When Player Driven Adventures Don't Pan Out

[Scott Christian]

This is how our game works. This is closer to how we make and use milestones almost word for word. Note that players always discuss and consider milestones in regards to play, plot, and other players too.

Then how is it different from any D&D campaign run by a decent or good DM? Even in the adventure paths I have played in, which last a good year, all the things you listed: milestones not dictated, being generally broad, GM inserts some for plot, being able to change, and allowing for buy-in, are present. They originate through a character's background and session zero. I've never really played in a group the past twenty-five years that didn't utilize this. The only thing different is it seems your players get to make up more of the fiction. Aside from that, the play seems identical as far as being player-driven.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I agree. To have traits, ideals, connections, and flaws built into a backstory that the PC comes to the table with is excellent. It helps define their motivations and gives rationale to their actions. But predetermining a "personal milestone" when the character hasn't actually interacted with the GM's (and in some games player's) fiction, seems to downplay or dismiss much of the actual play. The same is true for a "group milestone" where "we can expand upon it as a group" prior to even embarking in actual play.

That said, I am fully aware that some games lend themselves much better to this than others. Some settings too.

Again, this is just my experience. (And please don't take that line as a copout, as in, I'm right, you are wrong. I know that's a tactic for some debates, and I am not fond of it. I mean it as simply, maybe my experience is not as broad as yours or just has been down different paths.)

I don’t think the milestone need to be so specifically defined ahead of time to work. Or that if they are, that they require one outcome.

“I will learn what happened to my brother” is one that allows for all manner of outcome. All it does is explain the character’s desire. It doesn’t say how they will go about that, or what the outcome will be… just what they want.

I’m currently playing in a game that has this kind of stuff. I’m playing a wererat rogue. His starting situation was that he saved a young boy from being hanged for theft and then fled that city to start anew in another. The young boy is very much like my PC had been at that age… an urchin who will do what’s needed to survive, but who is not totally amoral. My character looks at the boy and wants to help him find a life beyond crime and “adventure”. He’s hoping to find some kind of mentor for the bot and help him learn a trade.

But at the same time, the things my character does provide an example that is entirely the opposite of that. And the boy pretty much worships my character.

My Bond with the boy is “I want to provide a future for Red outside of ‘the life’”. This Bond will be resolved not when I secure such a future… but when it’s resolved one way or the other.

As play continues, I’m seeing more and more how unlikely it will he for my character to find such a future for Red, and that he’ll most likely be a thief and “adventurer” despite my efforts otherwise.

I’m fine with either result as a player, and I’m curious to see how it goes. But this was something that grew out of play and isn’t in any way predetermined, despite being an established thing.

 

[pemerton]

Coming to the game as an orchestrated event that already has the PC's goals established seems to negate some of the fiction

I don't think so.

, and more importantly, interaction with that fiction, that allows for a character to change.

And I know this isn't true. Upthread I linked to five examples of actual play. At least one of them actually provides examples of significant character change.

As a player, I have started with this, and it seems kind of "canned."

"Canned" just seems like a synonym for "prepared", which is true. Like, if I decide - as per one of the examples I linked to - that my PC is trying to restore the glory of his ancestral homeland, which has fallen under the control of usurpers and outsiders, then (tautologically) that motivation is already part of the character at the start of play.

The alternative is to have my character start play with no drives, passions or relationships. That will not deliver character-oriented player-driven play. But does seem a good way to start (say) a classi dungeon-crawl game, where the only motivation my PC needs is the desire for loot.

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

Here, you're describing a character who enters play with no motivations, and hence no "reality". That's a well-known way to approach RPGing, but as I've said just above won't deliver character-oriented player-driven play.

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.

I'm not sure where "plotting that as a milestone" comes from. @Campbell didn't say anything about plotting.

Also, unless the game is going to support playing a barkeeper (some RPGs will, many won't) I think there are some issues with having as a PC goal/motivation something that is all about not being a participant in the activities that make up the play of the game.

 

[zarionofarabel]

I am now confused. You do "little or no prep," but your players have "clear ways to complete their objectives." If they have clear ways, then how have you not prepped?

So, this is totally gonna sound like a copout, but players don't choose objectives in a vacuum, which means they almost always have a solution in mind when deciding on a goal. I use whatever they came up with, possibly slightly altered, then try to make it challenging in a meaningful way. If there is doubt about how to achieve a goal it turns in to a conversation, hopefully in character within the game, where the player then works out possible solutions. As I never bother to decide on solutions to problems I create within the narrative, multiple solutions are possible.

 

[pemerton]

Then how is it different from any D&D campaign run by a decent or good DM?

In the abstract, I might respond maybe it's no different. But to me it seems that whenever this topic come up, a lot of people who regard themselves as good GMs of reasonably conventional D&D find example of play from (say) Apocalypse World or Burning Wheel pretty outrageous. Which therefore makes me think it is different.

Here's a link, again, to an actual play report of a session of Wuthering Heights; I'm not sure how much you think it looks like "good DMing": Played some Wuthering Heights today

 

[Scott Christian]

And I know this isn't true. Upthread I linked to five examples of actual play. At least one of them actually provides examples of significant character change.

I realize your motivations that you write in the beginning can change. But we are talking about player-driven experiences. I would hope they can change over time, especially since the game is driven by the players and GM.

"Canned" just seems like a synonym for "prepared", which is true. Like, if I decide - as per one of the examples I linked to - that my PC is trying to restore the glory of his ancestral homeland, which has fallen under the control of usurpers and outsiders, then (tautologically) that motivation is already part of the character at the start of play.

The alternative is to have my character start play with no drives, passions or relationships. That will not deliver character-oriented player-driven play. But does seem a good way to start (say) a classi dungeon-crawl game, where the only motivation my PC needs is the desire for loot.

I was responding to:

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.

But you mention the two of the three classic pillars. I am not sure that has anything to do with player-driven campaigns. I mean, any thoughtful group will just gravitate towards the pillars of play they like. And in games where the players can make up a good deal of the fiction, then this will definitely hold true.

Here, you're describing a character who enters play with no motivations, and hence no "reality". That's a well-known way to approach RPGing, but as I've said just above won't deliver character-oriented player-driven play.

No, I am not. I am describing a character who has motivations (to be free of his debt to the Waterdeep nobles, and as an aside, to never trust magical books). That first motivation slowly shifted to needing to protect the group, then many of the NPCs they met, then in the end, to have a bar, in a secure place, that would keep anyone who entered it safe. They had a very specific backstory, and their bonds and ideals and flaws laid this out even more succinctly. It was the character's encounters with the PCs, environments and NPCs who shifted these motivations.
And as they shifted, during play he would see opportunities for this to actually happen. Any thoughtful GM and table will indulge these off shoots as long as they are not too "hogging" of the storyline or spotlight.

I'm not sure where "plotting that as a milestone" comes from. @Campbell didn't say anything about plotting.

Also, unless the game is going to support playing a barkeeper (some RPGs will, many won't) I think there are some issues with having as a PC goal/motivation something that is all about not being a participant in the activities that make up the play of the game.

You are playing semantics. It was clearly stated the table (GM and other players) work together to come up with milestones, both individual and group. "Plotting" is another word for it. That does not mean it must come true, but it does mean that the group of participants is actively trying to make it happen.

In the abstract, I might respond maybe it's no different. But to me it seems that whenever this topic come up, a lot of people who regard themselves as good GMs of reasonably conventional D&D find example of play from (say) Apocalypse World or Burning Wheel pretty outrageous. Which therefore makes me think it is different.

It might be. But I do not see how it is any different outside of letting the players come up with more of the fiction. We're playing Daggerheart right now, and there is a lot of the fiction that comes from the players. For example, yesterday the GM said: "It is a two-day trip underground to the petrified forest. Describe to me what the journey is like and what you encounter." That's different from most D&D games, but this part of players setting motivations as a table, bringing some of their own fiction, and coming to a consensus on what they are doing as a group, is all the traditional D&D.

Here's a link, again, to an actual play report of a session of Wuthering Heights; I'm not sure how much you think it looks like "good DMing": Played some Wuthering Heights today

Thank you. I will go read this now. I appreciate the link.

 

[thefutilist]

Ok, we did this for 700+ pages in that Sandbox thread last year. This is why I've been trying to say there's different styles of player-driven games, and the classic "treasure seeking adventurers" wandering off into a sandbox is certainly the oldest one, but isn't character driven in the same way as our newer styles imho.

it's a really pithy way to point to the difference. I like it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Players and their characters coasting to a halt hasn't been an uncommon event for me; I ran into it bigtime with an Alternity campaign I ran years ago where the PCs where mercenary astroarcheologists. Its one reason I tolerated one group I was having ongoing problems with for literally years; they weren't as pleasant to play with as the other group, but they tended to be strongly self-driving.