Failing Forward

[pemerton]

the more that fiction is authored in advance, and then used - as secret backstory - to determine consequences of players' action declarations for their PCs, then the more the play dynamic moves away from that which I prefer.

I disagree. It doesn't move away at all. It just moves differently. A pre-authored reason for a consequence in the player driven plot is equal to a the DM authored reason for the same consequence that the DM authored in the moment. The story neither cares, nor is any way lessened by pre-authoring.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying "the story doesn't care". Stories are abstract objects - they don't have emotional or affective responses.

But I care. Secret backstory used as an input into the adjudication of declared actions moves the play dynamic away from what I prefer, from player-driven to GM driven. I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "GM-authored reason for a consequence that the GM authored in the moment", but I think you mean some new piece of fiction introduced to explain and elaborate a failed check. That is very different. The new fiction isn't an input into the adjudication. It is an output of it. The players' control over the fiction wasn't thwarted by something the GM had already (secretly) made up. Rather, the player(s) made a check, and failed, which hence licensed the GM to introduce new fiction giving effect to that failure (eg the absence of the mace from the tower; the dropping of the divining rod down the ravine; the turning of the tribe/cult upon the PC; etc).

 

[sheadunne]

The reason [MENTION=27570]sheadunne[/MENTION] used the "pinball" characterisation is because, in this sort of game, he feels no deep connection between his PC and these pre-authored elements of the shared fiction.

Yep. It's not even a bad thing. It's relaxing sometimes. But if I want to get invested in my PC, I want there to be little pre-authored elements (remove all those secret backstory elements that make my decision-making meaningless) and as little prep time as necessary (be responsive to my character's actions). I don't even run pre-authored games anymore. It was a difficult transition to make, but it's been satisfactory so far in meeting my own needs when I run a game. It's harder though, to find games to play in that aren't pre-authored or that use heavy prep systems.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not sure what you mean by saying "the story doesn't care". Stories are abstract objects - they don't have emotional or affective responses.

What I mean by that is that an equally riveting story will happen whether you pre-author or not. The story just doesn't "care" what method you use.

But I care. Secret backstory used as an input into the adjudication of declared actions moves the play dynamic away from what I prefer, from player-driven to GM driven.

It doesn't. It's a shared story driven by both the DM and the players together, as all games are. It's not driven by the DM unless the DM decides to drive it, which he can do whether he pre-authors or not.

I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "GM-authored reason for a consequence that the GM authored in the moment", but I think you mean some new piece of fiction introduced to explain and elaborate a failed check. That is very different. The new fiction isn't an input into the adjudication. It is an output of it. The players' control over the fiction wasn't thwarted by something the GM had already (secretly) made up. Rather, the player(s) made a check, and failed, which hence licensed the GM to introduce new fiction giving effect to that failure (eg the absence of the mace from the tower; the dropping of the divining rod down the ravine; the turning of the tribe/cult upon the PC; etc).

What I am saying is that with your playstyle the reasons for why the DM authors the consequence comes up in the moment, rather than how my playstyle does it, which can involve a reason from the moment OR a pre-authored reason. The players and I have pre-authored additions to the game to draw upon, which in my opinion is a huge advantage.

 

[Balesir]

I think you are confusing background, character, elements with "plot".

I don't think that's a confusion; I think it's a classic identity.

Plot is the collision of protagonist with antagonist(s) - which are characters and background elements (including organisations and "nature"). To the extent that those are set out beforehand, the plot is predetermined. This is, I think, what is meant by "player-driven plot" - if the players indicate what antagonists their (protagonist) PCs want to clash with, they get to control (or at least significantly influence) the direction of the plot. If they generate characters with one set of intended antagonistic themes and then have to "force-fit" them to other (supplied) antagonists, it can be an unsatisfying experience.

The players and I have pre-authored additions to the game to draw upon, which in my opinion is a huge advantage.

It can be an advantage, but I think it can also be a straitjacket. The trick, it seems to me, is to figure out - for your group(s) - what pre-configured background elements are useful, and which are unhelpfully constraining.

 

[pemerton]

I have explained how. The problem is you, as well as some other posters have this very narrowly defined defintion of what a pre-prep campaign has to be. When others who use the techniques or play in the style then try to show/tell/demonstate that it is a much bigger tent than you seem to realize your response seems to ignore it or claim it's not "real" pre-prep or it's approximating improv (even though material is being created outside of play)... Once you're willing to actually listen to those who use these tools in a different way you'l be able to better understand the flexibiltiy of the playstyle, but until then this is the adult equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going... "nuh uhn that's cheating!!"

I think you're missing my point(s):

(1) If the GM is not authoring the fiction until the action resolution check has been made, then we are in the general territory of "fail forward".

(2) If the GM is authoring fiction in advance - whether 1 year, 1 week or even 1 minute in advance - and using that "secret backstory" as part of the adjudication process, then we are out of "fail forward" territory and into "players exploring the GM's pre-authored material" territory.

The GM's pre-authored material might be very interesting. It might even have been written to be especially interesting to the players! But the way it is being used, as a constraint on the outcomes of action declaration that the players aren't aware of, is moving away from the sort of play that I prefer. Pointing to the various ways in which material might be pre-authored doesn't really change that.

I don't think it falls into the ralm of improv either... especially not on the spot improv.

<snip>

Yet what you claim to pre-prep exceeds generic stats for monsters

I don't care about whether anyone labels how I play "improv". It's not a label I've used in this thread. I also don't know what you think is the difference between an NPC's stats and "generic stats for monsters". I don't use many "generic" monsters, either in 4e or BW. Stats are stats, and mechanically heavy games tend to need them.

In my comparison it is a single roll compared to a single roll (Skill check vs. percentage). Your example compares a single roll (which lacks the variation, chance for real-time decision making, chances for extremes, etc. that the multiple rolls and rounds in a combat allow for) to an entire combat... of course there were posters on this very forum who did this (to a lesser extent) in 4e when they substituted SC's for actual combats so it may not be as improbable as you make it sound.

But substituting a skill challenge for normal combat mechanics isn't taking it out of the hands of the players! They get to make checks, expend their resources, etc to try and influence the outcome in the way that they (and their PCs) want it to be.

The issue of one roll vs multi-rolls is a red-herring. A number of RPGs (BW, HeroWars/Quest, I think FATE?) allow actions to be resolved as simple checks or via more complex action resolution systems. Substituting a flat % chance for a player's check is replacing something the player can influence (by choices at PC build, and by choices during actual play - eg whether to use some sort of ingame or metagame buff) with something the player cannot influence.

In the earlier mountain example, dropping the rod is in no way "contrary" to climbing the mountain... or was this example incorrect?

The player's desire (both in the real world, and in character) was to arrive at the top of Mt Pudding equipped with a divining rod - dropping the rod is a contrary result, in that if the PC continues to climb to the top s/he will get there sans rod. And if s/he stops to try and recover the rod then s/he is not at the top of the mountain.

You wanted a story around a Dark Elf and you got it.[/quoet]And my player wanted a story around a mace. And got it. Where is the railroad? Are you saying that anytime a GM authors something that s/he chooses rather than rolls randomly (on a table that someone authored - there could be a vicious regress here . . .) that s/he is railroading?

First I never said the DM is creating the story he wants... I said he has greater power to push the story in the direction he wants it to go

This seems a distinction without a difference to me. If you are talking about railroading - which you were - then aren't you talking about pushing the story to some particular desired outcome? If all you're saying is that the GM gets to introduce elements into the fiction that are pleasing or amusing (or whatever) to him/her, then yes, that's obvious. As I've said way upthread, and have quoted Paul Czege on multiple times, the GM will introduce stuff that s/he thinks is interesting. What else would you expect him/her to do?

you used the failed check to push the story towards something YOU had been thinking about and prepping beforehand.

What event did I push it towards?

So the DM creates point A... and upon failure controls point B... so the players only control point B in succeeding... is that correct?

Point B is narrated by the GM in response to the player's action declaration for his/her PC. Look at [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION]'s example again. A big part of point B in that example is the effigies - the player controlled that, not the GM.

 

[chaochou]

What purpose would that serve?

It might give your 'belief' a shred of credibility, since at the moment you're just hot-airing without any grounding of anything you say in actual play.

Especially since judging by your tone and inability to address what I actually posted, I don't believe you're interested in discussion.

Hello pot, have I introduced you to kettle?

 

[Imaro]

It might give your 'belief' a shred of credibility, since at the moment you're just hot-airing without any grounding of anything you say in actual play.



Hello pot, have I introduced you to kettle?

How about we just agree to disagree... Honestly, there are others here actually engaging with what I have posted and creating a back and forth... your purpose seems to have devolved into snippy one liners, which I'm not really interested in addressing.

 

[Manbearcat]

Youu haven't shown at all what (outside of the logic of the surrounding fiction) constrains the DM in forcing the story to go the way he wants to. Even @Manbearcat concedes that there are no rules that totally safeguard against this.

Alright, I've got a few moments, here.

Just to be as clear as I can on this. I haven't made any conscessions about anything. My premise was that with heavy prep (which presumes granular setting and metaplot material, either created by the GM or digested via purchased module) comes greater investment in the material that has been prepped seeing table time. Due to this temptation, there is a greater chance of the imposition of metaplot and "setting tourism" (the focus of play moving fundamentally from the PCs relationships/ethos/themes to experiencing the setting in motion - which immediately or eventually mutes the dynamic of the PCs as protagonists) than there is with light/minimal prep (even if this prep is focused and has high utility).

What I stated prior is that sytem (play agenda and play procedures) and social contract do the heavy lifting when it comes to mitigating the prospects of that imposition of metaplot and that dynamic of "setting tourism." Can they reduce it to zero? What I mean by that is "is it possible to have the imposition of metaplot and/or 'setting tourism' emerge regardless of system and social contract?" My answer would be, "while it might be extremely remote, it is feasible."

For instance:

Take the Powered By the Apocalypse systems that [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] and I have been using for our play anecdotes (Apocalypse World and Dungeon World respectively). These systems are at the far end of the "congenial/adversarial to metaplot and pre-authored, granular setting" continuum. How does it accomplish this:

1) The players roll ALL dice.

2) The resolution mechanics are unified, simplified/streamlined, and completely transparent (I call that "elegant").

3) The GM has explicit, non-negotiable instruction to:

a) Follow the Rules. Contrast this with White Wolf's Golden Rule or AD&D 2e's "Rule 0" whereby the GM is instructed to break rules, ignore rules, or subvert the resolution mechanics when their deployment leads to outcomes the GM doesn't want.

b) Fill the Character's Lives with Danger/Adventure. The system goes into great detail about how the guiding principles for play interface with reward cycle and resolution mechanics. This is Baker's "push play toward conflict" and "escalate, escalate, escalate" from Dogs in the Vineyard. * World games are designed to naturally do this.

c) Play to Find Out What Happens. This is literally anti-metaplot. The outcomes of play procedures naturally lead to a snow-balling narrative filled with danger and adventure. The system will actively fight you if you attempt to impose metaplot. It is easier, and more profitable, to let plot emerge naturally through the course of play.

d) Draw Maps, Leave Blanks. Completely adversarial to granular, pre-authored setting. "When you draw a map don’t try to make it complete. Leave room for the unknown. As you play you’ll get more ideas and the players will give you inspiration to work with. Let the maps expand and change."


So how would it be possible for a GM to impose metaplot and/or granular, pre-authored setting in a * World game? By somehow overcoming 1 and obfuscating 2 (so the techniques of GM Force and/or Illusionism can be leveraged) while simultaneously ignoring some or all of 3a-d (with c actively fighting you and making your job harder).

In essence, they would be eschewing the game's agenda, breaking the rules, breaking the social contract (unless the players are actually complicit or utterly apathetic), and making their life more miserable than it would otherwise be (because the game is fighting them)...for no good reason. So, one question would be "why the hell are you playing a * World game in the first place when you could be playing something more amenable to your play goals?" Another question would be "if your players are complicit, why again are you running a * World game rather than a game that is amenable to the table's social contact?"

Possible in theory? Yes. If you're comfortable with the contention that you're actually still legitimately playing the game (rather than Calvinball) after you've willfully broken it to pieces and turned it into an abomination of itself.

Accepting the immediately above contention as true, then we're on to; feasible in the real world? Masochists exist...so, I guess?

 

[Umbran]

Sorry, I was away on vacation for a week, so I am far behind. There's one point I'd like to follow up on.

In the "player driven" game that uses scene framing, "fail forward" etc, the events are also reflective/expressive of "character driven" action in your sense of that term - the unfolding events also reflect the unfolding of the PC.

I am not convinced this is true. At least, it is no more or less true of pre-authoring than improvisational authoring.

To remind folks, I was using "character-driven" in the literary sense - being about the internal and emotional conflicts of the character (this contrasted wit plot-driven - being focused on the physical actions, or player-driven, in which it is mostly about what the player wants to do.

Fail-forward, however, is primarily about pacing of game actions, not about setting the themes of play for a session. It seems to me that if you are using fail forward to *change* the emotional themes under consideration, you're stepping rather beyond what the technique was really intended to do. I am not sure why you aren't at least pushing this to the scene-framing level.

But, let's say you attempt to do so. You need to have a pretty solid understanding of the character's buttons to press and chains to pull to make this work. But, of course, the fact that you *need* to change themes means you hadn't correctly picked the right buttons to press or chains to pull earlier (whether pre-authored or improvised). So, I'm not so sure this is the greatest idea.

Of course, pre-authoring also requires this same understanding of the characters. One *always* needs to have this understanding to do character-driven stories. Once you have that understanding, I think the implementation is six-of-one, half a dozen of the other, to be honest.

It was an element in my recent discussion with [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] upthread. I think that when the GM authors material in this player-driven context, it is more likely to actually engage the players, and the dramatic concerns they are expressing for, and via the play of, their PCs.

The issue however, is that this risks the game devolving into, "everything is about them". As if every element of the Universe revolves around them and what makes the PCs tick. It is healthy, I think, to be presented with material that isn't chosen entirely based upon the PC's or player's desires. And, on top of this - not every GM is good at improvisation!

I think, however, that not all pre-authoring is created equal. Some of it is a helpful too, some is benign, and some is harmful to player engagement. I find your presentation here a bit dogmatic on the point, to be honest.

 

[Imaro]

I think you're missing my point(s):

(1) If the GM is not authoring the fiction until the action resolution check has been made, then we are in the general territory of "fail forward".

(2) If the GM is authoring fiction in advance - whether 1 year, 1 week or even 1 minute in advance - and using that "secret backstory" as part of the adjudication process, then we are out of "fail forward" territory and into "players exploring the GM's pre-authored material" territory.

The GM's pre-authored material might be very interesting. It might even have been written to be especially interesting to the players! But the way it is being used, as a constraint on the outcomes of action declaration that the players aren't aware of, is moving away from the sort of play that I prefer. Pointing to the various ways in which material might be pre-authored doesn't really change that.

I think one of the biggest blockers to this conversation going further is the inability to have an agreed upon distinction between what material constitutes pre-authored "fiction" and what is in the moment authoring... I asked you as well as @Manbearcat... and someone else I believe what exactly are the boundaries between... fiction being pre-authored vs. pre-prepped vs. notes/ideas vs. in the moment authoring... could you take a minute to answer this as I think it will make our discussions more productive.

I don't care about whether anyone labels how I play "improv". It's not a label I've used in this thread. I also don't know what you think is the difference between an NPC's stats and "generic stats for monsters". I don't use many "generic" monsters, either in 4e or BW. Stats are stats, and mechanically heavy games tend to need them.

You haven't used improv... but you've continuously pointed to authoring in the moment of resolution, which IMO is the same as improv... otherwise like you said it doesn't matter if the fiction you present was authored a year ago, a month ago or a minute before... it's pre-authored

But substituting a skill challenge for normal combat mechanics isn't taking it out of the hands of the players! They get to make checks, expend their resources, etc to try and influence the outcome in the way that they (and their PCs) want it to be.

Having a percentage chance to encounter something doesn't take it out of the hands of the players either... unless I forced the PC's to go into the area where this challenge has a chance to appear it was still their choices and actions that lead to the outcome where this roll takes place... correct? And if it's "secret backstory" that's only because the players have failed or chosen not to find out about the area they are currently traversing.

The issue of one roll vs multi-rolls is a red-herring. A number of RPGs (BW, HeroWars/Quest, I think FATE?) allow actions to be resolved as simple checks or via more complex action resolution systems. Substituting a flat % chance for a player's check is replacing something the player can influence (by choices at PC build, and by choices during actual play - eg whether to use some sort of ingame or metagame buff) with something the player cannot influence.

It's not a red herring... it's a very real difference with one roll. certain things such as multiple resources, specific combat powers, etc. can or cannot be brought to bear depending on how the encounter is structured.

As to your second point...Again as I stated unless you are forcing the players to take the actions that lead up to them being in the area (for a long enough time) for the chance that this encounter takes place... you're not replacing something the player can influence... you've let them influence themselves all the way into this situation. The only difference is that you'rs depends on one final (pre-set) roll and mine depends on a different roll. Also note at no point did I say they couldn't through actions, spells, etc. alter whether their chance to encounter the Dark Elf goes up or down...

The player's desire (both in the real world, and in character) was to arrive at the top of Mt Pudding equipped with a divining rod - dropping the rod is a contrary result, in that if the PC continues to climb to the top s/he will get there sans rod. And if s/he stops to try and recover the rod then s/he is not at the top of the mountain.

No the stated goal was just to arrive at the top of Mt. Pudding... there was no mention of the rod in setting the goal.

You wanted a story around a Dark Elf and you got it.

IAnd my player wanted a story around a mace. And got it. Where is the railroad? Are you saying that anytime a GM authors something that s/he chooses rather than rolls randomly (on a table that someone authored - there could be a vicious regress here . . .) that s/he is railroading?

This seems a distinction without a difference to me. If you are talking about railroading - which you were - then aren't you talking about pushing the story to some particular desired outcome? If all you're saying is that the GM gets to introduce elements into the fiction that are pleasing or amusing (or whatever) to him/her, then yes, that's obvious. As I've said way upthread, and have quoted Paul Czege on multiple times, the GM will introduce stuff that s/he thinks is interesting. What else would you expect him/her to do?

One could claim you used DM force to push them into an encounter with the Dark Elf, probably because you had a desire to use the NPC you created beforehand... you decided arbitrarily what their failure would mean (encountering the Dark Elf NPC you had pre-authored outside of play)... And to be totally honest, I'm not sure how "Dark Elf appears" is contrary to "Successfully navigated your way"...

What event did I push it towards?

An encounter with the Dark Elf NPC you created outside of play.

Point B is narrated by the GM in response to the player's action declaration for his/her PC. Look at @chaochou's example again. A big part of point B in that example is the effigies - the player controlled that, not the GM.

The GM controlled the tribe's reactions, and the player being placed in the effigies... the player created the effigies but ultimately exerted no control over anything he created after one bad roll. That one roll allowed the DM to decide where the player would end up, what would happen to the effigies and what the tribe would do...

EDIT: IMO all you've actually done is changed rule zero from being available to the GM at all times to only making it available when a player fails a roll... or needs a consequence... but ultimately you're still using rule zero.