How to find the "joy of prep" in PbtA games?

[thefutilist]

If I was doing a floating prep improv style game, this would be my concern as well. It's the type of thing I lie in bed at night worrying about.

To expand on that a bit further. I want to be responsive to others contributions and having stuff I can use might lead me a bit toward the whole 'waiting for my turn to speak' thing.

And, as weird as it may sound, I'd be afraid of railroading myself.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

And, as weird as it may sound, I'd be afraid of railroading myself.

....sounds like a euphemism....

I mean, not that there's anything wrong with railroading yourself. We don't judge or kinkshame here.

 

[BookTenTiger]

I've started to post my campaign ideas (and a map) in this thread.

 

[clearstream]

Dunno. We are all subject to cognitive biases.

If I've already prepped something, it's going to be in my head. Can't help it.

And no matter what I might try to think or do, I am more likely to use something that's already takin' up my very limited brain space.

Other people are probably better than me, but I know myself well enough to understand that if I have something ready to go, I am going to find myself thinking, "Self, this seems like a great opportunity to use it!"

Is it right to say there's an implication that for some reason it would be less desirable to use it, no matter how great the opportunity, than to make up something on the spot? So that accompanying your compulsion to use that which you've established before the current play session is a preferencing of ludic facts established within the session. That same preferencing also shields ludic facts established in preceding sessions from any worries of inappropriately "railroading".

The preestablished ludic facts that are undesirable to use are, specifically, those that were established outside of the sessions of play. Seeing as they're undesirable to use, it's perforce undesirable to feel compelled to use them. While it remains desirable on both counts to use ludic facts established within sessions of play.

That led me to be curious about some cases that might form exceptions

One sort of ludic fact is a template for a thing that can appear in the game such as the Frostbound in Ironsworn. It seems likely that prepared templates have a different standing from prepared instances of that creature. Other examples of templates in Ironsworn would include assets (beneficial abilities and allies) and, in other games, archetypal character playbooks.​

​

Another sort of ludic fact is a wide area map such as the Ironlands for Ironsworn, with its labelled Havens, Veiled Mountains, etc. A closely connected sort of ludic fact is the snippet of fiction saying how to picture a specific part of that map, such as the Barrier Islands where there are Fisher-folk braving the wild sea.​

​

Another sort of ludic fact are those arranged into tables such as Oracles in Ironsworn. Their intent is to prompt participants to say things along some lines rather than some other lines, e.g. that a location be abandoned. A case in point would be a GM preparing an oracles table that they feel compelled to use as described.​

​

I've noticed TTRPG designers and play groups preparing all those sort of ludic facts without worries about railroading: they don't script what will happen in play, they preestablish a host of facts that may structure, colour, prompt and constrain the improvised play that will take place.

My present thinking is that it's taken the TTRPG community time to work out how to see stories of a desired type played without providing any script for those stories. Modern games forced a tectonic reappraisal of narrative that over the last decade that has borne fruit. It's desirable to preestablish the ludic facts that influence, inform, elevate without scripting my imagining through play of stories about being a monster holding back the apocalypse (Apocalypse Keys). Elsewhere I've used the label "ludonarrative" and wrote of traversing signifiers. Although there are problems with that precise definition, there is something in curating signifiers for use in play that is essential to ludonarrative, separating structured play (TTRPG) out from unstructured improv.

If that's right, then @BookTenTiger It looks like you've landed in the right spot. And the answer to "How do you find the joy of prep in running a Play to Find Out game?" will be not that it must not be done, but that one must be sensitive to the sorts of ludic facts that are ideal to preestablish. One guideline could be to think in terms of tools for structured play - tools for imagining stories of a certain type - without pre-writing those stories.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

@clearstream

That was some dense reading, and you're hearing that from me!

Have to say ... not sure you're going to be able to make "ludic fact" happen, but I understand what you're trying to do. Ludonarrative, however, might be a step too far.

Substantively, I am going to key in on this-

I've noticed TTRPG designers and play groups preparing all those sort of ludic facts without worries about railroading: they don't script what will happen in play, they preestablish a host of facts that may structure, colour, prompt and constrain the improvised play that will take place.

I think that the distinction I make for myself is that if the game* has published information ("ludic facts") that all participants are aware of, that is fine. For example, if you're playing BiTD, everyone knows the game is in Dukvol. If you're playing The Witch is Dead, all the pre-known facts (the ludic facts) are on the single piece of paper.

When it comes to prep, I am concerned (perhaps overly concerned) with the same thing that @thefutilist is. To make this more explicit, I will delineate two different kinds of prep using a specific system as an example.

Ten Candles is highly free form and a wonderful system for true tragic horror (I recommend purchasing it). For an Iron DM tournament, I wrote an adventure using the system- although it is more of a scenario.

When I ran the scenario I created for Iron DM later, the full scenario was provided to everyone- they had all the facts that I had. No other prep was done. And because of that, the gameplay went in weird, amazing, and tragically sad and horrific directions that I never could have imagined due to the player's authorship. That said, we all know how the game ends.

Now, I could have done more prep. Designed out the areas of interest. Thought of specific encounters. And so on. But if I had done that, I would have wanted to use them in response to what the players were doing, instead of reacting to what they were doing.

Which gets to what I think of as the salient distinction-

When I am playing games like this, any prep I do is shared with the players. I don't have secret prep. If I create a "ludic fact," then everyone is aware of it before the game starts, because that's not just an issue on my end (wanting to use pre-made material) but also an issue if a player is authoring facts that clash with my "secret facts."

I am not saying that people can't do this. I just approach these games differently, and worry about, as stated above, "railroading myself."


*For this post, I am using "game" to refer to TTRPG games, whether rules-lite, FKR, PbTA, FiTD, or otherwise that incorporate elements of "improv" in the sense that the participants (GM and players) are authoring the fiction (and facts) during the game play.

 

[thefutilist]

I don't really like the word prep and I'll explain why:

Say we're starting a Sorcerer game and the kicker I'm given is something like 'I'm an art dealer and a weird piece of art was recently stolen in transit to me.'.

Then I go away and create non player characters and back story based on that. So let's say I create a hot art thief girl, an organized crime boss, an unbound demon artefact and a few others. I think of the back story and personalities and stats. These things are now set. They're not floating prep that I can use, they're stuff that I have to use. I have no problem with this but then is it really prep or just situation the players don't yet know about?

If I've got floating prep then because I 'can' use it, I've got have a decision criteria and I'm not sure what that would be. It may very well end up being because it's cool. At which point I'm scared that I'm going to be not as responsive as I should be to other player input, or put in a hippy way 'I would be afraid I'd stop authentically reincorporating.'

Same thing if I flip the tables and I'm a player. Let's say I really like my guy and I desperately want him to have a redemption arc. That's fine but I don't want to be fishing for or waiting for cues from others players so that I can make that redemption arc happen. I want to be in the moment really responding to what they say and if I do then maybe I don't get the redemption arc I desire (which is good).

Now as a player it's hard not to imagine things I want to happen so I just have to use discipline to be responsive. Same being a GM really but floating prep would really exacerbate the issue.

 

[clearstream]

Substantively, I am going to key in on this-

I've noticed TTRPG designers and play groups preparing all those sort of ludic facts without worries about railroading: they don't script what will happen in play, they preestablish a host of facts that may structure, colour, prompt and constrain the improvised play that will take place.

I think that the distinction I make for myself is that if the game* has published information ("ludic facts") that all participants are aware of, that is fine.

When I am playing games like this, any prep I do is shared with the players. I don't have secret prep. If I create a "ludic fact," then everyone is aware of it before the game starts, because that's not just an issue on my end (wanting to use pre-made material) but also an issue if a player is authoring facts that clash with my "secret facts."

*For this post, I am using "game" to refer to TTRPG games, whether rules-lite, FKR, PbTA, FiTD, or otherwise that incorporate elements of "improv" in the sense that the participants (GM and players) are authoring the fiction (and facts) during the game play.

If I understand it correctly, those things labelled "game" by the footnote are the "games" referred to above it. So for TTRPG it's laid out here that prep is acceptable if all participants are aware of it. Hopefully I've put that correctly?

I don't really like the word prep and I'll explain why:

Say we're starting a Sorcerer game and the kicker I'm given is something like 'I'm an art dealer and a weird piece of art was recently stolen in transit to me.'.

Then I go away and create non player characters and back story based on that. So let's say I create a hot art thief girl, an organized crime boss, an unbound demon artefact and a few others. I think of the back story and personalities and stats. These things are now set. They're not floating prep that I can use, they're stuff that I have to use. I have no problem with this but then is it really prep or just situation the players don't yet know about?

If I've got floating prep then because I 'can' use it, I've got have a decision criteria and I'm not sure what that would be. It may very well end up being because it's cool. At which point I'm scared that I'm going to be not as responsive as I should be to other player input, or put in a hippy way 'I would be afraid I'd stop authentically reincorporating.'

Here I see three concerns advanced. One is that "prep" ought to label something distinct from "situation". I've used prep in the broad sense of "preparation" prior to play of material that will be used in play, by any participant. Perhaps the thought should be that prepartion for play is a super-category encompassing various matters, such as "situation" versus other "prep". I don't aim to resolve that here, only to acknowledge that the taxonomy of prep isn't a settled question. One of the qualities of "situation" is that it's "stuff that I have to use", if I read that correctly.

The second concern reminds me of other posters putting weight upon decision points. Hopefully I put it correctly that the concern is for what ought to motivate and justify my decision to use prepped material? One implication seems to be that "situation" could include anything prepped to manage that decision, such an encounter procedure. What I have in mind is that prepped NPCs could then be counted not floating, so long as I have to use the procedure. One thing that makes me curious about is ruleslite or FKR play that presumably wouldn't have any such encounter procedures, but might rely on prepped material such as for example the Earthsea quintet of books. I suppose that material is "situation" because even though I might not use any given part of it in play (which could make it look "floating") when I come to the appropriate situation I'm committed to using it.

A third concern seems to be around cognitive resources. If I have it right, the worry is that the cognitive burden of managing floating prep could interfere with responsiveness to other player input. That could be through exhausting cognitive resources, or through marshalling them in directions that resist adjustment. Perhaps both. It seems the worry would be that when I prep material I become committed to use that material, which withstands what happens in play. If that's right, then it would form a critical counterpoint to all those who have talked about "prep, but hold it lightly" because it would put in doubt their willingness or capacity to let go their prep. It's not clear why that doesn't apply to situation just as much as other prep? Unless it is specifically needing to make a decision that is far more cognitively onerous or monopolising than recollecting or implementing whatever ludic facts, fiction or procedures amount to situation.

If the above is generally right, then the view seems to be that there is a sub-category of prep, or distinct category of preestablished material (established prior to play) that is material disclosed to all participants and committed to use. Labelling that for convenience "situation", there's an implication that prepared situation ought to be acceptable in TTRPG. Do I have that right?

 

[clearstream]

@clearstream

That was some dense reading, and you're hearing that from me!

I forgot to acknowledge that this was, of course, my primary motive in posting. With that solid win behind me, anything from here on is simply shooting the breeze.

 

[thefutilist]

If I understand it correctly, those things labelled "game" by the footnote are the "games" referred to above it. So for TTRPG it's laid out here that prep is acceptable if all participants are aware of it. Hopefully I've put that correctly?

Yes. I'd say aware of prep being used rather than the specifics of the prep.

Here I see three concerns advanced. One is that "prep" ought to label something distinct from "situation". I've used prep in the broad sense of "preparation" prior to play of material that will be used in play, by any participant. Perhaps the thought should be that prepartion for play is a super-category encompassing various matters, such as "situation" versus other "prep". I don't aim to resolve that here, only to acknowledge that the taxonomy of prep isn't a settled question. One of the qualities of "situation" is that it's "stuff that I have to use", if I read that correctly.

Yes

The second concern reminds me of other posters putting weight upon decision points. Hopefully I put it correctly that the concern is for what ought to motivate and justify my decision to use prepped material? One implication seems to be that "situation" could include anything prepped to manage that decision, such an encounter procedure. What I have in mind is that prepped NPCs could then be counted not floating, so long as I have to use the procedure.

That's exactly right.

One thing that makes me curious about is ruleslite or FKR play that presumably wouldn't have any such encounter procedures, but might rely on prepped material such as for example the Earthsea quintet of books. I suppose that material is "situation" because even though I might not use any given part of it in play (which could make it look "floating") when I come to the appropriate situation I'm committed to using it.

I'd consider Earthsea a setting. A situation must have a cast of NPC's. So you could have a situation with the setting being Earthsea.

A third concern seems to be around cognitive resources. If I have it right, the worry is that the cognitive burden of managing floating prep could interfere with responsiveness to other player input. That could be through exhausting cognitive resources, or through marshalling them in directions that resist adjustment. Perhaps both. It seems the worry would be that when I prep material I become committed to use that material, which withstands what happens in play. If that's right, then it would form a critical counterpoint to all those who have talked about "prep, but hold it lightly" because it would put in doubt their willingness or capacity to let go their prep. It's not clear why that doesn't apply to situation just as much as other prep? Unless it is specifically needing to make a decision that is far more cognitively onerous or monopolising than recollecting or implementing whatever ludic facts, fiction or procedures amount to situation.

Prep you must use has a different decision criteria. I think it's the decision criteria that's the issue rather than cognitive load per say.

If the above is generally right, then the view seems to be that there is a sub-category of prep, or distinct category of preestablished material (established prior to play) that is material disclosed to all participants and committed to use. Labelling that for convenience "situation", there's an implication that prepared situation ought to be acceptable in TTRPG. Do I have that right?

Yes.

 

[clearstream]

Prep you must use has a different decision criteria. I think it's the decision criteria that's the issue rather than cognitive load per say.

Given that cognitive loading (aka distraction) is not the issue, can you say concretely what the issue with decision criteria is? Or what those "different decision criteria" are?

One motive for trying to understand this better is as it relates to my post #34 i.e. the suggestion that the kinds of prep that are appropriate for ludonarrative are those that frame or imply narratives without scripting them. (I've referred to that set sometimes as curated signifiers.) That sets aside the question of what ought to be disclosed to the various participants, and when, although it is hard to imagine a signifier effectively implying a narrative if it is kept secret.