Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8102054" data-attributes="member: 42582">When we talk about an "adventure module" or "preparing and adventure", I generally take the meaning of adventure to be something like what Hobbits mean when they talk about having an adventure, or to be something like what we mean when we talk about adventure fiction. In either case, that's something like a series of dramatic, exciting and/or hazardous events.In the context of GM prep for RPGing, its the series of events that is typically prepped (look at eg the advice in multiple editions of the DMG; or the advice for "node-based design"; or a module like Speaker in Dreams). And it is the preparation of that series of events that is at odds with playing to find out what happens.Sometimes the events are prepped in the form of potentialities or conditionalities - eg "If the PCs speak to NPC so-and-so, she will tell them such-and-such" or "If the PCs attempt such-and-such, NPC so-and-so will react by A-ing." Setting preparation can involve a fair bit of this. I think this is also at odds with playing to find out what happens, because it is still the GM's pre-authorship that is driving the consequences of player action declarations.My experience is that it is not terribly difficult to present a situation, and adjudicate consequences, without relying on this sort of pre-authorship. All it takes is a bit of practice. But it is still somewhat uncommon - outside of a somewhat focused/specialised set of RPGs - to see a non-pre-authorship approach presented as the norm.It's fairly easy to overlook what elements of GM technique, of fiction, and of mechanics, push in favour of or against this sort of approach. And this is reinforced by the fact that many RPGs don't overtly talk about these features of their systems.Eg GM technique: framing scenes in a way that allows players to see, or through "warming up" action declarations to establish, what is at stake will help support playing to find out. Framing scenes so that what is at stake is opaque (eg The GM's notes say, of an NPC, "He always reacts badly under such-and-such circumstances" but the players aren't choosing or shaping or controlling those conditionalities, so that outcomes are arbitrary relative to player knowledge and interests and goals) will undermine playing to find out. This instead pushes towards playing to learn what is in the GM's notes. Which is probably the most common form of RPG play. (See eg [USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER]'s post not far upthread.)Eg Fiction: fiction which involves both trajectory and uncertainty allows stakes to be established and consequences to be extrapolated as part of the process of action resolution - VIncent Baker's examples of play in Apocalypse World are really good illustrations of this. Whereas fiction that is static and certain will produce a very different sort of experience - consider eg The Tomb of Horrors as one example of extremely static and certain fiction.Eg Mechanics: mechanics that produce finality of resolution - ie definite changes in the fiction that (i) matter given what is at stake, and (ii) bind all participants, including the GM, and especially in relation to what matters - are very good for playing to find out.  Skill challenges in 4e D&D are one example of this. The system in Classic Traveller for resolving hazardous manoeuvres performed while wearing a vacc suit is another example. These two examples show how it is possible to have quite different mechanical approaches to achieving finality of resolution.Conversely, there are many RPG mechanics that don't produce finality in resolution - eg onworld exploration in Classic Traveller, where the mechanics are make such-and-such checks per day but it is the GM who gets to decide how many days are required; or the mechanics for producing artworks, performances and the like in many RPGs, which often provide a system for working out how nice the work or performance is while leaving it up to the GM to decide whether or not any given NPC is impressed by, or indifferent to, works or performances of that sort.When preparing a scenario with the goal of playing to find out what happens, it's helpful to keep all these things in mind:* What sort of fiction do I want, that will avoid static fiction and allow for genuine dynamism?* What mechanics do I have to handle this? (eg it's no good framing things around a chase scene if your system has no way of resolving chases with finality)* How will stakes be established and made clear, and how are parameters for consequences going to be established and managed?I think that if these things are under control, it's possible to run a pretty engaging scenario with very little prep of the traditional sort.</blockquote>

Verification