Failing Forward

[pemerton]

Let me repeat... the sandbox is authored after the PC's create their characters... so it incorporates their goals beforehand

<snip>

the person GM'ing the next game creates his sandbox which is built with the players goals, relationships, etc. in mind but (and this is where I think it differs from your approach the most) also with things from the GM's own creative process included as well

The GM's creative processes are part of my game - that's where the dark elf came from, after all. And the pyramid in the Bright Desert. (The desert itself was implicated in the mage PC's backstory, because the player found a photograph of the PC's ruined tower sitting in the hills overlooking pretty arid country - from memory, I think it is somewhere in India.)

A question: what happens if a character's goals change during the course of play (eg s/he decides s/he must find the Misty Lake so as to speak to its spirit and learn the location of the ancient vorpal sword Excelsior)?

Or is the idea that PCs' goals will not change, or at least not change in ways that goes beyond what has already been written into the world?

That could work for a one-shot/short campaign - and as I've posted a long way upthread, pre-authoring for a one-shot run by a good GM can be fun - but I"m not sure how it would work for a longer-running game.

 

[pemerton]

DM: The mace is gone, and in its place is a note saying, "If you want the mace, come to Misty Lake."

As I asked [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] - in this imagined episode of play, is the Misty Lake implicitly or explicitly flagged by the players as some sort of goal or some sort of concern for their PCs? If not, what is the GM doing?

 

[pemerton]

I thought it was about whether the PC's were aware of those factors... not whether they impacted or didn't impact the chance for success...

Somewhat pedantically, but still accurately: if the players are aware, then it's not secret backstory.

(If the PCs are aware in the fiction, but the players aren't aware at the table, and it's important to resolution, then that's a different thing again. Something has gone wrong with the PC/player interface.)

I think my concerns are fairly simple and straightforward: every time the GM draws upon pre-authored fiction to determine consequences within action resolution without that being part of the framing or the situation the players were engaging (via their PCs), it reduces the capacity of the players to push the fiction in the direction that they (playing their PCs) desire. And it increases the importance, to play, of the GM's pre-authored fiction.

The same things happens when the GM pre-authors a sandbox independently of the players and the players are then expected to engage that material: this increases the importance to play of the stuff the GM wrote, and reduces the capacity of the players to make the fiction what they want it to be.

A secondary consequence of a large amount of GM pre-authored backstory is that more play time gets spent by the players trying to learn the backstory (via talking to NPCs, or using divination spells, or scouting out locations, or whatever it might be). Which shifts the focus of play from drama to exploration. In a mystery/puzzle-type game, this is obviously a feature and not a bug, but in a character-drama type game I think the opposite is true.

"Fail forward", on the other hand, in which the fiction is kept loose or under-specified until it is either crystallised in accordance with player (and PC) desires - if checks succeed - or crystallised by the GM as part of the narration of failure - if checks fail - allows the players a greater capacity to influence the content of the fiction, by reducing the influence of the GM's pre-authored content, while still giving rise to a rich fiction with dramatic scope.

The mindset that you shouldn't railroad applies to every playstyle other than railroad, and a game with pre-authoring pushes you away from railroading by having different and interesting content in every direction. No need to force any direction when all directions are fun and interesting.

A sandbox game is going to feel aimless if the player isn't imaginative enough and/or doesn't have the drive to give the game aim.

I'm surprised that you can't see that this is Exhibit A for my point about player agency, and for the rationale behind techniques such as "fail forward" and scene-framing.

You are saying that a sandbox should be engaging as long as the players engage with the stuff that the GM has offered them.

The point of my preferred techniques is to generate an engaging story, by way of RPGing, but without the GM being the one who introduces and offers all the stuff. The players won't have to be "imaginative enough" to build the game out of the GM's stuff, because they and the GM will be conjointly building the game out of stuff injected by all of them.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm surprised that you can't see that this is Exhibit A for my point about player agency, and for the rationale behind techniques such as "fail forward" and scene-framing.

You are saying that a sandbox should be engaging as long as the players engage with the stuff that the GM has offered them.

No. That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that the stuff exists and the players engage with what they choose. In my example, the DM never offered me a barbarian PC. Nor did he offer me the tribes to be united. Nor Cormyr to be conquered. I did that all myself. I see no reason why it's somehow worse that those tribes and Cormyr are pre-authored, than if I authored up some tribes and a country to conquer myself. The end result is essentially identical.

The point of my preferred techniques is to generate an engaging story, by way of RPGing, but without the GM being the one who introduces and offers all the stuff. The players won't have to be "imaginative enough" to build the game out of the GM's stuff, because they and the GM will be conjointly building the game out of stuff injected by all of them.

After all I and others have said, I don't get how you can think it's "the GM being the one who introduces and offers all the stuff." That's not what our playstyle is about and pre-authoring does not cause that.

 

[pemerton]

In my example, the DM never offered me a barbarian PC. Nor did he offer me the tribes to be united. Nor Cormyr to be conquered. I did that all myself.

<snip>

After all I and others have said, I don't get how you can think it's "the GM being the one who introduces and offers all the stuff."

The option to build a barbarian PC came from the D&D rule book. But the tribes, and Cormyr, don't appear in that rulebook. Where did they come from? I assume a FR setting book, probably with Ed Greenwood's name on the cover. And how do they become available as story elements for you to engage with as a PC? Because the GM (or, perhaps, the group) chose that setting.

They weren't authored by you, the player.

I see no reason why it's somehow worse that those tribes and Cormyr are pre-authored, than if I authored up some tribes and a country to conquer myself. The end result is essentially identical.

Well this is a statement of preference, and perhaps of aesthetic imagination.

For me, there is a big difference between me, as GM, writing a setting and then putting it forward for the players to engage with, as the limits of what they can do with their PC; and me, as a GM, following the leads they provide through their own backstories and action declarations, and the upshot of all that constituting the campaign setting.

The difference is about authorship and agency, about creativity and self-expression.

 

[Imaro]

This is where I have issue, not with you, but with the "PC concept." In a D&D sense (which I rarely play anymore), I wouldn't even have a concept in the works until level 5 or 6. I develop background during play not before play begins. I find it too restricting and want the freedom to develop the concept of character during play rather than before. I want the decisions made to influence and direct the PC's development. I don't come into play knowing any of that. I have a few personality traits, for example, grumpy dwarf, but not the why developed. Nor do I want it to be developed until I've been playing with the character a while. This is one of the reasons I don't find interest in pre-authored content. How can anything be pre-authored for my character when I don't know enough about the character yet. Frame him in a scene, see what emerges and what choices the character makes and move on from there.

I find pre-authored sandbox play the most frustrating type of play. Choices are expected to be made when character hasn't even been developed yet. And so PCs head in a "random" direction and encounter a pre-authored situation which isn't connected to any of the characters. Since there's no connection to the character, because we haven't framed scenes to aid in that development, the pre-authored content doesn't force choices of consequence. Rescue the princess or not isn't a good choice when, am I good or evil hasn't even been tested yet. Am I moral character or not? Do I value gold or magic or ale? What's my motivation? I prefer choices that test those attributes of character before we even start talking about big plot points. Maybe we find out at the third session that one of the character's motivations is to buy and own a tavern because he just encounter an interesting barkeep. How could we have pre-authored that, when the player didn't know that was going to be of interest? Maybe another character is struggling with the killing of creatures and his desire for a life of luxury brought on by wealth? How do we answer the question with pre-authored content when the player didn't even know at the time of character creation, that it was going to be a complication with the character? \

Anyway, I like a different type of game and a different way of having it played. I'm okay with that. But in 30+ years of gaming I have moved away from pre-authored games and now stick with the type I enjoy. As should everyone.

As a GM I would find this set up... awkward. Even games heavily geared towards narrative like FATE have you create a concept and a couple of aspects to give the GM some direction. How I read the above was... I don't want to have a concept, or goals or anything that defines my character... but I also don't want to have the first adventure be meaningful to my character (huh??)...

Now honestly I don't see how whether you choose to rescue the princess (and it should be one of numerous choices in a sandbox) doesn't say something about your character? Especially if they know about this princess, her background, and those who want them to rescue her (what are their motivations?), etc. In fact unless it's a railroad I don't see how your choices in-game aren't defining these things? Do you ask for more money to rescue her? Do you donate your share to a monastery? Do you trade in your gold for a magic weapon if it's found? Perhaps I'm unclear on exactly how you test those things in a character that has given no background and no pre-set motivations/goals except to present the choice and see what happens... am I missing something here?

 

[Imaro]

The GM's creative processes are part of my game - that's where the dark elf came from, after all. And the pyramid in the Bright Desert. (The desert itself was implicated in the mage PC's backstory, because the player found a photograph of the PC's ruined tower sitting in the hills overlooking pretty arid country - from memory, I think it is somewhere in India.)

You're zeroing in on only part of my statement... I didn't say the DM creative process wasn't part of your playstyle... the difference, at least IMO, is that as the DM I get to flex my creative processes from the get go as opposed to being restrained to using it only at points of faiure.

A question: what happens if a character's goals change during the course of play (eg s/he decides s/he must find the Misty Lake so as to speak to its spirit and learn the location of the ancient vorpal sword Excelsior)?

Or is the idea that PCs' goals will not change, or at least not change in ways that goes beyond what has already been written into the world?

Well, and again speaking only to how I create and run my sandboxes, since everything cannot possibly be created from day 1 (Both time and imagination are constraints) there are always things being added to the sandbox weekly. My players and I have an understanding that if the character decides to go in a different direction whether motivation/goal wise, exploration wise, or even theme-wise... either in-game flags or out of game discussion should signal this and that will be factored into the sand box at a later time... though admittedly I try to have at least some if not all of the necessary pre-authored material for this change of direction ready by next play session.

Now I'd like to go into some of the advantages I see of doing it my way as opposed to improv 'ing as we go, with three caveats... This is off the cuff and just my immediate thoughts as opposed to being deeply analyzed... that I do implement some improvisaton in my game but try to keep it restricted to minor and/or easily remembered things... and that this works to my strengths and weaknesses as a DM and may not work as well or at all for another...

1. It dispenses with the need to keep track of large swaths of improvised setting/story information (My players don't mind jotting down notes but keeping track of a setting being built feels like too much work in the moment of actual play for us.)

2. It provides a consistent and deep setting that is ideal for both exploration and character driven play (this is important because I have a mix of players when it comes to which style they enjoy some enjoy character driven games while others just want to explore grab gold and fight beasties).

3. It allows me as the DM to be reactive to my players and what they want to do while still playing to my strengths of evoking setting (description, sense of wonder, etc.).

4. Provides a feeling of versimilitude for I and my players... this is important because I've noticed in my players that if the world doesn't feel like it has a life of it's own, they are less likely to make connections with NPC's and tend to care about things only at a very superficial level.

5. Provides a certain level of objectivity for those players who value overcoming combat and non-combat challenges, either through skill use, clever thinking or even avoidance.

That could work for a one-shot/short campaign - and as I've posted a long way upthread, pre-authoring for a one-shot run by a good GM can be fun - but I"m not sure how it would work for a longer-running game.

Well if anecdotes help I ran my Far North campaign for 5e in this manner from level 1 to level 12, and it only ended because the PC's actually achieved their goals at that point... though not necessarily in the manner they first believed they would.

 

[Imaro]

As I asked @Imaro - in this imagined episode of play, is the Misty Lake implicitly or explicitly flagged by the players as some sort of goal or some sort of concern for their PCs? If not, what is the GM doing?

He's creating a challenge/setback to get the mace.... that just happens to lead somewhere he wants the PC's to go... I thought the whole point was that the GM could introduce anything (within the confines of the fiction) as a result of failure...

 

[sheadunne]

As a GM I would find this set up... awkward. Even games heavily geared towards narrative like FATE have you create a concept and a couple of aspects to give the GM some direction. How I read the above was... I don't want to have a concept, or goals or anything that defines my character... but I also don't want to have the first adventure be meaningful to my character (huh??)...

Correct. Which is why I play my own system that focuses more specifically on what I want. If there was a system I found more accurate to my preference, I would be playing it. FATE is okay but it doesn't meet my needs, nor do other games like BW, Dungeon World, etc. They all have aspects I like but as a whole their play procedures don't meet my needs, which is more of a bookkeeping assessment than a feeling assessment. Those games are all still focused on "adventure" and getting right to it. I like a slower development than they provide. Most, if not all, of those types of game are designed to get right into the action, they still require the development of concept which I'm not ready for at the start of a game if I want to be invested in it. I can still have lots of fun, but it's not ideal, just as I can still have fun in an AP. Sandbox is another story, but that's just my personal preference.

Now honestly I don't see how whether you choose to rescue the princess (and it should be one of numerous choices in a sandbox) doesn't say something about your character? Especially if they know about this princess, her background, and those who want them to rescue her (what are their motivations?), etc. In fact unless it's a railroad I don't see how your choices in-game aren't defining these things? Do you ask for more money to rescue her? Do you donate your share to a monastery? Do you trade in your gold for a magic weapon if it's found? Perhaps I'm unclear on exactly how you test those things in a character that has given no background and no pre-set motivations/goals except to present the choice and see what happens... am I missing something here?

What I'm saying, in probably an awkward way, is that those things shouldn't define the character, they should test and challenge what the character has already developed during play. At the start of the game, I'm not in a position to know those things, I can guess at them, but that's about it. There's nothing more frustrating for me than to have to change concept, belief, goals during play because I didn't have enough play time to make accurate decisions. Sandbox play tends to exaggerate this because the choices seem to get more locked in because of the pre-authored nature of the choices. Do you go left or right? Ummm, left looks interesting and fun. Nope, I made a mistake, it's not really interesting to my character after all, although it might be fun for the player. I'll just sit back and wait for it to be done (uninteresting), leave and derail everyone else's fun (Jerk), or alter my character to fit into the game and the direction it's heading (should have been unnecessary). Even in a game that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] would run, I might still find myself in this situation, but I have more confidence in the types of play, that by the nature of the system and the play style, would be able to find a way to make it more individually interesting to my character. That's just based on my experience and not anything else.

What does play look like for me? Micro-choices. The types of choices we make every day in our lives that define who we are and our preferences. We all agree on the type of genre we want to emerge into (sci-fi, fantasy, modern, etc). I like to start my character off with what I'm in the mood for, physical, mental, or social play. Some thought into what the character looks like. Maybe a few personality quirks (winks a lot, is grumpy, likes to hug people, etc.). After a few sessions of character interactions and a few decisions where the players make micro-choices and help to define who they are, we'll slowly move into real choices. The GM's role at in the beginning is simply to react and provide opportunity for character exploration. The players need very little from the GM other than to begin to blend the choices into a coherent world (this is sometimes harder than I'd like but it's fun). These micro-choices and character interactions will start to develop into beliefs and goals. Maybe my character, through his interaction with another character, comes to view himself as a helpful person or maybe he realizes he's greedy and jealous. If I had chosen "likes to hug people" I'm now starting to see why he hugs people. If he's helpful, maybe he does it because it will make the other person feel better, and if he's greedy, maybe it's his way of determining what the other person has on him he can steal. I find it important for me, if I am to become invested in the character, if this opportunity is given a spot light at the beginning of the game, rather than throughout the game, when the choices are more significant and death is on the line.

I find it's significantly more difficult for this type of play to work under pre-authoring for me, since the GM is purely reactive to the characters rather than pro-active. The backstory that emerges is not secret and remains in play throughout the game. I've certainly tried to do it taking a more pre-authoring stance, since I've had this preference for a very long time and when 99% of the games were pre-authored heavy, it was less gratifying. I found myself, when I ran these types of games, steering players toward pre-authored materials (as I was encouraged to do by the system), rather than react to the choices and needs the players had. They were still fun games, as most games with friends are, they were just lacking for me. I ran a 3 year champaign in a sandbox 10 or so years ago that was hugely successful, but I found that it wasn't the pre-authored bits that made it so, but rather the focus on the character and the improvisational nature of the way it was run. We had to fight against the system on many occasions and it made me question the reason we were still playing under it (d20), when we could use another system that supported that type of play as a focus was an option (we were already familiar with the d20 system at the time).

End thoughts - find a system that supports your type of play and if one doesn't exist, make it so. It's your fun to be had. And continue talking about it in places like this. It's where I started to question my own needs and begin to find out what I really want out of a game. It's still a work in progress, but progress is being made.

 

[Maxperson]

The option to build a barbarian PC came from the D&D rule book. But the tribes, and Cormyr, don't appear in that rulebook. Where did they come from? I assume a FR setting book, probably with Ed Greenwood's name on the cover. And how do they become available as story elements for you to engage with as a PC? Because the GM (or, perhaps, the group) chose that setting.

They weren't authored by you, the player.

Again, why does that matter? A barbarian tribe is a barbarian tribe is a barbarian tribe. There is no effective difference between one pre-authored or player authored. What's more, since they are pre-authored and the group chose the setting, if I as a player want to go interact with the barbarian tribe, the DM really has no choice in the matter. He can't deny me. The DM isn't giving me that content or forcing it on me. I'm forcing it on him by choosing to go and interact with it.

I don't see a barbarian tribe that comes into existence because I said so to be any better than one that came into existence because Ed Greenwood said so. Both will suit my purposes exactly the same. Neither can be denied by the DM without a bad DM railroading things. Only one, though, has a bunch of stuff already built in to give me ideas and for me to build off of. That makes pre-authoring much better in my opinion.

Well this is a statement of preference, and perhaps of aesthetic imagination.

For me, there is a big difference between me, as GM, writing a setting and then putting it forward for the players to engage with, as the limits of what they can do with their PC; and me, as a GM, following the leads they provide through their own backstories and action declarations, and the upshot of all that constituting the campaign setting.

The difference is about authorship and agency, about creativity and self-expression.

I get that it makes that difference for you. What I'm getting at, though, is that pre-authorship doesn't take any agency away from me as the player. Within the rules my character does what I want, how I want it. I have full agency over my PC to make choices. What's more, those limits you talk about aren't really limiting. If I don't like them I can find a way to leave the world and go somewhere else.