When Player Driven Adventures Don't Pan Out

[Campbell]

One of the things we at our table to coordinate more player driven play is establishing one personal milestone/goal per player character and another group milestone/goal with lists of options as examples so if a player is having trouble coming up with a specific motivation or goal, they can pick something and then we can expand on it as a group.

@RenleyRenfield brought this practice into our play group, inspired by Marvel Heroic Roleplay's milestone. He could probably speak to how he tends to use these milestones to help seed the game's setting and orchestrate play.

 

[Micah Sweet]

One of the things we at our table to coordinate more player driven play is establishing one personal milestone/goal per player character and another group milestone/goal with lists of options as examples so if a player is having trouble coming up with a specific motivation or goal, they can pick something and then we can expand on it as a group.

@RenleyRenfield brought this practice into our play group, inspired by Marvel Heroic Roleplay's milestone. He could probably speak to how he tends to use these milestones to help seed the game's setting and orchestrate play.

To me that mechanizes a process that should be more freeform. I don't see a need to generate personal and group milestones as part of a game process. Discussing it person to person feels far more natural to me than making a list.

 

[hawkeyefan]

That's funny. I see the exact opposite advice for the most part. And definitely in the real world, when I talk to other GMs (other than the ones I play with), they decry the build-first technique.

For the record: Most of them are paid GMs or under 25 years old.

So there’s hope for the future!

Character motivations are the responsibility of the players.

Sure, but if they’re not considered when creating “hooks” or other content, then as has been pointed out, you’re relying on luck for things to line up.

If those motivations are considered when creating elements of the game world, then things tend to remain related to what one or more PCs want, and it’s easier to maintain momentum.

 

[Scott Christian]

In the sort of character-oriented player-driven play that several posters in this thread have posted about, normally the GM and the players work together to establish characters and a situation that all fit together. Apocalypse Worlds "first session" is an especially clear example of this, but there can be other ways to do it.

But anyway, in successful player-driven RPGing a degree of compatibility between what the GM is doing and what the players are doing isn't left to chance!

One of the things we at our table to coordinate more player driven play is establishing one personal milestone/goal per player character and another group milestone/goal with lists of options as examples so if a player is having trouble coming up with a specific motivation or goal, they can pick something and then we can expand on it as a group.

Both of these seem oddly conflicting with my thoughts on player-driven play.

Coming to the game as an orchestrated event that already has the PC's goals established seems to negate some of the fiction, and more importantly, interaction with that fiction, that allows for a character to change. As a player, I have started with this, and it seems kind of "canned." Again, that is how it feels to me. I know, accept, and am happy it works for others.

But my character's motivations and milestones come about from seeing and interacting with the world, its NPCs, and the group I am adventuring with. My last character had no desire to settle down and own a bar until he saw the atrocities that befell so many kind and caring people. He wanted a place they would feel safe, yet he himself still wanted to live comfortably. If I would have plotted that as a milestone from the beginning, there is almost no way the other experiences would have even happened, yet alone impacted the character enough to go out of their way and make sure they happened.

This is just my take though. I get there can be differences, and I respect that.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Both of these seem oddly conflicting with my thoughts on player-driven play.

Coming to the game as an orchestrated event that already has the PC's goals established seems to negate some of the fiction, and more importantly, interaction with that fiction, that allows for a character to change. As a player, I have started with this, and it seems kind of "canned." Again, that is how it feels to me. I know, accept, and am happy it works for others.

But my character's motivations and milestones come about from seeing and interacting with the world, its NPCs, and the group I am adventuring with. My last character had no desire to settle down and own a bar until he saw the atrocities that befell so many kind and caring people. He wanted a place they would feel safe, yet he himself still wanted to live comfortably. If I would have plotted that as a milestone from the beginning, there is almost no way the other experiences would have even happened, yet alone impacted the character enough to go out of their way and make sure they happened.

This is just my take though. I get there can be differences, and I respect that.

I don’t think that the approach being advocated for is one where PCs cannot change their motivations or adopt new ones based on what happens in play. It’s more that they have ones at the beginning of play that help establish that they’ve existed in this place prior to play beginning.

I’ve seen similar labels to “canned” used to describe this… “forced” and “inorganic” come most readily to mind. And while I understand that people feel this way, it strikes me as very odd that of the two options… one, where people have a motivation and actively pursue it, and the other, where people don’t have a motivation but something of interest happens… that the first seems somehow less valid than the second.

 

[Campbell]

So, the process my group uses is about avoiding some of the prat falls we have experienced in more open ended play. Stuff like making sure the characters are compatible with each other and that there are reasons for the characters to work together, making sure the characters have things they are invested in so they have something actionable to look to when they are not sure what to do next.

The other thing is that it's tailored to play is not about adventurers or adventuring groups. The characters we play are just people trying to accomplish something in their normal lives. They have jobs, families, etc. Stuff that grounds them directly into the setting.

I get that some people might not want to work this sort of stuff out and prefer to just see what happens in play. My experience is that often leads to just taking cues from the GM, just doing random things in the setting or social division among players. Pick your poison, I guess. But when people say player driven play doesn't work when they are not willing to like try things to make it work that's kind of on them.

 

[Campbell]

I don’t think that the approach being advocated for is one where PCs cannot change their motivations or adopt new ones based on what happens in play. It’s more that they have ones at the beginning of play that help establish that they’ve existed in this place prior to play beginning.

I’ve seen similar labels to “canned” used to describe this… “forced” and “inorganic” come most readily to mind. And while I understand that people feel this way, it strikes me as very odd that of the two options… one, where people have a motivation and actively pursue it, and the other, where people don’t have a motivation but something of interest happens… that the first seems somehow less valid than the second.

Yeah. The lists are only a starting point, and milestones often get adjusted as part of the ongoing conversation of play. New goals are constantly getting set.