When Player Driven Adventures Don't Pan Out

[zarionofarabel]

Players like a consistent story. They like things to make sense. And they like to have clear paths to an objective.

I've been running player driven games for more than 30 years. My games always have consistent narrative momentum that makes sense. They also have clear ways for players to complete the objectives they have chosen to pursue.

This doesn't mean there can't be choices, or you negate a living world, or that you remove player agency.

I have talked to a lot of GMs that run scripted plotline games that think they are providing all of these things for their players. However, alot of the time (not always, but more often than not) the particular methods they use don't really provide real agency, just the illusion of such.

I also find it interesting that so many GMs seem to think that the only way to run a successful player driven campaign is with an overwhelming amount of prep. Especially because I have been doing it with little to no prep since I started in the hobby in 1988. It makes me wonder if the successful execution of a player driven campaign is more about the GM than the players.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I've been running player driven games for more than 30 years. My games always have consistent narrative momentum that makes sense. They also have clear ways for players to complete the objectives they have chosen to pursue.

I have talked to a lot of GMs that run scripted plotline games that think they are providing all of these things for their players. However, alot of the time (not always, but more often than not) the particular methods they use don't really provide real agency, just the illusion of such.

I also find it interesting that so many GMs seem to think that the only way to run a successful player driven campaign is with an overwhelming amount of prep. Especially because I have been doing it with little to no prep since I started in the hobby in 1988. It makes me wonder if the successful execution of a player driven campaign is more about the GM than the players.

Care to stream your prep and game to show us how it's done??

 

[Truename]

Care to stream your prep and game to show us how it's done??

A stream is a lot to ask, but I’m genuinely interested in learning more. I’d like to do more player-driven campaigns, but the prep work was my Achilles heel.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Care to stream your prep and game to show us how it's done??

I don't play online. Honestly I have no idea how to work all that kind of stuff.

The basics of prep is to get the players to setup a framework for the first few sessions using collaborative setting and PC creation during Session Zero. After that I just make up stuff in real time at the table using what I consider to be logical progression based on the previous narrative. I don't have a problem making up stuff in the fly through. It's prepping a bunch of stuff in advance that boggles my mind because I always get lost on so many "what if" tangents it's seriously not funny. I have done it this way since I started because I got the Red Box for a Christmas present in 1988, and lived in a little town where no one knew what a TTRPG was or how to play them. So I just started making up stuff on the fly, and have been doing it ever since. Not sure if that helps.

 

[zarionofarabel]

A stream is a lot to ask, but I’m genuinely interested in learning more. I’d like to do more player-driven campaigns, but the prep work was my Achilles heel.

I know reading and running Burning Wheel helped alot procedurally due to the fact that BW is purpose built to run player driven sandbox games. The play loop for BW is based on a PCs Beliefs, which are a form of goal statements. The GMs job then becomes to create challenges for the PCs to encounter as they attempt to complete said goals. Beliefs can be anything from "save the world" to "get a fancy new sword" and are not sacrosanct, so a player can change or abandon them anytime they decide they want to do something else. There is also a special kind of XP that PCs get for actually completing goals to act as incentive to actually complete them. There's a little more to it then that, but it's the gist.

When I GM any game nowadays I always use setting and PC collaborative creation and make sure that the PCs have some sort of ties to the world. I also have the players come up with goals for their PCs, tied to the "initial situation" to help kick off the game. The "initial situation" is also collaboratively created. Then I make sure to keep the PCs goals written down and displayed prominently so I keep them in mind when adding elements to the narrative. The goals basically act as real time prompts for me as a GM letting me know what the players are interested in narrative wise. Then I just, I don't know, keep all of the TV shows, Movies, and Novels I have consumed in mind and add elements to the story in a way that seems logical. I wish I could explain better how I make up stuff, but that's literally all I do. I mean, if a person can make up stuff and write it down beforehand, they can make up stuff on the spot, at least I think they should be able to. I do some prep I guess, by daydreaming at times about what might happen in upcoming sessions, but I never really write stuff down as I don't think any of my ideas are all that great, and stuff at the table never goes the way I think it will so any prep I did do would be a waste of time anyway. One thing I do constantly is take lots and lots of notes, which I find helps keep previous narrative more solid in my mind. Anyway, my inane rambling probably ain't much help anyway, cheers!