding the course of things rather than having that determined by the players' action declarations.

 

[Imaro]

For me it's fairly straightforward. In pre-authorship, the events, personalities, focus etc of the fiction are created, in advance, by the GM. The players engage with those things or the pre-authored game doesn't happen.

In scene-framed, "fail forward" play, the events, personalities, focus etc of the fiction are created, in play, by the interaction of player action declarations and GM responses.

Those are different things. They give a different weight and place to the GM's preferences as to the fiction.

Yet you created the Dark Elf outside of play and then waited for an opportunity to introduce him through a failed check... or am I misunderstanding what you posted earlier?

I don't find it hard to believe at all. In my BW game the mace and the ruined tower were authored by one of the players, as part of PC backstory.

So you believe that the player created the entirety of the city that he/she interacted with down to the personalities of NPC's? The personality of everyone he interacted with in the tribe and so on... Again I find that very hard to believe... unless we are talking about a co-authored game...

Having antagonists appear, and flourish or fail, independently of the players' action declarations and the success/failure of those checks (whether via random rolls, or pre-prepared timelines, or whatever), seems pretty significant to me. That is the GM deciding the course of things rather than having that determined by the players' action declarations.

You do realize you are still deciding things as the DM... you decided the Dark Elf would appear, you decided he would drop rocks on your PC's, you decided he had the mace and so on...

 

[Ilbranteloth]

For me it's fairly straightforward. In pre-authorship, the events, personalities, focus etc of the fiction are created, in advance, by the GM. The players engage with those things or the pre-authored game doesn't happen.

In scene-framed, "fail forward" play, the events, personalities, focus etc of the fiction are created, in play, by the interaction of player action declarations and GM responses.

Those are different things. They give a different weight and place to the GM's preferences as to the fiction.

I don't find it hard to believe at all. In my BW game the mace and the ruined tower were authored by one of the players, as part of PC backstory.

If the players are driving the game, then "options" will be presented that aren't in the GM's head. [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] has posted an example of this. So have I.

Yes, I pointed out that there are other inputs as well, and the advantage of the in-the-moment authoring is that player input to the story. But the input from the DM will still be within the DM's own interests, just like the players' input will be based on their interests, although they will probably be quite different than what he would come up with on his own.

But this falls under a growing category of things that I ask, "why is that bad?" I don't think it is. If the DM has crappy ideas, then he won't be a DM very long. The chances of interesting things happening are probably increased by more people being involved in the writing.

The game as a whole, and the story as a whole will be very different than if there is a sole, single author. Those two examples also give a lot more leeway to the players in determining and writing plot points. I'm not sure I'm prepared to go that far, or how that fits within my long-running Forgotten Realms campaign. Which is fine, we all have areas that are important to us, and to me, making the world make sense (at least to me) is one of them. Maybe as I experiment, it will make more sense to me.

I also get what you're talking about in terms of pre-authorship or not. But it's not an all or nothing thing. The Monster Manual is pre-authored. Those monsters within are pre-authored. Magic items, spells, etc. as well. Pre-authoring additional NPCs, monsters, treasures, whatever, to have them at your disposal makes a lot of sense to me. No, they won't all be used. They might not even be complete. It could be an outline of 20 or so commoners, 20 guards, etc., just to have names, basic stats, backgrounds and motivations ready if needed. It could be years before a specific one is used. Possibly never. The players may not engage with them at all, and yet the game continues.

That's very different than a pre-authored adventure, where a general plot is implied if not outright declared. For me, this is the best of both worlds. I know that there are things going on behind the scenes. That certain groups interact with each other in different ways - allies, enemies, indifferent. These create deeper webs of motivations and activities of some of the NPCs that the characters meet. They provide launching points should the players opt to follow them. At the same time, new material can still be written on the spot, with the DM reacting to the PCs actions.

Without documenting what's happened, some pre-authoring, and such, I don't know how I'd keep everything straight and consistent over the course of years, as my campaigns tend to run.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I already told you, she decided to create the effigies and work the crowd into a frenzy. Whether that is Wicker Man or Mad Max or neither or both is therefore moot. Whatever you call it, it wasn't me.

Try again.

So how about an example that had your input. If you as a DM aren't contributing anything, then what are you doing?

You took a single sentence of my response out of context. Here was the whole paragraph:

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.

My point is that the DM can only provide input based on what they know. Just like the players can do the same. That's not good or bad, it just is. If I'm part of writing a story, my input can only be what's in my head. Even if it's from an outside source, once I've read it and brought it in, it's in my head. I suppose you could sit there with a stack of books you've never read and point to random sentences in a random book, and they it would be from outside you, but what's the point. And as I said, it won't necessarily steer the direction, but it will have an impact.

The exciting thing about sharing authorship, to whatever degree, is that other people will think of different stuff.

Ilbranteloth