When Player Driven Adventures Don't Pan Out

[zakael19]

I think it depends. I read the bit I quoted by @Desdichado as being more of an ongoing thing. Trails meaning not just a starting point, but a continuing path or road. Outlines in not just an introduction, but also an ongoing structure of sorts.

And I also think it’s different to offer an opportunity generally, and offering an opportunity based on feedback.

Well I also think that games like Stonetop or Blades or whatever inherently avoid the “wide open sandbox but nowhere to go” problem he’s alluding to because the premise of the game and structure of session 0 / creation / etc have intentional designs to stop that. The GM is going to frame a responsive starting situation that catalyzes the players in those games if they just listen.

Conversely I’ve been struggling with my Neverwinter group a bit because the game doesn’t inherently provide that sort of structure for players and GM alike. I have to provide a lot more paths to get them towards the character goals because we just don’t have the structure and framework.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well I also think that games like Stonetop or Blades or whatever inherently avoid the “wide open sandbox but nowhere to go” problem he’s alluding to because the premise of the game and structure of session 0 / creation / etc have intentional designs to stop that. The GM is going to frame a responsive starting situation that catalyzes the players in those games if they just listen.

Conversely I’ve been struggling with my Neverwinter group a bit because the game doesn’t inherently provide that sort of structure for players and GM alike. I have to provide a lot more paths to get them towards the character goals because we just don’t have the structure and framework.

Yeah, I think that the “solution” to the problem, such as it is, can come from a variety of places. I think for many traditional games, it largely falls to the GM. The players, too, of course. Or the rules and procedures of play.

It’s probably best when all three are involved!

 

[billd91]

We are nearing the end now. The party is returning from the faewild with boons and new levels, and they STILL won't tell me what they plan next so I can prep.

Prep an independent side trek that you can throw in there - like one of those side issues done by a guest writer/artist in a comic series when the main writer/artist aren't going to be able to advance the main story in time for the next deadline.

 

[pemerton]

I disagree that actual player-driven play needs a “GM laying out at least a faint outline and options of some rough trails”.

It’s absolutely possible for the players to actually drive play.

This is absolutely true.

In the first Blades in the Dark game I ran, I suggested the first Score to my players.

<snip>

So… the opening Score really amounted to me taking what the players came up with and presenting a likely first step. It wasn’t really me presenting potential trails or an outline of progression. It was me taking what they made, and picking a logical first step. It’s not something I ever would have presented as an opening Score if the players hadn’t made the choices they did, and if we didn’t come up with the fiction to match those choices.

Yep, that's one possible example: let the players provide the basic elements that the GM then uses to construct a compelling situation.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This is absolutely true.

Yep, that's one possible example: let the players provide the basic elements that the GM then uses to construct a compelling situation.

I was going to mention the game of Ironsworn my group has been playing. It’s a GMless game, so I’m not sure how people would view that… seems inherently player-driven.

 

[Reynard]

I was going to mention the game of Ironsworn my group has been playing. It’s a GMless game, so I’m not sure how people would view that… seems inherently player-driven.

This might be too pedantic, but GM-less games aren't really GM-less. Rather, they redistribute the GMing duties among the participants (and the system). Traditional GMing activities like framing the scene still happen, it is just that no single player takes on that responsibility.

 

[zakael19]

This is absolutely true.

Yep, that's one possible example: let the players provide the basic elements that the GM then uses to construct a compelling situation.

But the GM has constructed the situation right? Like in your endlessly reposted examples of BW, you as the GM are providing paths for the players to see if they can accomplish their goals and challenge their beliefs & etc. You may not know where the path is going, but you’re framing it out.

I knew it’s probably being pedantic here but Ive been ruminating on this and think that “player-driven” is really more that “we are all players, potentially with different roles, and it is all our jobs to drive play forward together.” I think with a co-GM game like ironsworn as mentioned just above absolutely but that’s because you are all GMing and Playing together. For stuff like AW or Stonetop or BITD, IMO its more “we are working together to realize the premise and priorities as established” vs “we are playing to discover the GM’s story / world & etc.”

 

[Desdichado]

I think it depends. I read the bit I quoted by @Desdichado as being more of an ongoing thing. Trails meaning not just a starting point, but a continuing path or road. Outlines in not just an introduction, but also an ongoing structure of sorts.

It's an ongoing back and forth, and GMs have to make much of it up during play, not map it out ahead of time. But I can't imagine a scenario where the GM completely sits back and becomes purely reactive.

And I also think it’s different to offer an opportunity generally, and offering an opportunity based on feedback.

I think we may be at the point where what we're describing is converging and we're splitting hairs. Which makes sense... in spite of how we view what we're doing, I doubt that they're really that far off if its a good experience.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This might be too pedantic, but GM-less games aren't really GM-less. Rather, they redistribute the GMing duties among the participants (and the system). Traditional GMing activities like framing the scene still happen, it is just that no single player takes on that responsibility.

I think the important thing here is how the presence or lack of a sole “guiding force” affects play.

It's an ongoing back and forth, and GMs have to make much of it up during play, not map it out ahead of time. But I can't imagine a scenario where the GM completely sits back and becomes purely reactive.

I feel like in some campaigns I run, the vast majority of what I do is react to what happens in play in the form of meaningful/interesting consequences. My Spire campaign consisted of me giving the players a starting situation, and then after that, they pretty much set their own agenda.

I think we may be at the point where what we're describing is converting and we're splitting hairs. Which makes sense... in spite of how we view what we're doing, I doubt that they're really that far off if its a good experience.

Perhaps! I think a good experience is possible in just about any game… I’m definitely not trying to say player-driven play is better or anything like that. Just that I think it’s more possible than some folks realize.