Failing Forward

[pemerton]

Well there is an important hair to split:

If you want something to have the character of a _puzzle_ (this includes actual puzzles as well as encounters and mapping challenges and other complex kinds of multi-step secrets) then it helps to have a thing prepped.

It doesn't "have its own reality" but it sure as hell makes it easier to create a puzzle-style challenge and the kinds of challenges related to that.

I want to split the hair one micron further:

I think in some puzzle-oriented play (eg classic dungeon exploration in the sort of mould that Gygax sets out in the closing pages of his PHB, that Lewis Pulsipher used to articulate in late-70s White Dwarf, etc), there is an implicit commitment by the GM to have the puzzle elements authored in advance so that the players can then deploy resources (eg ingame time, detection magic, etc) to work out those elements and unravel the puzzle.

This isn't necessarily related to "objective reality" - eg in this style I think it's completely fair to have rooms with an A% of thing X or (100-A)% of thing Y (eg the ogre is in their torturing the kobold, or is down the hall having a nap). And that "reality" won't become a thing until the game is actually played and that door listened at or opened.

But the GM shouldn't be toying with those percentages during play. In his DMG, Gygax sets out this sort of idea of GM's notes as a pre-play commitment in the rules for evasion of dungeon encounters: if the GM's notes say that the monster does or doesn't pursue, then that takes precedence over everything else.

Only if the GM promises to hold the parameters of the puzzle constant can players solve it using the resources that the game gives to them (via their PCs). It's about fairness and the necessary conditions of a certain sort of puzzle-solving. (It's certainly not about creative integrity, at least as far as I can see.)

 

[Zak S]

I want to split the hair one micron further:

I think in some puzzle-oriented play (eg classic dungeon exploration in the sort of mould that Gygax sets out in the closing pages of his PHB, that Lewis Pulsipher used to articulate in late-70s White Dwarf, etc), there is an implicit commitment by the GM to have the puzzle elements authored in advance so that the players can then deploy resources (eg ingame time, detection magic, etc) to work out those elements and unravel the puzzle.

This isn't necessarily related to "objective reality" - eg in this style I think it's completely fair to have rooms with an A% of thing X or (100-A)% of thing Y (eg the ogre is in their torturing the kobold, or is down the hall having a nap). And that "reality" won't become a thing until the game is actually played and that door listened at or opened.

But the GM shouldn't be toying with those percentages during play. In his DMG, Gygax sets out this sort of idea of GM's notes as a pre-play commitment in the rules for evasion of dungeon encounters: if the GM's notes say that the monster does or doesn't pursue, then that takes precedence over everything else.

Only if the GM promises to hold the parameters of the puzzle constant can players solve it using the resources that the game gives to them (via their PCs). It's about fairness and the necessary conditions of a certain sort of puzzle-solving. (It's certainly not about creative integrity, at least as far as I can see.)

Yeah and I think that stuff is important when the players announce a desire to try a challenge according to some specific parameters or the game operates under those assumptions.

Like "I wanna see if we can beat Tomb of Horrors rules-as-written", etc.

This is a borderline case since a lot of times the idea of (for example) how the reaction table works might be assumed to be the kind of thing the GM has house-ruled. The most important thing to keep in mind is:

What experience do the players (and GM) feel they signed up for?

 

[grendel111111]

I agree with you (obviously). Advantages for the GM:

1) Less prep work.

2) The improvisational paradigm of play allows for the GM to "play to find out what happens", thus being surprised by the trajectory of the narrative.

3) The lack of temptation to subvert player action declarations + the authentic outcomes of the resolution mechanics (typically covertly) which shoehorns play toward your heavily prepped material (of which you will inevitably be invested in its manifestation during play).

This 3 is also an advantage for the players as it is insurance that their agency is maximized with respect to dictating outcomes (the aggregation of which becomes "story").

I agree with number 1 and 2, but those might not be important to all GM's (I for example do not see the DM's role as to be surprised by story, as much as to be surprised by the players).

Number 3 makes a few assumptions about the DM that you are playing with. You are assuming a closed prep style DM with a linear story. There are also open prep DM's who do have not story except that which emerges. The big stuff is in motion (Who is behind the kidnappings, why are the ogres moving into this area...etc.). Their prep focus isn't on "story" but on "world".

Pre-planning can also ensure that the DM doesn't screw over the players. If the DM has a set location for things it prevents the situation of "it doesn't matter if you go North or East you will still get to the same place with the same encounter in it."

Agreed. 100 % a cognitive trap. Your mental framework may predispose you toward believing that game content exists external to actual play, but it isn't true. GM's prep is not establishing content. Nothing exists in an RPG until it is introduced into our shared imaginary space via conversation at the table (which can take place during player orientation, character creation, or actual play). Every single element of setting and situation is "Schrodingers" until it is declared/confirmed via that conversation or play procedures.

This is completely true for your game. But you are putting your desires and preferences onto other peoples games. In your game "every single element of setting and situation is "Schrodingers" until it is declared/confirmed via that conversation or play procedures."

Other people who want to reduce or remove the "Schrodingers" element will have different preferences. You can't see it because you like the "Schrodingers-ness" of your game, and can't see why someone else might think that it is a negative not a positive.

I personally like both styles of games and am aware that they produce different kinds of gaming experience. It's important to match your approach to the experience you and your players want to have.

Personal story:
I am in the 40+ age group, I have been gaming for 30+ years (on and off). I currently live in Taiwan and so our group has both English and Chinese speaking gamers and now and then a Ukrainian or two. It's a flexible group as to who will turn up and how often. but there are 2 players with amazing memories. If I improve something and don't write it down, because I'm having too much fun or it's an unimportant throw away comment then 2 months later they they will have remembered that small detail about a town they visited for 20 minutes 2 months ago. By having the world prepped (Not story prepped) I reduce the chances of bringing them out of their characters in that way. .

 

[grendel111111]

Yeah and I think that stuff is important when the players announce a desire to try a challenge according to some specific parameters or the game operates under those assumptions.

Like "I wanna see if we can beat Tomb of Horrors rules-as-written", etc.

This is a borderline case since a lot of times the idea of (for example) how the reaction table works might be assumed to be the kind of thing the GM has house-ruled. The most important thing to keep in mind is:

What experience do the players (and GM) feel they signed up for?

I think this is really important, that you are clear about what experiences you are in the game for. This is why doing a session 0 can really helps set up expectations for the game rather than just going in blind (unless that is one of the expectations).
If you are wanting a character driven narrative built around characters backgrounds and the DM does a pre-written Adventure path, you are likely to be disappointed.
If you want to explore a pre-designed world and it is clear that things are getting made up on the spot you will be equally disappointed.
If you want a game with a tactical combat focus and combat is sidelined in favor of character/plot development then you will feel bored and un-satisfied.
If you want to solve complex situations, but everything is resolved with just a couple of dice rolls, then you're not getting what you are looking for.
If you want a long story arc like the Dragon Lance modules then you will be not be happy with an purely episodic game ( Like the current adventures league).
Add in that it is a group activity then you have to balance it for many people.

As a player I am happy to give up some "nowness" if it results in deeper richer combats and more complex interconnectedness in the setting.
Others would rather have the "nowness" even if it means that after a fight the DM looks at it and thinks he could have done a dozen things to improve it if he had the time to think it through before the players got to it.

 

[pemerton]

You are assuming a closed prep style DM with a linear story. There are also open prep DM's who do have not story except that which emerges. The big stuff is in motion (Who is behind the kidnappings, why are the ogres moving into this area...etc.). Their prep focus isn't on "story" but on "world".

Pre-planning can also ensure that the DM doesn't screw over the players. If the DM has a set location for things it prevents the situation of "it doesn't matter if you go North or East you will still get to the same place with the same encounter in it."

I think that the connection between pre-authoring a world and pre-authoring a story can be tighter than you suggest.

If the GM has a world pre-authored, then it is likely that the "secret backstory" - ie those elements of the fiction known to the GM (in virtue of his/her authorship) but not the players - will be drawn upon by the GM to adjudicate action declarations. But in these circumstances, the players are then - at least to some extent - firing blind when they make action declarations for their PCs. As well as the overtly-framed scene there are these other unknown elements that the GM will draw upon to help determine outcomes.

This is a type of burden on the agency of the players as contributors to the shared fiction.

There is an interesting question as to what counts as secret backstory. In classic dungeoneering D&D, the location of monsters, treasures etc starts secret but is knowable to the players by use of scouting, divination etc. In the 4e DMG's example of a skill challenge, the Duke is unable to be intimidated by the PCs, but this is learnable by the players if they declare Insight checks for their PCs.

But sometimes the GM's secret backstory isn't discoerable by the players (via their PCs) at all: eg on such-and-such a day the Duke will be assassinated by political enemies whom the players (and their PCs) have never even heard of, let alone displayed any interest in.

The thing of going N or E is interesting - if there is no reason for the players to choose one over the other, and nothing turns on that choice (eg it's not the case that fireball spells are more powerful when cast travelling to the E rather than the N) - then it's not entirely clear to me how the GM is screwing over the players by treating the choice of direction as mere colour that makes no practical difference to what the PCs meet.

Which also goes back to stake-setting: if the GM has set no stakes for the choice of direction of travel, or there are not even in-principle stakes (eg the players have no reason to think that casting Augury as to which way to go would help), then why should the GM care about which direction the PCs choose?

 

[Neonchameleon]

If you can climb, fail, and nothing happens then the GM either should not have made you roll (there was no time pressure, you had hours to set up ropes, etc) or the GM should have set up something that activated if the players didn't act fast enough.

Here I'm going to half agree with you. This is the way oD&D, B/X, BECMI, 1E, 4E, the OSR, and The Forge/Storygames would have you do things. Most games outside these groupings IME do not poitn you in that direction.

Pardon if I have missed this somewhere in the mix...

One major benefit of pre-authorship is pre-design. Sometimes, you actually want to make sure what you are presenting is really thought through before players encounter it.

Games that are tactically deep typically need fairly carefully considered design of the tactical challenges, resource depletion rates, and the like, to keep them challenging, but not overwhelming.

I'm going to add two caveats here. Games that are deep with no way of backing down need carefully considered design of the challenges. Old school megadungeons aren't as alert to the challenges - they are more based on a "test your skill/luck" basis. How far into the dungeon can/dare you go on the trip? There is no expectation that the PCs complete the thing in one run, so there just has to be an ascending difficulty curve and it's up to the PCS to decide when to pull out with enough resources left to make it back. The second is that if you're not leaving ways of backing down then balance is vital - balance is information, nothing more and nothing less. And in a decently balanced game like 4e I can drop complex challenges on the fly which will challenge the party probably without killing them.

As a player I am happy to give up some "nowness" if it results in deeper richer combats and more complex interconnectedness in the setting.
Others would rather have the "nowness" even if it means that after a fight the DM looks at it and thinks he could have done a dozen things to improve it if he had the time to think it through before the players got to it.

As a player I see the richer interconenctedness as not even slightly in tension with nowness. When you've a table full of people making connections, even on the fly, connections end up richer than they do with one person however much prep time they put in.

I don't find mono-vision "consistent" worlds to be immersive. People themselves aren't consistent and neither is the world we live in to the degree a "consistent" world normally tries to be.

 

[Zak S]

The thing of going N or E is interesting - if there is no reason for the players to choose one over the other, and nothing turns on that choice (eg it's not the case that fireball spells are more powerful when cast travelling to the E rather than the N) - then it's not entirely clear to me how the GM is screwing over the players by treating the choice of direction as mere colour that makes no practical difference to what the PCs meet.

In only one (potentially minor) way: you're basically inserting (perhaps merely a second of) thinking that doesn't matter into the middle of play.

Each time the players' choice matters they are that much more sharing authorship author of the story. Each time it doesn't they are that much less.

If you have a lot of choices that do not matter (whether because of the world's geography, the number of GM-planned-but-unpredictable-to-players events timeline or the number of powerful NPCs) you lessen the degree to which players share authorship.

This is by degrees--not all at once. As soon as you have a single NPC act on their own or meteor shower or room with two adjacent mysterious entrances, you have lessened player authorship a little--that's not a disaster and isn't railroading. It's necessary to take up some space and set some limits to have a normal D&D game at all.

Railroading occurs at the precise moment where there are so many of these limiters the players bump up against the limits of their authorship and announce they don't like it--these limits are making it less fun. It's subjective--but the more limiters you put, the harder you push in that direction.

 

[Zak S]

Here I'm going to half agree with you. This is the way oD&D, B/X, BECMI, 1E, 4E, the OSR, and The Forge/Storygames would have you do things. Most games outside these groupings IME do not poitn you in that direction.

The question isn't whether the games "point" you in that direction, the question's whether it's a good idea and fun.

I can't think of a reason it'd be fun (even in the long term) to roll success/fail for a thing where failure and time-consumption has no consequence and success is assured if you just keep rolling.

If a game tells you to do that either:
-it sucks
or
-it has some secret fun reason to do that I don't know about

 

[Neonchameleon]

The question isn't whether the games "point" you in that direction, the question's whether it's a good idea and fun.

I can't think of a reason it'd be fun (even in the long term) to roll success/fail for a thing where failure and time-consumption has no consequence and success is assured if you just keep rolling.

If a game tells you to do that either:
-it sucks
or
-it has some secret fun reason to do that I don't know about

Part of it is the baseline assumption "Why are the PCs trying something risky if there's no pressure to succeed?" But I for one have never understood the appeal of process-sim games as an intentional approach (and if I wanted them no human can match a computer) - so I can't say why people think it's a good idea (or indeed whether it was simply an anti-4e edition war claim that it was a good idea).

 

[Zak S]

Part of it is the baseline assumption "Why are the PCs trying something risky if there's no pressure to succeed?" But I for one have never understood the appeal of process-sim games as an intentional approach (and if I wanted them no human can match a computer) - so I can't say why people think it's a good idea (or indeed whether it was simply an anti-4e edition war claim that it was a good idea).

Confused: if it's risky then by definition there ARE consequences to failure.