Failing Forward

[sheadunne]

My conflict between the two styles revolves around this.

Scene
After searching the tower I find a teleportation portal but I don't know where it leads, nor was I searching to find it to begin with.

Pre-Authored Game
I feel I have to go through the portal even if I don't particularly want to because I feel that the DM has prepped the game based on going through the Portal. If I don't go through it then the game will come to a stop or the DM will need to improvise a new adventure (which may or may not be in their wheel house). It doesn't feel like a decision point to me, just another path to the pre-authored adventure. If the DM improvises (and the game is still fun) then I have to ask the question, why prep to begin with?

Improve Game (Story Now, Fail Forward, etc)
The portal is simply another decision point. Do i go through the portal and see where it leads and explore somewhere different or do I continue on with other agendas that are important to the character? The decision is important but neither one will force the DM to make any decisions. It is all on me and where I want to go.


I enjoy both games, but when I play a pre-authored game (either a structured module or a DM created one) I have to tell myself not to wander off the path. I accept that I don't get to make important decisions on the direction of the game. This isn't a bad thing and I can have a lot of fun with that type of game. Sometimes I don't particularly want to make important decisions and I just want to be along for the ride, roll some dice, have some fun. The only negative is, I'm not particularly invested in the game or what happens in it.

On the other side, an Improve Game requires much more of my investment and depending on my mood, might be too much investment for me. I don't always want to make decisions or help to create the world. I don't want to have to author my backstory as we play or determine the direction my character wants to travel.

When I run games, I either run an AP (to avoid prep work) or it's entirely improved. I just don't want to invest that much of my free time in prep for a game. That's my preference and I find that if I do it well, players have a good time. If I don't, the game stalls in much the same way as if I had prepped but the characters went off the path.

 

[TwoSix]

The question isn't whether he followed the system's rules, agenda or principles... it's whether DM biases, preferences, etc. steer the game (and there was no qualifier of them having to suspend the resolution mechanics, in fact the point is that even in following the mechanics your biases and preferences can't help but show through). Now if I understand the paragraph above... even in choosing the "Turn their move back on them" @chaochou could have chosen numerous other outcomes such as his leadership being challenged by someone else in the tribe or perhaps the tribe fell to infighting among themselves but he didn't he chose to have the followers put the player in the burning effigy as his "move" because of his own preferences and desires. I mean this whole tangent started because you wanted to bring the effect of human psychology/preference into it when making your case for a pre-authoring DM being pre-disposed to railroading... are you now saying that it's possible or even likely for a DM to first be totally aware and of his conscious and subconscious preferences, interests, biases, etc. and also be capable of total impartiality when improv 'ing in the game? If not then the DM is exerting force that isn't necessarily directed at creating the best story but also in guiding the "story" in a direction in line with his own wants... he can't help but do so since these things (biases, preferences, etc.), whether we acknowledge them or not, affect everything we do.

If you define pre-authoring as "having an idea", then sure, everybody pre-authors. No pre-authoring doesn't mean that the DM doesn't also have an authorial role; she just shouldn't come in with implicit expectations of where any of her ideas might fit into play, and always assume that any idea might be modified by the intent of the players.

I think there's a difference in viewpoint between the relation of pre-created pieces of the game and how it relates to pre-authoring. To make a pointless, easily torn down metaphor, I kind of see pemerton's and Manbearcat's vision as dumping out a box of Legos and throwing out the instructions. The players and DM sit down and snap the pieces together and see what they can construct together. Your critique, Imaro, seems to be that the existence (and/or absence) of various types of Lego blocks has already done a fair bit of the creative work for them, thus being its own implicit pre-authoring. (Hopefully that Lego blocks are things like genre tropes and game systems and designed encounters are obvious so my metaphor works. Man, why did I go the metaphor route?)

 

[Imaro]

If you define pre-authoring as "having an idea", then sure, everybody pre-authors. No pre-authoring doesn't mean that the DM doesn't also have an authorial role; she just shouldn't come in with implicit expectations of where any of her ideas might fit into play, and always assume that any idea might be modified by the intent of the players.

I think there's a difference in viewpoint between the relation of pre-created pieces of the game and how it relates to pre-authoring. To make a pointless, easily torn down metaphor, I kind of see pemerton's and Manbearcat's vision as dumping out a box of Legos and throwing out the instructions. The players and DM sit down and snap the pieces together and see what they can construct together. Your critique, Imaro, seems to be that the existence (and/or absence) of various types of Lego blocks has already done a fair bit of the creative work for them, thus being its own implicit pre-authoring. (Hopefully that Lego blocks are things like genre tropes and game systems and designed encounters are obvious so my metaphor works. Man, why did I go the metaphor route?)

I think creating an antagonist (thus we know he will not befriend or even be neutral towards the PC's) of a specific race and deciding his "entrance" criteria into the game beforehand is a little more than an "idea"... but then let me turn this around for you, [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] @pemerton and @Manbearcat ... where do you three draw the line? how fleshed out must something be before it moves from "idea" to prepped.

Now I'll be transparent here, I don't like either approach in the extreme. If I could cite a product that is close to my preferred style it would be the adventures for Shadows of the Demon Lord. I've bought two of the low level adventures... "Slavers Lash" (4pgs long) & "Survival of the Fittest" (8pgs long). These adventures fall into what I consider pre-prep... but they are outline/template like in structure... leaving plenty of room to customize which I have done both beforehand and during actual game play. This is the style I prefer to use when creating my own campaign/adventure prep... more outline/template than a string of encounters that can't be avoided (which sadly seems to be how many on the side of improv seem to think all pre-prepped campaigns must be) Now unless I change it beforehand I tend not to change major things in the adventure/campaign in the heat of the moment, but smaller details, motivations of minor NPC's, appearances of monsters/NPC's and so on are up for grabs...

 

[Imaro]

My conflict between the two styles revolves around this.

Scene
After searching the tower I find a teleportation portal but I don't know where it leads, nor was I searching to find it to begin with.

Pre-Authored Game
I feel I have to go through the portal even if I don't particularly want to because I feel that the DM has prepped the game based on going through the Portal. If I don't go through it then the game will come to a stop or the DM will need to improvise a new adventure (which may or may not be in their wheel house). It doesn't feel like a decision point to me, just another path to the pre-authored adventure. If the DM improvises (and the game is still fun) then I have to ask the question, why prep to begin with?

Why do you assume this? Do you believe only one choice/decision path can be pre-prepped? The sandbox playstyle is usually pre-prepped and it provides a variety of decision paths... there's also pre-prep as session progresses. I guess I'm just trying to understand why you assume you have to go through the portal and that all paths lead to the same destination?

As to why prep as opposed to improvise... there are a couple reasons with the first being some DM's are better with prep. Another is that many may find it hard to keep track of details being created in the spur of the moment... (this is something I wonder about the high improv games... is someone continuously jotting down notes to safeguard campaign consistency, and if so who? As a DM I would hate to have to steadily take notes while also running the game, or keep a ton of info in my head without a reference to rely upon...). Some games aren't built for alot of improv, and so on.

 

[Emerikol]

First let me say that Fail Forward at it's most limited form is just a tiny step in the direction of the style of play I'm trying to avoid. I realize that a restrained use of said approach would not necessarily ruin my game.

In the games that first overtly talked about "fail forward" techniques - eg Burning Wheel, HeroWars, etc - the player doesn't invent the world either. Control over backstory - and particularly over consequences of failure - is in the hands of the GM. But the backstory in "fail forward" games is not authored primarily in advance.

While I can see the desire to flesh out minor details, I'm generally not desirous off adding significant background. To me that is creating the world on the fly which is something I want to avoid. To each his own though. Not condemning your approach.

Having the backstory already authored, so that the players discover it like the workings of a clock, would be one example of the pre-authorship that "fail forward" as a technique is intended to avoid.

To the degree that a detailed backstory could be developed I would want it developed. Now I realize that this is never a case of 0% or 100%. It's not the end of the world to add a minor detail that fits the existing story. I just dislike wholesale reinvention/addition on the fly.

I would also add: worlds that are authored in response to player action declarations can also be very deep. If you look back at the actual play examples I have given above, I don't think they imply a "shallow" campaign world.

I struggle for the right word to use here. Perhaps deepness is not the best. I know it when I see it. For me, worlds done adhoc and on the fly come across as shallow. They seem to lack what I see as depth. I realize complexity wise it can be achieved different ways. I just find myself bored and wanting the game to be over once I realize the DM is ad hoc'ing it. And to date I've not met one that could really fool me.

This is also true of the games I run. The GM authors the challenges. The players, via their PCs, confront them and do everything in their power to achieve those goals. Sometimes they succeed; sometimes they fail.

When they fail, new challenges result. (See some actual play examples upthread.)

For a good general discussion of this aspect of "fail forward" play, see the Eero Tuovinen blog I've linked to already upthread.

In a "fail forward" game, however, the parameters of the challenges - ie what backstory is constraining the possibility of success - is not spelled out in advance. So the players can't, for instance, reduce the chance of failure to (near-)zero by exploiting the fiction. In this sort of play, the drama of confronting challenges is prioritised over the logistics of overcoming them. (Contrast Gygaxian D&D, which reverses those priorities.)

This is a good point. I am very Gygaxian in my viewpoint. My players are very much about planning up front to make the actual battle easy. They sometimes succeed and it gives them a great deal of satisfaction at having played the game "well" or "skillfully" when they do. Of course, things don't always go according to plan because their enemies are playing to win as well. As DM, I try very hard to play the monsters very accurately. My job is to provide a working simulation of a world that my players can then be their characters. I work very hard to not be biased or to use "metagame" knowledge that the monsters would not have. I often write down close order action drills for my monsters based on careful thought about what they would actually know versus what I know as DM. So winning is not MY objective. MY objective is to provide a consistent world that follows set rules and contains interesting puzzles and challenge to be overcome. My players sole goal is to win.

Who doesn't?

The idea that "fail forward" undermines consistency is another red herring. To go back to Mt Pudding, there is nothing inconsistent about a world in which climbers sometimes lose important gear down ravines.

I agree with [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] that you are drawing a false dichotomy here.

I really think it would be helpful if you engaged with some of the actual play examples that have been posted upthread, Then you could talk about how actual games are actually being played rather than how you imagine them being played.

In my game where the PCs searched the ruined tower for the nickel-silver mace, and instead found black arrows apparently forged by the mage PC's brother before his possession by a balrog, there was no "teaming at the metagame level". The players were just playing their PCs. What is different from the style that you seem to prefer is that I, the GM, authored some new campaign backstory as a result of the failed Scavenging check, so as to put the fiction into a situation which (i) was not what the PCs (and players) had wanted it to be, and (ii) forced the players to make new, hard choices.

That is "fail forward" in action.

It is a perhaps a failure of communication. I'm not sure how to solve that problem. I'm not against a DM allow for realistic possibilities. If the adventure involved a mountain trek though I'd have developed a table with various possible outcomes in advance. I never choose something to make the story interesting. I am a neutral as DM.

 

[Emerikol]

My conflict between the two styles revolves around this.

Scene
After searching the tower I find a teleportation portal but I don't know where it leads, nor was I searching to find it to begin with.

Pre-Authored Game
I feel I have to go through the portal even if I don't particularly want to because I feel that the DM has prepped the game based on going through the Portal. If I don't go through it then the game will come to a stop or the DM will need to improvise a new adventure (which may or may not be in their wheel house). It doesn't feel like a decision point to me, just another path to the pre-authored adventure. If the DM improvises (and the game is still fun) then I have to ask the question, why prep to begin with?

Improve Game (Story Now, Fail Forward, etc)
The portal is simply another decision point. Do i go through the portal and see where it leads and explore somewhere different or do I continue on with other agendas that are important to the character? The decision is important but neither one will force the DM to make any decisions. It is all on me and where I want to go.

I think a Pre-Authored game is not necessarily a tightly scripted one. The biggest proponents of sandbox style games are those who prefer the pre-authored approach. As a DM, I prep for some time before I start a campaign. I do a lot less during the actual running campaign. I build a fairly decent sized sandbox. Now I admit you could try really hard to get out of the sandbox but I believe you can have a very character driven game and stay in my fairly expansive sandbox.

Usually at some point, I group will migrate to another sandbox. So you may start with a low level sandbox and then move somewhere at a higher level that is another often bigger sandbox. So while running the low level campaign, I'm often prepping the next sandbox.

I realize some people of my persuasion are just running a series of module like adventures that is fairly linear. Kind of like the Pathfinder Adventure paths. That is fine. I don't prefer these types of games as much personally. I like the freedom of character choice but I want it limited to character only.

 

[grendel111111]

I think a Pre-Authored game is not necessarily a tightly scripted one. The biggest proponents of sandbox style games are those who prefer the pre-authored approach. As a DM, I prep for some time before I start a campaign. I do a lot less during the actual running campaign. I build a fairly decent sized sandbox. Now I admit you could try really hard to get out of the sandbox but I believe you can have a very character driven game and stay in my fairly expansive sandbox.

Usually at some point, I group will migrate to another sandbox. So you may start with a low level sandbox and then move somewhere at a higher level that is another often bigger sandbox. So while running the low level campaign, I'm often prepping the next sandbox.

I realize some people of my persuasion are just running a series of module like adventures that is fairly linear. Kind of like the Pathfinder Adventure paths. That is fine. I don't prefer these types of games as much personally. I like the freedom of character choice but I want it limited to character only.

Yes, there seems to be a lot of confusion that if it is not improv then it must be scripted. I think this partly comes from the uses of these terms in theatre.

 

[sheadunne]

I think a Pre-Authored game is not necessarily a tightly scripted one. The biggest proponents of sandbox style games are those who prefer the pre-authored approach. As a DM, I prep for some time before I start a campaign. I do a lot less during the actual running campaign. I build a fairly decent sized sandbox. Now I admit you could try really hard to get out of the sandbox but I believe you can have a very character driven game and stay in my fairly expansive sandbox.

Usually at some point, I group will migrate to another sandbox. So you may start with a low level sandbox and then move somewhere at a higher level that is another often bigger sandbox. So while running the low level campaign, I'm often prepping the next sandbox.

I realize some people of my persuasion are just running a series of module like adventures that is fairly linear. Kind of like the Pathfinder Adventure paths. That is fine. I don't prefer these types of games as much personally. I like the freedom of character choice but I want it limited to character only.

I like to call the sandbox approach the pinball style. The characters bounce around from one unconnected pre-authored point to another, hoping to get somewhere that doesn't exist, all the while trying to stay alive. It's fine, but I never feel I have any decision points to make that actually matter. Neither X or Y has been created and adjusted to my character's action declarations. I'm perfectly content gaming that way, but I'm not going to pretend that I'm at all invested in its outcomes.

 

[Imaro]

I like to call the sandbox approach the pinball style. The characters bounce around from one unconnected pre-authored point to another, hoping to get somewhere that doesn't exist, all the while trying to stay alive. It's fine, but I never feel I have any decision points to make that actually matter. Neither X or Y has been created and adjusted to my character's action declarations. I'm perfectly content gaming that way, but I'm not going to pretend that I'm at all invested in its outcomes.

Wow... I'm starting to think you've really had some bad DM's when it comes to sandbox and pre-planned play... Because what you've described in both instances in no way encompasses all those playstyles have to offer...

 

[sheadunne]

Why do you assume this? Do you believe only one choice/decision path can be pre-prepped? The sandbox playstyle is usually pre-prepped and it provides a variety of decision paths... there's also pre-prep as session progresses. I guess I'm just trying to understand why you assume you have to go through the portal and that all paths lead to the same destination?

As to why prep as opposed to improvise... there are a couple reasons with the first being some DM's are better with prep. Another is that many may find it hard to keep track of details being created in the spur of the moment... (this is something I wonder about the high improv games... is someone continuously jotting down notes to safeguard campaign consistency, and if so who? As a DM I would hate to have to steadily take notes while also running the game, or keep a ton of info in my head without a reference to rely upon...). Some games aren't built for alot of improv, and so on.

I don't assume this, I "feel" this from my experience, which is why I used that word specifically in my post. I'm not stating fact, I'm stating my opinion and the way I feel about it, based on my experience that every time a portal comes up, it's the direction the game is heading. I've never had a game where that wasn't the case. But again, it's just one example and getting bogged down by examples doesn't really accomplish much.

I'm not trying to figure people play the way they do, I struggle with my own interests not other people's. As I mentioned, I'm content playing in a pre-authored game (mostly without investment) as I am with playing in an Improv game (mostly without the energy that's constantly required). I struggle with picking one that's consistently of interest to me, although at this point in my life I'm certainly leaning more for a story-now approach, at least in my running of games.

When I run games, I don't take any notes, I rely on the players to do it. If they're invested in the consistency of the world, then they're required to contribute to it. We also do a "previously on" chat at the beginning of the game to refresh our minds around the game. It also gives the players who might have missed the session a chance to review what they missed. I like to keep details as vague and underdeveloped as possible so that I can establish them as we play, I expect the same from the players. We can explore the character and what makes them tick during play.

Overall I think prep suffers from the investment of the DM in its existance. I know a few DMs that have no trouble creating something and then throwing it away, but from my experience, that's not the norm, but the exception. I do the same thing and work at it. If I think of something cool to put into the game, then I want it in the game, but it's never as cool for everyone else as it is for me. And as a player I'm never impressed in what the DM created, unless it was the result of my characters actions.

Certainly some games are better at it than others. The 3x/PF D20 system isn't particularly good at it, especially when it involves combative challenges and skill usage (skills in the game have very clear success results). I enjoy playing the system, but won't run it again. It's too difficult to do without prep. 5e certainly lends itself more to improv style of play, but when I play D&D I want to be playing D&D and it just feel like it to me. D&D is not improve. I've accepted that.