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

[thefutilist]

In no game ever, should the GM's notes and ideas ever ever be 100% "fixed".

PBTA just has a mechanic rules process which can generate drama on the fly, that's like really, all PBTA is at its core. Everything else is just advice on how to run PBTA and to a lesser extent, any RPG.

But the GM made that sht up, so they can alter what they made up. If they don't: they are throwing out tons of improvements and benefits from what develops during gameplay.

Have the ideas, have all the ideas. But be flexible.

If your joy of prep comes from giving backstory and details to NPCs, go nuts. The GM is a 'player' in the 'game' too, and they bring to the table their ideas and plots and plans as much as any player.

All PBTA asks is = be cooperative. Be a fan of the main characters. Think of the stories.

Well I just want to play my npc's like I would play my PC's. Which means giving them a fixed backstory and priorities. Then I get to find out how they interact. It's like filling out the world and then seeing how the world changes.

Of course it can be hard to talk about without talking about specific systems and the procedures they use.

Really the only other way I can think of without hidden prep is just to lay it all out on the table. Like create the backstories and clocks and then give them to the players. In another thread I've speculated on doing this and pondered on what the big differences would be.

 

[darkbard]

Well I just want to play my npc's like I would play my PC's. Which means giving them a fixed backstory and priorities.

This seems to be at odds, though, with one of the primary pleasures of playing in a PbtA game: playing to find out ... specifically about these things (among others). Most PbtA games discourage sketching backstory and/or priorities too fully or strictly. It's fine to have some loose ideas, but "hold on loosely." Allow play to be the test of priorities. Let backstory be vague and capacious enough to be filled in and expanded by events of play. Thus, down the line those background details become crucial to play (because they already are so) instead of tangential, irrelevant, or awkwardly shoehorn-ed in.

 

[thefutilist]

This seems to be at odds, though, with one of the primary pleasures of playing in a PbtA game: playing to find out ... specifically about these things (among others). Most PbtA games discourage sketching backstory and/or priorities too fully or strictly. It's fine to have some loose ideas, but "hold on loosely." Allow play to be the test of priorities. Let backstory be vague and capacious enough to be filled in and expanded by events of play. Thus, down the line those background details become crucial to play (because they already are so) instead of tangential, irrelevant, or awkwardly shoehorn-ed in.

I think instead you get the pleasure of mashing toys together. We see how priorities and relative positions change through conflict and for that we need fairly strongly established priorities and relative positions.

It's kind of a hard thing to talk about without talking about specific resolution systems but my general preference is:

Someone is established to have at least two priorities and someone else does something that makes that person have to choose which one to prioritise.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

Well I just want to play my npc's like I would play my PC's. Which means giving them a fixed backstory and priorities. Then I get to find out how they interact. It's like filling out the world and then seeing how the world changes.

Of course it can be hard to talk about without talking about specific systems and the procedures they use.

Really the only other way I can think of without hidden prep is just to lay it all out on the table. Like create the backstories and clocks and then give them to the players. In another thread I've speculated on doing this and pondered on what the big differences would be.

Try to think of being a GM and prep like the way some folks mention making horror films = "Never show the whole monster"

Sure, plan and write as much as you like. Go to town making backstory and plot hooks and so on. But then learn to expose only as much as is needed.

Example:

The characters are dealing with bandits in area. The local Lord offers a bounty on the bandits. The PCs have their first run in against a few lesser thugs of the bandits on the road.
- Expose #1: "each bandit you find has a tattoo of a phrase on them which says 'sons of the forgotten'. "

The PCs keep going on their investigation and adventure, and they get a hold of some bandits setting up a roadway trap and they interrogate the bandits. Why are you robbing people? Who is your leader? where is your base? What does the 'sons of the forgotten mean.?"
- Expose #2: "The bandit says that their leader wears a signet ring which matches the Lords sigil." yadda yadda...

The PCs dig into the Lord's history only to find he had sordid affair with a local woman. She is dead, but her abandoned house is tidy and well upkept.
- Expose #3: someone keeps fresh flowers on her grave.

Etc etc

The GM "prepped" created a bandit leader with lots of backstory and plot hooks and details, who: "was once a noble son, but discarded as a bastard. he has a heart of gold and is using the criminal bandits of the area to cause strife in his fathers domain."

Look at all that fiction we got across to the PCs without ever even meeting the bandit leader!

NOW... when they finally meet the bandit leader the players see all the violence the bandits commit, and the wanton robberies. And they say "Sheesh this bandit leader is a real dark guy, willing to do anything to get payback!" ...

The GM never said that, maybe even the GM had noted "the bandit leader just wants his father's acknowledgement" or some such.

But the players have handed the GM a cool plot twist. While the bandit did have a heart of gold, his heart has gone dead over years of raiding. Can they bring him back? Or does the bandit leader need to put out of his misery?

Letting the confrontation between the PCs and the bandit leader happen in real-time as they talk and rant and argue and persuade = let that choose the "truth"... which could be any of the above options, because a good GM is flexible...

 

[thefutilist]

Letting the confrontation between the PCs and the bandit leader happen in real-time as they talk and rant and argue and persuade = let that choose the "truth"... which could be any of the above options, because a good GM is flexible...

Ah that's a really excellent example of what you mean and it is really different to how I do it.

I'd have established in prep how far the bandits have gone and fixed that. So in this bit...

when they finally meet the bandit leader the players see all the violence the bandits commit, and the wanton robberies. And they say "Sheesh this bandit leader is a real dark guy, willing to do anything to get payback!" ...

I would have prepped it and so let's say I decided when I was creating the backstory that the bandits do robberies but avoid violence. Then I'd have to convey that clearly to the players, the bandits are avoiding violence. So not willing to do anything to get payback.

So if they then decide he's a real dark guy, then that's them expressing their characters view of the situation (just the robberies). I'd keep the bandits priorities as I'd prepped them, so he still has a heart of gold. Although honestly I'd get a bit more concrete than that (wants his fathers acknowledgement, draws a line at using violence to get it).

So in your way, you're using the players input to make the situation concrete and in my way it is concrete before they ever get there.

Now in my way there might have to be some things I make up. Like let's say for some reason I'd not really thought about the leaders relationship to his gang and it becomes pertinent. Then I'd use the prepped backstory, the rest of situation and the setting to make a constrained choice about that based on the personality of the leader. Is he the type of always get 'good' bandits who follow him, is the possible given the setting and situation? those types of questions. I wouldn't use the players input though.

I do chafe a bit at good GM's being flexible in the way you suggest. I honestly much prefer my way of doing things and would like to see it more widely adopted.

 

[thefutilist]

To go a bit deeper into how I do it, I'll flesh out the bandit situation.


THE BANDIT SITUATION

There's the Dukedom of Ald and the Dukedom of Creep and they're on the verge of what may be a devastating war.

The rules of the land means the first born son gets the right to succession and the privileges that go with that. There's no bastards but being born to a commoner is still a cause for great shame to everyone.

The cast is:

Duke Ald: In his youth he was in love with a common woman and they had a child. Unable to bear the shame the Duke said he'd deny it all and cut all ties. Now he's older and ashamed of his shame, he'd do it differently now but...he's already had another son that's he trained (Stern) and Stern has had heavy burdens placed on him and he's a genius general in addition to that.

Stern: A son of Ald. Being a noble has been hard. It has privileges but when Ald is your father it's the duties that come first. Stern isn't likeable but he's fair. He's also a great general.

Goldheart: The dashing son of Ald and a highway man, leader of the Forgotten sons. He's been robbing the Nobility and causing all sorts of trouble. His plan is to rob enough people that he's known as a bandit king and then reveal himself to everyone and demand his father give him his dues. Also beloved by the commoners for being dashing and sticking it to the nobility.

Baron Strict: Loyal to Ald. Has the most men under his command. A great supporter of Stern and a hater of Goldheart.

Baron Elan: Likes the daring of Goldheart but the laws are the laws I suppose.

Lunis and Lampan. Ex cold hearted killers. They've recently adopted Dagger, a war Orphan and are possibly rethinking their priorities. They're loyal to Baron Strict who's been good to them. They've seen the horrors of war and found a way to profit through violence but if they did that now, what would Dagger think of them?

Play begins with Baron Strict sending Lunis and Lampan out to find and kill Goldheart (although bringing him back to be hung would be even better)


ROLE PLAYING IT

So I'd treat the above as fixed stuff. If I was playing this with Apocalypse World for some reason I'd also give stats to things. Say Duke creep has a 6 point heavily armed and armoured gang when fully rallied. Ald has 7 points of which 3 come from Strict and nobles loyal to them, 2 from Ald and 2 from Elan and loyal nobles.

To make it even more fixed I might do up a few clocks.

What's worth pointing out is that the more stuff you begin with the less room you have. So knowing what to begin with and what to provide wriggle room for is probably a skill. I'm trying to create the broad strokes of the priorities here but I'm also holding stuff about the personalities of the various cast in my head and treating that as more or less 'real'.

I'm purposely not introducing any twists unless they're listed above. Even if I have to invent stuff it will be as much in line with the previously established fiction as I can make it using the procedure I listed a few posts ago.

To go back to the broad strokes and priorities of the cast. I think it's having those fixed that allows this style to work because of how much constraint it puts you under. You get a sense of the situation as a whole and it becomes bounded, you're not going to purposefully add to it in any plot relevant way.

 

[Committed Hero]

This seems to be at odds, though, with one of the primary pleasures of playing in a PbtA game: playing to find out ... specifically about these things (among others). Most PbtA games discourage sketching backstory and/or priorities too fully or strictly. It's fine to have some loose ideas, but "hold on loosely." Allow play to be the test of priorities. Let backstory be vague and capacious enough to be filled in and expanded by events of play. Thus, down the line those background details become crucial to play (because they already are so) instead of tangential, irrelevant, or awkwardly shoehorn-ed in.

I don't know - the clearer the concept of the NPC, the easier it should be for a GM to react to the PCs' actions. I suppose there is always a risk that the NPC's plans are unstoppable, or that they can use secret knowledge of the PCs against them unfairly. But that's not unique to the system.

 

[niklinna]

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?

Wait, why wouldn't you ask the player to elaborate on that rudimentary kicker? Or anybody in the group, if they're cool with that? Especially in Sorcerer, one of the early games to advocate minimal prep. You shouldn't have to go away, and you shouldn't have to create back story away from the table—it is expected to emerge through play, through inquiry and action, at the table. Ask the player what was weird about that piece of art. Ask who stole it—another player might even step in and say it was them! That's the sort of juice Sorcerer feeds lustily on. Ask other questions, like, what specific problems does the loss of this art piece cause, was the piece of art already sold to someone, who might that be, how might they react to its loss, etc. etc.

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.'

The basic decision criteria in Sorcerer and similar games are, is this new thing compelling, and does it fit in with established fiction so far? Early on, established fiction will be minimal, so the latter is likely to be "yes". As events unfold, your floating prep may need some adjustment, which is fine because Sorcerer is pretty low on crunchy detail. Anything not agreed to by the table as having happened is open to revision—and even some stuff that is agreed as having happened is open to revision (or perhaps reinterpretation, as an alternate explanation for how certain facts came to be).

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).

If you desperately want a particular arc, Sorcerer is not the game to be playing. You can play a character who desperately wants/hopes for redemption, but you can't force outcomes without the system pushing back, hard.

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.

Again, imagining desired outcomes is not the same as getting them. Sorcerer is not built for that, nor is Apocalypse World, nor is Blades in the Dark....

 

[RenleyRenfield]

So in your way, you're using the players input to make the situation concrete and in my way it is concrete before they ever get there.

I do chafe a bit at good GM's being flexible in the way you suggest. I honestly much prefer my way of doing things and would like to see it more widely adopted.

Ehhh....not quite...
My example does not let the players decide anything.
My example allows the GM to update and change their own ideas on the fly.

I think you are missing the "purpose" of being flexible.

By allowing the fiction at hand, the actions of everyone in the scene (and the ideas batted around the table by the players out of character) - to inform the "best choice for best story for everyone"... you have to allow change to whatever you prepped. That change is always up to the GM, always.

The purpose of this flexibility (especially when it comes from player comments) = is that there are times when players will dig much deeper and much harder into plots they feel followed their choices in game.

Remember... The purpose of a GM is to set the stage and run the show = but the player's purpose is to make the choices that drive the plot.

So when a plot comes up (the bandit leader and the local lord), listening to the things the players talk about and tweaking NPCs and their backstory to be a refined and informed version now that things are in motion = will make any game better in all respects.

Maybe a PC wants a love interest = alter the bandit leader to be influenced best by a lover, that fits plot and PC desires.

Maybe the PC assumes and is treating all bandits like terrible monsters = change the bandit leader to be the psycho driver of these poor, abused, and terrorized bandits who do his bidding. This gives the PCs a reason to not kill every bandit and to try and use an alternate method to take out the bandit leader.

Maybe the PCs could care less about a bandit with a heart of gold = let the lord see the carnage in his realm and demand the PCs kill every bandit they see. If they do, let their villainy follow them into later adventures. break their hearts when they find a young son's drawings of his mother and his father.

...

What I describe in the above examples are not all forced onto the GM. They are just a GM considering their players and what story will hit them hardest, make them really cherish the interactions even more.

By being inflexible, and demanding the bandit lord is only out for one means of action, and the bandits only ever behave in one fixed way = you are significantly reducing the chances of making the game the best it can be (or worse).

....

Final note: Super Secret Squirrel time = the players don't, and almost never will = know any of this. You can change your idea 10 times before it resolves with them = and they will never know!

Again, the GM made that sht up in the first place, so it does not matter in any way whatsoever if that idea changes mid-flight.

 

[thefutilist]

@niklinna

The advantage of being able to go away and think up characters is really that you have the time and space to think and make decisions about them. So I can decide I want a crimelord and I can think about his backstory and who he is and what he values. Then in play I'm thinking about what they'll do 'in character' as it were. Now that's also true of very briefly drawn characters I've had to invent on the spot and for some games that's fine. I find for Apocalypse World and Sorcerer I want more richly detailed characters that I can use to express myself.

As that relates to creating the backstory situation. Well the characters I create want stuff and the situation is really just the moment when wanting stuff matters. So I need to be able to detail the crime boss and also that he wants the artefact art from the thief.


@RenleyRenfield

I was talking to a friend about this today and I ended up doubling down on my position. When I've been prepping I've still been thinking about the player characters too much and I think it's been effecting how much of my expression I've been putting into the NPC's.

The way it works (or doesn't) is that driven characters will come into conflict (or not) and that will produce story. I don't have to think about what's good for the story, I can just think about what the characters would do.

There might be more chance of stuff falling flat that way but it seems like a better creative relationship to have (For me anyway).


@niklinna


Assuming we want story produced by characters in conflict.

On a technical level: There needs to be a situation right. A cast of characters with conflicting interests. We can't really play in any consequential way until that has occurred. So we could introduce characters in the moment and ask questions and get answers as you say. This is kind of how I interpret session one of Apocalypse World to work.

But we could divide those responsibilities up anyway we choose. Like I could create the whole cast of characters including the ones the players are going to play.

I could take a kicker and go away and do it. We could do it communally like in a Wicked Age, I could do it myself like in Fantasy for Real and then the mechanics might introduce more situation I have to weave in.

Basically we need to have a minimum of stuff that exists for stories that are created through character interaction. That minimum stuff is the characters and what they want. I think how we get there is technique dependant. I don't know if I'm a huge fan of the way Apocalypse World does is.