Failing Forward

[LostSoul]

A player asks me which kingdoms host training centres for wizards? Which kingdoms are at war? Which is the deity of agriculture? What is a particular deity's emblem?...etc. With pre-authorship I have those details out the way already instead of having to think on the spot. In fact having those details already thought out allows me to improve on "story-now" instances.

The issue is that your pre-authored content may not reflect the themes that the players have focused on in their story. You don't know where the story is going to go, so your pre-authored content may simply fall flat and fail to be emotionally engaging. Like a great Cthulu-ish city in the midst of an Arthurian tale.

 

[Sadras]

The issue is that your pre-authored content may not reflect the themes that the players have focused on in their story. You don't know where the story is going to go, so your pre-authored content may simply fall flat and fail to be emotionally engaging. Like a great Cthulu-ish city in the midst of an Arthurian tale.

Ok so in the instance of the Realms, me providing the emblem of Chauntea is like a Cthulu-ish city in an Arthurian tale?

In our group's last session the characters activated a teleportation circle to find themselves within a room with each wall decorated by a mosaic of a blooming rose upon a wreath of golden grain...the room was part of the basement of a temple. The temple was filled with a frightened local populace as the town was under attack.
How did my pre-authorship of the emblem of Chauntea, the design of the temple, the mood of the populace and the situation of the town create a less engaging experience?

Just to add, the characters are not native to the Forgotten Realms...

 

[chaochou]

I like my world to be much, much more involved. That's why I love the Forgotten Realms.

I can guarantee you that your thousands of pages of Realms notes do not make it more 'involved' than my Apocalypse World, which features a map which we can all see, with notes that anyone can add to and a list of names of all the NPCs we've met.

Because involvement comes at the table. And only at the table. The lonely fun of reading bad fanfic dressed up as 'background' and dreaming how much fun it's going to be to surprise the players with it, is often presented as a 'living breathing world'. But that's nonsense.

A living breathing world only happens at the table, and only if the players care. And if you've let them build it, given them a stake, they care. Put me or any of my players in 'The Realms' and none of us could give a monkeys. Unless I can have my own bar in a town called Bad Fanficville.

If you're playing a modern day cop story, and trying to work your way into the city's underworld, there's a lot of things that are going to act upon you.

And if you read a game like The Dresden Files you'll see how to build a multi-layered, complex and dynamic setting filled with interesting characters in conflict with each other and how everyone knowing about it enhances the game. Because when everyone knows - that's part of the game. Secrets are not gameplay.

I'm great at building layers upon layers of plots, events, organizations, and such. I love doing it, even if it doesn't make it into play. But a lot of these techniques are very helpful in running a good game.

I think this is the real point. And a lot of D&D players, especially GMs, are the same. They love the prep. They love the reading. They love the imagining. All that is great. None of it is the game. The game is what is shared at the table.
[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] was making exactly these points about 'living breathing worlds' not aligning with pre-authorship. They can be created in the moment, and be beautiful, poignant, deep and complex. It's okay to not believe me, but it's true.

 

[Imaro]

I didn't know that that was in dispute.

What I'm not deciding is what the PCs want (eg no fetch quests, no "adventure hooks", etc), nor whether or not they get it (no pre-authoring that the mace is not in the tower, etc).

Pre-authoring doesn't force the DM to decide what the PC's want either...

I created the Dark Elf as an NPC who might be introduced, yes. But the circumstances of his appearance, whether he was to be friend or foe, whether or not he had the mace - none of those things were pre-authored.

He became a foe in virtue of being introduced as part of the narration of a failed check. And because he was thereby established as a foe, he seemed an apt person to have the mace in his possession, when it turned out that the PCs could not find the mace in the tower.

Given my preferences and priorities, this is very different from writing down, in advance of play: "Dark elf antagonist, wields the nickel-silver mace which he has looted from the ruined tower, will try to interfere with the PCs' water supplies and will attack them if they leave the tower via the defile."

Ok so you...
1. Decided ahead of time there would be a Dark Elf....
2. Decided ahead of time he would be an antagonist... (I consider this pre-authoring at least some of his personality, otherwise whether he was an antagonist or not would be decided in play)
3. Decided ahead of time he would appear on a failed roll...
4. Decided in the moment he would have the mace...

A pre-authored campaign could...
1. Decide ahead of time there would be Dark Elf
2. Decide ahead of time he will be an antagonist
3. Decide ahead of time there is a 60% chance he appears if the PC's get lost in the dessert
4. Decide ahead of time he has a 50% chance to have the mace

So the only difference I see is that the subject of the mace would be decided definitely in the moment by you, everything else you've done seems to fall under (at least partially) pre-prep as opposed to in the moment decisions... and could easily be the result of a pre-prep campaign.

 

[Sadras]

I I think this is the real point. And a lot of D&D players, especially GMs, are the same. They love the prep. They love the reading. They love the imagining. All that is great. None of it is the game. The game is what is shared at the table.

I don't believe @Ilbranteloth was questioning what is the game. His post you quoted reflected that the prep work assists (him) in running a good game.

 

[Imaro]

Here's the thing:

You play with certain people because you like their ideas. This means that, for a pre-authored game, you like the content that the DM pre-authored. It also means that, for a no-myth game (or whatever - pemertonian-scene-framing, fail-forward, etc.), you like the content the DM authors as the scene plays out.

No one wants to get rid of bias.

Hey [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] I think you might be a little confused as to why this tangent sprung up... I'm not saying the bias should be gotten rid of or even that it's a bad thing, but if you can argue that pre-prepping + human nature will make me more likely to "railroad" towards what I have created... I in turn believe having free reign to improv anything within the realm of it fitting the fiction coupled with human nature will lead to one being more likely to "railroad" towards the story I want or envision. If you look back at my previous posts I don't believe either of these to be a result of the particular tools of the respective playstyles but more based in the DM running the game. The reason I am bringing up the biases, preferences, etc. in relation to the story now playstyle is to provide a counterpoint to the assumptions around pre-prep railroading.

 

[Imaro]

The issue is that your pre-authored content may not reflect the themes that the players have focused on in their story. You don't know where the story is going to go, so your pre-authored content may simply fall flat and fail to be emotionally engaging. Like a great Cthulu-ish city in the midst of an Arthurian tale.

Why are you assuming pre-prep can't be done as the campaign progresses? Say game session to game session? When done like that it is very easy to take into account the themes your players are focusing on and where the "story" is going...

 

[Imaro]

Okay now I'm convinced [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] is speaking to a co-authored campaign, as opposed to a pre-prepped or DM improv'd campaign... which is a whole different beast from what others have been discussing up to this point.

 

[Maxperson]

The issue is that your pre-authored content may not reflect the themes that the players have focused on in their story. You don't know where the story is going to go, so your pre-authored content may simply fall flat and fail to be emotionally engaging. Like a great Cthulu-ish city in the midst of an Arthurian tale.

The reality is that pre-authored content is very, very rarely that far off. Your fear of pre-authorship on those gounds is not very reasonable.

 

[Janx]

Why are you assuming pre-prep can't be done as the campaign progresses? Say game session to game session? When done like that it is very easy to take into account the themes your players are focusing on and where the "story" is going...

To me, that is in fact, the very point of prepping between sessions. To account for the interests and changes of the players so you have content that is relevant to them.

Personally, I only build content for the session I am about to run. And I build it based on knowing my players, how they tend to react and what they are interested in.

As a result, I don't have a problem usually with a mismatch of what I prepped to what I need for the game. And I'm usually spot on for how the players will react and what direction they will choose