Failing Forward

[Maxperson]

Not particularly.

Player A, in character, hopes that his brother is a victim. Player B, in character, believes that the brother is a villain and wants to be revenged against him.

If the GM decides, secretly, in advance, whether the brother is victim (of balrog possession) or villain (who invited possession), then the GM had decided that either A is right and B wrong, or B right and A wrong. The standard here has not been set by GM expectations - it is the GM secretly choosing against a standard (of victimhood vs villainy) that is common between players A and B.

That's (part of) what I don't like about pre-authorship.

I don't see that. The DM just chose at the beginning that the brother was, say, a villain. Player A hopes that his character is innocent, but is wrong in that hope. Player B is correct in his belief. They have simply guessed correctly or incorrectly as the case may be. The DM hasn't chosen for or against A or B in an way. Neither of them played into his decision.

Now, this is different if the DM has not chosen in advance and has waited and seen the guesses by players A and B. Then, and only then, would he choosing for or against A or B

 

[pemerton]

I don't see that. The DM just chose at the beginning that the brother was, say, a villain. Player A hopes that his character is innocent, but is wrong in that hope. Player B is correct in his belief. They have simply guessed correctly or incorrectly as the case may be. The DM hasn't chosen for or against A or B in an way. Neither of them played into his decision.

Now, this is different if the DM has not chosen in advance and has waited and seen the guesses by players A and B. Then, and only then, would he choosing for or against A or B

My point is that I dislike this sort of guessing game. I personally don't find that it makes for very rewarding dramatic play.

 

[BryonD]

My point is that I dislike this sort of guessing game. I personally don't find that it makes for very rewarding dramatic play.

If it was simply a guessing game as stated there, I would not like that either.

 

[Maxperson]

My point is that I dislike this sort of guessing game. I personally don't find that it makes for very rewarding dramatic play.

I can tell!

However, lots of people do enjoy that sort of game. One day I'd like to try your type of game and think I'd enjoy it in small doses, but going off my experience with my type and what I have read, I don't think I'd like an entire campaign of it.

 

[Umbran]

My point is that I dislike this sort of guessing game. I personally don't find that it makes for very rewarding dramatic play.

Well, how do you feel about mysteries? That's not a "guessing game" - it is a "gather evidence and figure it out" game.

 

[Umbran]

Being very highly pro "pre-authorship" is not in contrast to player input.

Tonight is my first session of a new Ashen Stars campaign. The game has a system (I wouldn't want to call it a mechanic - it is more a proposed best practice for the group), in which the players suggest personal arcs for their characters, in the form of three or so events that could happen in game relevant to that arc*. This is done beforehand, so that the GM can plan it out, and work them into the sessions - a clear admixture of player input and pre-authorship!


*The intent is that these come up kind of like "B-plots" in television shows. The GM picks a couple of characters each adventure, and works one of their arc events into the mix. While the team as a whole is trying to figure out of the Baron was actually eaten by a ravenous bugblatter beast, Commander S'toll tries to work his love of Jazz trombone into his love life, and a mysterious message arrives for the ship's cook... That sort of thing.

 

[pemerton]

Obviously a DM and players may plan outside of a game to agree to certain truths.

<snip>

I don't think it is reasonable to call having this extra-character powers "role playing" by any reasonable definition of role playing.
That doesn't mean you can't flip back and forth from moment to moment between truly role playing and using forth wall powers.

This strikes me as confused about the techniques under discussion.

The players in the examples discussed in this thread (eg the mace episode from my BW game) are not authoring anything. The GM is determining the relevant backstory, including the presence of the black arrows in the ruins of the brother's private workshop.

But, as [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] indicated not far upthread, this is done in the moment of resolution (hence the now in "story now"), and is done by the GM responding to player signals, Beliefs/Instincts (in BW), etc.

There are player authorship mechanics in BW (eg Wises, Circles) but (i) they have not been very much discussed in this thread, and (ii) they don't require the player to do anything other than play his/her PC - in this case, either playing his/her PCs learning or playing his/her PCs history of friends, acquaintances, relatives etc.

Well, how do you feel about mysteries? That's not a "guessing game" - it is a "gather evidence and figure it out" game.

I don't run them very well as a GM, and as a player I prefer them for one-shots (eg convention-style play) rather than ongoing.

I think mysteries emphasises the procedural ("Can we deploy our skills adequately here to work out what is going on?") rather than the dramatic.

Here is a link to an actual play report of the last session I ran that was close to a mystery (five years ago!); but even it did not use very much pre-authorship, and I'm not sure those who really get into mystery-solving RPGing would like the way the session was run.

 

[Umbran]

I don't run them very well as a GM

That's as I expected, given what I've seen of you speak about, and what I've read of your play reports. While I am sure someone out there can do a good mystery without pre-authoring, I expect those GMs are rare indeed. For most mortals, it calls for some significant pre-authoring. Otherwise, it comes out rather like a few TV shows that were based on being mysterious, but for which the authors didn't actually start out with a plan for where it was going to go - it begins to wander and become inconsistent, and there can be a tendency to put off the end.

I think mysteries emphasises the procedural ("Can we deploy our skills adequately here to work out what is going on?") rather than the dramatic.

Have you looked at GUMSHOE?

This game is all about the procedural, but for the most part gets around the 'can we deploy our skills' question. Of course you can deploy your skills! You're a competent expert! If there's a clue to be found in place or situation, you have the skill, and you think to look, you get the clue. You don't need to jump through hoops and guess exactly where the clue is hidden, or exactly which question to ask of the NPC, no die roll required.

It then becomes the logic puzzle for the players (rather than the characters) to put the clues together and come to a conclusion. And then the question of what you *do* about it...

 

[innerdude]

But this just comes back to the role-playing vs. being a author conversation.

Gandalf had no say in whether or not Bilbo found the one ring. When he showed up at the beginning of Fellowship and threw the ring into the fire, he was inside a story controlled by facts outside of himself. If he had suddenly starting talking to the reader and announced that he decided it was not the one ring, that would be a very unsatisfying development.
Same thing for whether or not the brother was possessed willingly.

Obviously a DM and players may plan outside of a game to agree to certain truths. At a macro level this happens when the group decides to play D&D over Mutants and Masterminds. If a player wants part of the plot to be that his brother was possessed against his will but this truth is not generally accepted, then this is fine. But ultimately a great deal of pre-authorship is still mandatory for the experience to model "being that guy in these circumstances". If the player can keep changing the rules in media res, then the resolution is completely divorced from the character's capabilities.

There is a great deal of merit to the idea of experiencing a story exclusively as an individual inside that story. The demand for significant pre-authorship in no way prevents players from contributing to the "pre" part of that.

...snip...

Once the story is moving at the table the players are either in the role of characters within a set of circumstances or they are not.

First of all, any opportunity to bring in DM of the Rings to the conversation should be celebrated heartily.

The question of pre-authoring versus Story Now / Just-in-time GM-ing / mutable fiction is obviously not a binary. In fact, I'm a strong believer that diligent, coherent pre-authoring is a necessary precursor to running a successful campaign. To me it's much easier for the GM to later break that pre-authoring when needed if they have a strong grasp on how a given "break" will spill out into following frames.

The shift to "Just-in-time GM-ing" happens more directly in play. It's a reaction on my part to trying to be more open and flexible to player desires. And I know for me it has worked wonders in building the types of campaigns that I enjoy. My 14-month long Savage Worlds fantasy campaign was a direct result of a dedicated commitment to not having any "end game" in mind, but to "scene frame" based on what the players were giving me, with just the right amount of pre-authoring to make the frames coherent.

To follow up on the hypothetical Lord of the Rings example:

If I was the GM, the nature of the One Ring would be set in stone. But let's say the player running the "Frodo" character came to me and said, "What if I'm not entirely sure my uncle Bilbo is telling me the truth?" Maybe it's because he wants wants to explore something different in his character than "tragic heroism," so he imagines up that his uncle Bilbo isn't a good guy, but is in fact manipulating him.

The Ring is still the Ring, but now the Frodo character is exploring an entirely different set of fictional circumstances to react to / play against.

Would I as a GM be willing to change the fiction to potentially give the player what he wanted? Prior to 2010 or so, the answer would be a definite "No. That's not how the story is set up." Now? I'd strongly consider it.

 

[pemerton]

Have you looked at GUMSHOE?

I've had ToC (in PDF) for some years, but have never run it. It's on my "to try" list for a rainy day when our numbers aren't fully quorate and there's nothing else waiting in the wings, but that rainy day could be a long time coming.

ADDENDUM:

When I talk about procedural play involving the adequate deployment of skills, I'm not talking (just) about the mechanics of skill checks. The sort of play that GUMSHOE emphasises - visiting the right places, declaring the right action/skill use, collecting the information and solving the puzzle - I would count as an example of procedural play.

The question of what we do once the puzzle is solved has potentially more dramatic/character-driven dimensions to it, but if the GM has determined the answer to the puzzle in advance of play, then the dramatic elements are not likely to be adapted to and expressive of the dynamics of actual play in the sort of manner that I prefer.