I guess I view writing a story as a bit different. Even if you're 'experiencing the world' you're still writing a story. The whole point of a role-playing game to me is that you are writing a shared 'story', perhaps we call it a 'shared experience.'
You don't need a pre-written story arc. But even if you are simply experiencing the world, the people in the world have 'stories' of their own. There are groups of people that have shared goals.
I've come to really like the approach of looking at RPGs as a TV show. Some shows have an underlying story that drives the entire show. Others are just the day-to-day events surrounding an individual or group of individuals with no greater story tying them together other than a job, for example. Many try to do both. Most of the time I find the ones that do both to be rather annoying. For example, I enjoyed The Mentalist, but really didn't like the Red John story. It wasn't necessary, and eventually killed the show, because once they finished their story, and screwed up all of the dynamics of the characters and what they did, they didn't have a show anymore.
My home campaign right now is more of what I'd call a heroic story. Like something along the lines of Lord of the Rings. They are part of something bigger that's happening and they are among the only people that might be able to do something. Like the first couple of 5th ed D&D adventure paths, a lot of what happens is due to working with others, and organizations like the Lord's Alliance and Harpers. They want to know what's going on, so they remain engaged. They are, however, free to go whatever direction they like. And the things they stumble upon aren't all related to this epic story, and they can choose not to engage with it any time they'd like.
The campaign I'm starting at a store, however, is more of the experience the world type. I'm modeling it after the early Gygax home adventures, as well as what I envision Ed Greenwood's Shadowdale campaign was like. Each player will have multiple characters prepared, and they are all starting from the same 'home base'. Because I anticipate that there may be different players from one session to the next I'm making sure that each week we can switch up which characters are in play, while the others are involved in downtime activities until the next time they are active.
I see this as a more typical tv show where there's an ensemble cast of characters, with probably a few that are the 'main' characters in most every episode (since they are the ones that will show up every session), and the 'story' is self contained in that episode. The story is one of shared experiences, and doesn't need to go beyond that, although the options are always there to do so, since there are always things going on in the background.
Regardless, the unique thing about a role-playing game is this shared experience. The story.
That's one of the reasons why I think it's important for those promoting 'fail forward' write about how it will function well in any play style. It's another reason why I think 'success at a cost' and 'fail forward' are both bad terms since them imply you aren't failing, but that you always move 'forward'. I get the originally the idea was that the story moves forward, but it's too easily misunderstood.
I guess it's really an idea of moving beyond a binary skill check to a degree of success/failure check that also pays attention to the context and possibilities. So what, a 'possibility check?' I don't really like that either, though. But to me the concept should remind people that, unlike a video game, there are an endless number of variables and possible outcomes whenever an interesting situation arises that have a possibility for failure, or to alter the direction of the story or experience.
As I'm thinking this through, I guess there's a question of what the benefit of this technique, whatever it's called, is trying to accomplish.
So here are some thoughts to outline what I think are goals, or maybe pros and cons. Coming in part from a process design background, here's one way to look at it.
You can look at an entire game session as one process. Within that are multiple sub-processes. The most well defined sub-process in most games is combat.
So we're looking for a process to handle the non-combat events where a character's skills are tested, and a certain outcome is not guaranteed.
I'll go back to the simple scenario of a locked door leading into a room of orcs.
Depending on the PCs, the goal of this particular event is variable. I'll give a few possibilities.
They want to sneak into the room to steal something, preferably remaining undetected.
They want to burst into the room to surprise their enemies so they can eliminate them quickly, more easily, and without casualties or being injured.
They want to sneak through the room to another exit.
There are other possibilities, but these are good enough to start.
Now at it's most basic, you could have the party state their goal (pick one of the above), make a check and determine whether they succeed or fail. You can narrate a dramatic encounter based on that check, and the check can return degrees of success and failure.
But this is really boring. Yes, the success and failure may be determined by that skills of the PCs, but ultimately it's largely just the DM narrating a story.
So then we can go with the opposite. Everything is determined through the rules system with a series of checks. Going with option 1.
Stealth check for each character to get to the door, with a perception check for each of the orcs.
Listen at the door check, with another round of stealth and perception (assume there's a stealth and perception check in every round that a PC does something that might make noise).
If not successful, they spend another round of checks to listen again to make sure.
They hear that there is something in the room, now check to see if they determine: what, how many, make out any conversation, etc.
Pick locks check, with the usual stealth/perception.
If failed, repeat.
Success, stealth, perception, and check to see if the door sticks or squeaks.
Door opened, OK, stealth, perception, perception on the part of the PCs to see what they can spot through the partially opened door, etc.
Oh, I forgot to add a check to see if the dusty conditions caused one of the characters to sneeze or cough.
Anyway, I think we get the point. There's a stage where we have too many checks, and not enough story. Actually, let's call it narrative.
Combat in game systems is mechanically very mature, and there are a lot of choices for the style and approach to combat across game systems.
Non-combat action resolution is not nearly as mature. I like the idea of trying to do something better, but I think the approaches described have been partial solutions, often concepts, that are not quantified in an easy to explain way. I think before we get to that, we need to verify what we're trying to accomplish.
So what I think we're really trying to accomplish is:
A 'better' way to determine the outcome of a non-combat activity/event/decision point in the game.
It must take into account the skill level/abilities of the PCs to the degree that a PC with a higher skill level should be more likely to succeed.
It must be granular enough to feel like the PCs are accomplishing something, provide results on a character by character basis (one continues to listen at the door while the other picks the lock), but not generate an 'excessive' number of checks.
We need a way to account for many variables, including the environment (squeaky door), fate (sneeze), skills of others (perception), etc.
We want a method that adds to the narrative in a productive way. It can add to the narrative in a direct or indirect way (failed to pick the lock, squeaky door, sneeze), but should not preclude any possibilities - it can't guarantee success on a failed check, nor preclude total failure.
The check should take into account the outcome of other related checks or events. (a failed pick lock check might impact the stealth check, or the amount of time, such as 3 or 4 rounds to pick the lock might impact the stealth check).
It should include as many of the players as possible, but also allow the key individuals be the focus.
It should be universal (not tied to any specific rule set, skill set, etc.) but scalable, to allow different play styles to modify the granularity easily. Ultimately it should enable the DM to adjudicate the game in their style, with their goals in mind, and provide the framework for an exciting and fun game for the players.
What would you add/remove or change in this list. It's just a brainstorm essentially, and I've got a thick skin, so let's see what we can come up with. Part of that process should be to come up with a proper and appropriate name for it.
Ilbranteloth
