Failing Forward

[Umbran]

Depth is there whether the player appreciates it or not.

But, depth that the player does not appreciate is effectively wasted effort. The GM should spend time on things that the players do appreciate, when it is possible to know or guess that beforehand. This is a large part of the drive of content created in the moment - not needing to make up a ton of content beforehand that nobody's actually going to care about.

It's jumping into a pool vs jumping into a puddle. The depth is set even if you never jump into either one.

And here is one of many keys to GMing - if you're treading water in a dark ocean, you *don't know* how deep the water is. You only have to provide the suggestion of depth, until such time as a character chooses to dive, or is dragged down by a kraken

In practice, that means that the GM shoud develop the depths around expected kraken, and around things they expect the players to find intriguing and dive into. But developing depth *everywhere*, such that random elements will all have depth, is probably not the best use of a GMs time.

 

[TwoSix]

Pre-authoring means authoring things before the scene. If I pre-author the fouled waterhole, that doesn't limit me to one way to use it, or that I even know for sure how it will be used. Pre-authorship does not have to be total in order for it to be pre-authorship. That's my point. You seem to be thinking that pre-authoring involves having a set advance plan that will happen no matter what in an exacting manner that isn't open to change.

I have trouble trusting your parsing of all of [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s posts, if after 800+ posts you still don't know that BW = Burning Wheel.

Still, let's boil down this down even further. No one is saying pre-authoring is bad, or that if you pre-author you're a lousy DM who loves to railroad his players. Some people are simply saying that for their DM style, it's a net negative. The gains in campaign consistency and depth of the world don't matter, because their game isn't about exploring the world. The game is about the characters, the setting is merely a frame to place their goals and drives into context.

What does matter is that if you pre-author an uncrossable canyon in the middle of the desert, or that the all the waterholes have been fouled by a Dark Elf so that the characters have to turn back, you as a DM have just c***blocked your players out of their protagonism. You made their statement of intent to cross the desert NOT MATTER, because it was more important to you as a DM to make your world have a canyon in it, or to illustrate that the dark elf is a cunning tactician who's also totally gross.

No one is saying that campaign world detail isn't a worthy goal for many styles of play, or the players and DMs who enjoy them. But for a game focused on narrative play, all it does it create hassle that's in opposition to the heart of the play style.

 

[TwoSix]

I still don't get a clear understanding of the difference... and I disagree, the moment the GM gets it in his head he wants to use one of the things he's statted up outside of play... whether he acknowledges it or not he's putting constraints on action declaration... such as pre-determining an NPC will be an antagonist... or even that on the next failure he will find a way to use this particular idea, NPC, etc. It's not in the moment at that point it's what I understand to be a pre-authoring of the fiction...

I'm really having trouble with what's so difficult to understand. If there's a detail about the campaign world the DM knows, and the players don't, and that fact AFFECTS THE SUCCESS OR FAILURE of the intent the players state, that is pre-authoring. Introducing a new element IN RESPONSE TO A ROLL is not pre-authoring. Also, a story element is not pre-authored simply because it is also not improvised. Bringing the Monster Manual to the game table is not pre-authoring simply because the stat blocks are already there.

 

[Imaro]

I'm really having trouble with what's so difficult to understand. If there's a detail about the campaign world the DM knows, and the player don't, and that fact AFFECTS THE SUCCESS OR FAILURE of the intent the players state, that is pre-authoring. Introducing a new element IN RESPONSE TO A ROLL is not pre-authoring. Also, a story element is not pre-authored simply because it is also not improvised. Bringing the Monster Manual to the game table is not pre-authoring simply because the stat blocks are already there.

So pre-authoring has nothing to do with actually pre-authoring fiction... and is instead just another name for what @pemerton has been referring to as "secret backstory" but only "secret backstory" that actually influences the chances for an action taken by the PC's to succeed or fail... Yeah real easy to follow and understand, how could I have ever gotten confused with the jargon...


EDIT: Also try to tone down the snarkiness... no one is forcing you to reply to me.

 

[TwoSix]

So pre-authoring has nothing to do with actually pre-authoring fiction... and is instead just another name for what @pemerton has been referring to as "secret backstory" but only "secret backstory" that actually influences the chances for an action taken by the PC's to succeed or fail... Yeah real easy to follow and understand, how could I have ever gotten confused with the jargon...


EDIT: Also try to tone down the snarkiness... no one is forcing you to reply to me.

Considering that the past 400 posts or so have contained constant explanations of what is meant by pre-authoring in this context, and what is objectionable about it in the context of a game focused on prioritizing character intent over setting, somebody needs to ask "Ok, what exactly is being missed around here?" A lot of this thread, which is quite useful in conversing about different styles of play and strengths and weaknesses of various approaches, is getting bogged down in semantics of "Well, this word means THIS, but 25 posts ago you used it to mean THAT."

 

[Imaro]

I have trouble trusting your parsing of all of @pemerton's posts, if after 800+ posts you still don't know that BW = Burning Wheel.

Still, let's boil down this down even further. No one is saying pre-authoring is bad, or that if you pre-author you're a lousy DM who loves to railroad his players. Some people are simply saying that for their DM style, it's a net negative. The gains in campaign consistency and depth of the world don't matter, because their game isn't about exploring the world. The game is about the characters, the setting is merely a frame to place their goals and drives into context.

Actually the insinuation was made earlier in this thread that pre-authored campaigns are more apt to fall into railroading... take that as you will. The other issue I see is you seem to be drawing a false dichotomy... that for some reason a game cannot have a fleshed out setting and still be about characters or vice versa...

What does matter is that if you pre-author an uncrossable canyon in the middle of the desert, or that the all the waterholes have been fouled by a Dark Elf so that the characters have to turn back, you as a DM have just c***blocked your players out of their protagonism. You made their statement of intent to cross the desert NOT MATTER, because it was more important to you as a DM to make your world have a canyon in it, or to illustrate that the dark elf is a cunning tactician who's also totally gross.

But no one is talking about doing things this way in the thread... insurmountable cliffs and every single waterhole being fouled in a desert so the players have to turn back are extreme examples of railroading... not what I and many other posters are talking about when we use pre-authored. I think alot of the confusion has been that the original use of pre-author in the context of this thread is not the same one you and @pemerton are now using (and I have finally gotten a handle on) which as far as I understand it is a campaign with "secret backstory" that actively hinders (or stops??? still unclear around this) the PC's in their actions/protagonism.

We are talking about said canyon being in the desert, and having a DC to cross and success or failure of that climb check determines whether you made it past the obstacle... A dark elf who is prowling the desert and there is a X% chance he has poisoned the particular waterhole you've stumbled upon (doesn't mean you can't attempt to purify it though)... of course if you are actively searching for fresh water then a successful skill check means you found it. I'm not seeing where protagonism is being taken away. If anything because we are at a more granular level... there are more opportunities for it... as opposed to a single survival check to cross and entire desert without encountering a single hazard or hardship.

No one is saying that campaign world detail isn't a worthy goal for many styles of play, or the players and DMs who enjoy them. But for a game focused on narrative play, all it does it create hassle that's in opposition to the heart of the play style.

Again another false dichotomy... for those of us adept in using the tools... detail in a campaign world does not in and of itself create a hassle or opposition to narrative play.

 

[Imaro]

Considering that the past 400 posts or so have contained constant explanations of what is meant by pre-authoring in this context, and what is objectionable about it in the context of a game focused on prioritizing character intent over setting, somebody needs to ask "Ok, what exactly is being missed around here?" A lot of this thread, which is quite useful in conversing about different styles of play and strengths and weaknesses of various approaches, is getting bogged down in semantics of "Well, this word means THIS, but 25 posts ago you used it to mean THAT."

And I would say if what you really mean is "railroad" which isn't a playstyle anyone in this thread is advocating for... then use the term "railroad". Don't co-opt the term for someone else's playstyle... re-define it without noting that and then act like there shouldn't be any confusion in the conversation.

 

[TwoSix]

And I would say if what you really mean is "railroad" which isn't a playstyle anyone in this thread is advocating for... then use the term "railroad". Don't co-opt the term for someone else's playstyle... re-define it without noting that and then act like there shouldn't be any confusion in the conversation.

That's because railroad is most commonly accepted as a pejorative term, and is so loosely defined that its use is almost meaningless for discussion.

Actually the insinuation was made earlier in this thread that pre-authored campaigns are more apt to fall into railroading... take that as you will. The other issue I see is you seem to be drawing a false dichotomy... that for some reason a game cannot have a fleshed out setting and still be about characters or vice versa...

I'm pretty sure it was stated, not insinuated, that pre-authored games are more likely to slip into railroading. It's a statement I agree with. Games with no pre-authoring are also far more prone to inconsistencies, and can more easily fall flat if the players are not sufficiently invested or if the DM is not as adept at improv. There are pluses and minuses to every approach, and the best approach is almost always specific to the combination of players, DMs, AND system in question.

And my statement wasn't that "pre-created setting" and "character focus" are in opposition, per se. It's more that bandwidth at the table is highly limited, and session time devoted to setting information unfamiliar to the characters is by definiton time not spent on information focused on the character's intent. Now, if you're skilled enough to always present pre-authored information in a way that both fleshes out the campaign setting and drives the characters' intents, than that's fantastic! I just think it's more difficult, and if the players have little interest in the setting, the gain in the overall play experience is minimal.

But no one is talking about doing things this way in the thread... insurmountable cliffs and every single waterhole being fouled in a desert so the players have to turn back are extreme examples of railroading... not what I and many other posters are talking about when we use pre-authored. I think alot of the confusion has been that the original use of pre-author in the context of this thread is not the same one you and @pemerton are now using (and I have finally gotten a handle on) which as far as I understand it is a campaign with "secret backstory" that actively hinders (or stops??? still unclear around this) the PC's in their actions/protagonism.

Not exactly what I'm talking about. If your campaign world has a mountain range between the desert and the city they're traveling to (that the players have not encountered yet), and they roll high on whatever skill roll is required to cross the desert, do you make them stop at the mountains? If you do, then your pre-authored mountains impacted their intent.

We are talking about said canyon being in the desert, and having a DC to cross and success or failure of that climb check determines whether you made it past the obstacle... A dark elf who is prowling the desert and there is a X% chance he has poisoned the particular waterhole you've stumbled upon (doesn't mean you can't attempt to purify it though)... of course if you are actively searching for fresh water then a successful skill check means you found it. I'm not seeing where protagonism is being taken away. If anything because we are at a more granular level... there are more opportunities for it... as opposed to a single survival check to cross and entire desert without encountering a single hazard or hardship.

I'm not saying that approach doesn't work for you. But what your pre-authoring did was say "Ok, you rolled a success on your desert crossing check, but now there's mountains, so you have to make a climbing check also." You increased the odds of the players failing without telling them ahead of the first roll.

 

[Imaro]

That's because railroad is most commonly accepted as a pejorative term, and is so loosely defined that its use is almost meaningless for discussion.

And yet it seems like it would convey what you and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] are talking about to a larger audience better than "pre-authored" has been able to.

And my statement wasn't that "pre-created setting" and "character focus" are in opposition, per se. It's more that bandwidth at the table is highly limited, and session time devoted to setting information unfamiliar to the characters is by definiton time not spent on information focused on the character's intent. Now, if you're skilled enough to always present pre-authored information in a way that both fleshes out the campaign setting and drives the characters' intents, than that's fantastic! I just think it's more difficult, and if the players have little interest in the setting, the gain in the overall play experience is minimal.

I think it's self-evident that if the players aren't interested in the setting then the gain in play experience is minimal... and vice versa. Your assumptions are also predicated on the players not being informed about the world or campaign setting they are playing in and therre not being enough time to adequately explore both character and setting in game sessions... neither of which I've found to be true... except maybe in systems where combat took an inordinate amount of time... Otherwise the players will steer towards what they are interested in exploring for a particular session or part of a session.

What I'm saying is that for the right group of players (and mine are definitely like this) the combination of the two... a world that has pre-set conditions (providing some unknowns, the chance to discover things they may have been interested in as goals but didn't think of in the beginning, a reason to research things, exploration, etc...) but that also allows their character's stories to take center stage (mainly in discovering how they achieve at realizing, fail at realizing, or change their character's goals) provides an even richer play experience... for me and my group. And IME all it takes is some pre-play discussion

Not exactly what I'm talking about. If your campaign world has a mountain range between the desert and the city they're traveling to (that the players have not encountered yet), and they roll high on whatever skill roll is required to cross the desert, do you make them stop at the mountains? If you do, then your pre-authored mountains impacted their intent.

Personally I wouldn't have them make a single roll to cross an entire dessert if I had the precise locations of certain hazards pre-authored. It's a question of granularity, which is something I believe I commented on before. that initial survival check would have been the first step (knowing my players imparting knowledge of the deserts landscape so they could decide which way to go) of multiple skill checks.

I'm not saying that approach doesn't work for you. But what your pre-authoring did was say "Ok, you rolled a success on your desert crossing check, but now there's mountains, so you have to make a climbing check also." You increased the odds of the players failing without telling them ahead of the first roll.

Of course information about the mountain could have easily been gleaned by some kind of knowledge check, or a geography check, or research... but then I guess in a game where success or failure dictates the world as opposed to the success of your character in the world (which IMO has very little to do with whether character goals, desires and needs are driving the story)... that's unnecessary.

No because again if I have spent the time bringing the desert down to a level of granularity where I know the position of the mountains... (something I believe is impossible in you and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] 's style of play) then the resolution will be more granular. Of course in my game there is a chance that the player's encounter the unknown... and said unknown is not directly related to them, and even in some way spawns it's own story... for us it creates a richer experience when interspersed with the purely character driven portions... it's actually a pretty common technique in literature, tv. etc.

It kind of works out like this.... where "Plot" are those external things and "Character" are the internally driven goals of the PC's in my games...
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SlidingScaleOfPlotVersusCharacters

 

[Umbran]

I'm not saying that approach doesn't work for you. But what your pre-authoring did was say "Ok, you rolled a success on your desert crossing check, but now there's mountains, so you have to make a climbing check also." You increased the odds of the players failing without telling them ahead of the first roll.

And? How often does *anyone* get to know *everything* in their way before they begin?

How is, "You crossed half the desert, and found a canyon in the way" really different from, "You picked the lock, and find there's a monster on the other side of the door"?

Because I'm really pretty sure you're going to lose an argument that says that GMs can't spring monsters on players unaware.