This topic has come up in a couple of recent threads - this one on GMing, and this one on railroading. (EDIT: And also in one of the S&S threads.)
There is a very traditional, even orthodox way, of authoring the fiction in RPGing:
The basic structure here is GM prep and material => GM scene framing => player action declaration => outcomes that flow from the interplay of prep plus actions.
One variation on this structure, found in many modules (eg the 3E D&D module Bastion of Broken souls) is to encourage the GM to create new material between step 4 and returning to step 3 so that s/he can stick to a pre-conceived series of framings. In Bastion of Broken souls, this takes the form of advice about new villains to introduce if the main villain is killed, so that there will still be an in-fiction rationale for framing the scenes set out in the module, with the "second string" taking the place of the antagonist the GM has killed.
But anyway, here's a different way of doing authorship in RPGing. It is not a variant on the traditional structure, but rather a pretty different approach:
The basic structure of this alternative approach is shared minimal prep (genre + PC backstory and context) => GM scene framing => player action declarations => outcomes of action resolution including new material being created. Some of that new material might be created by the GM - eg imagine a scene which, as framed, includes a building, and suppose that a player declares that his/her PC sneaks into a building; the check fails; and the GM narrates the failure by saying "You try to sneak in, but as you creep up the stairs you see someone who looks rather drunk, half-sitting, half-lying on the staircase landing; as you see her she sees you too, half-opening her eyes and her hand going to the sword tucked into her belt." Now it's established, as part of the content of the setting, that in this building there is this person in this state doing this thing.
Some of that new material might be created by a player - eg imagine the same scene, and another player declares that s/he is looking for any signs that the building might be more than it appears to be. The GM asks what the player has in mind, and the player replies "Well, this place seems pretty grim and so I'm wondering if there might be some kind of echo of this building in the Shadowfell". The GM calls for an Arcana or Aura-Reading or <insert system-appropriate ability> check, the player succeeds, and so the GM narrates that the PC can, indeed - with his/her Arcane senses - detect a Shadowfell echo of this building, that is the source of grim malaise about the place.
One generic label for this sort of approach is "no myth" - it's not perfect, but it tries to capture the idea that material - setting content and backstory is not there from the start as an input, but rather is an output of play, of framing and action resolution, that grows over time. Another generic label is "story now" - because the emphasis of play is on the immediacy of the situation and the imperatives to action, rather than a sense that a significant focus of play is coming to grips with the content (maps, keys, notes, timelines) that have already been authored by the GM.
Just as there can be variations of the traditional approach, so there can be variations of this alternative approach. For instance, the GM might use a setting book to help get material for framing scenes, or to help get material for narrating consequences like the drunk warrior on the landing; and different systems will have different ways of resolving action declarations, particularly those that implicate new player-author content like Shadowfell echoes. What is key, though, even when a setting book is being used, is that the content is introduced as an output of play; it's not treated as a constraining input in the manner of the traditional approach.
Systems which are particularly associated with some form of "no myth"/"story now" include Apocalypse World, Dungeon World (which calls it "draw maps, leave blanks"), Burning Wheel, Blades in the Dark (which is also a good example of a system that uses a setting book to obtain material to help with framing scenes and narrating consequences); indeed, many "indie" RPGs.
I think it can help in many discussions, both about D&D but even moreso when branching beyond D&D, to recognise that these difference are possible, and that there is no single way of approaching the authorship of the fiction that is identical to RPGing as such.
There is a very traditional, even orthodox way, of authoring the fiction in RPGing:
1. The GM prepares material (content, backstory) in advance of play - quintessentially a map and a key, plus associated notes which might include timelines of events etc.
2. The players build PCs. This may be done independently of step 1, or perhaps the GM tells the players a bit about the material s/he's prepared, or perhaps there's even a bit of back-and-forth between players and GM (eg a player wants to play a PC with a pirate background, and so the GM adds some notes about pirates to his/her prepared material).
3. The game starts with the PCs at a particular place on the map, at a particular time. The GM consults his/her notes (map keys, timelines etc) and tells the players what their PCs are experiencing - I will call this framing a scene. The players declare actions for their PCs - some of these are resolved by consulting the notes (eg the notes tell us what will be found if a certain rock is lifted up, or how a NPC will react if asked a certain question), and some by resolving checks, and maybe some by a bit of both.
4. Eventually the players will declare actions that move their PCs to a different part of the map; and/or the passage of in-game time will lead the GM to have regard to some other aspect of his/her prep (eg a timeline with certain events noted on it) and therefore we go back to a new iteration of step 3.
The basic structure here is GM prep and material => GM scene framing => player action declaration => outcomes that flow from the interplay of prep plus actions.
One variation on this structure, found in many modules (eg the 3E D&D module Bastion of Broken souls) is to encourage the GM to create new material between step 4 and returning to step 3 so that s/he can stick to a pre-conceived series of framings. In Bastion of Broken souls, this takes the form of advice about new villains to introduce if the main villain is killed, so that there will still be an in-fiction rationale for framing the scenes set out in the module, with the "second string" taking the place of the antagonist the GM has killed.
But anyway, here's a different way of doing authorship in RPGing. It is not a variant on the traditional structure, but rather a pretty different approach:
1. Prior to play, the players and GM agree on a genre, go back-and-forth to settle some basic questions about the setting, and the players build PCs. Those PCs reflect the player-GM back-and-forth; and those PCs have clear goals and trajectories that emerge from their agreed backstories.
2. Play begins with the GM framing a scene that speaks to those PC goals and trajectories. Because a scene needs content - a place, maybe some other people - framing the scene means authoring some content.
3. The players declare actions for their PCs that engage the scene. If the GM has done his/her job properly at step 2, then the players' declared actions can be expected to be fairly vigorous rather than tentative - more about impacting the situation then just finding out more about it. Some of those actions will change story elements already present in the scene (eg something gets stolen, or purchased, or broken; a NPC gets persuaded, or scared off, or killed; etc). Some of those actions will seek to introduce new story elements - new content and material - into the scene (eg learning something that wasn't already established at step 1 o step 2); different RPG systems have different ways of handling this, but however it's done there are obviously no pre-authored notes that can be referred to by anyone to provide an answer.
4. Eventually the scene will resolve, but the outcomes of action resolution and/or unresolved goals and trajectories will provide material allowing the GM to frame a new scene - return to Step 3.
The basic structure of this alternative approach is shared minimal prep (genre + PC backstory and context) => GM scene framing => player action declarations => outcomes of action resolution including new material being created. Some of that new material might be created by the GM - eg imagine a scene which, as framed, includes a building, and suppose that a player declares that his/her PC sneaks into a building; the check fails; and the GM narrates the failure by saying "You try to sneak in, but as you creep up the stairs you see someone who looks rather drunk, half-sitting, half-lying on the staircase landing; as you see her she sees you too, half-opening her eyes and her hand going to the sword tucked into her belt." Now it's established, as part of the content of the setting, that in this building there is this person in this state doing this thing.
Some of that new material might be created by a player - eg imagine the same scene, and another player declares that s/he is looking for any signs that the building might be more than it appears to be. The GM asks what the player has in mind, and the player replies "Well, this place seems pretty grim and so I'm wondering if there might be some kind of echo of this building in the Shadowfell". The GM calls for an Arcana or Aura-Reading or <insert system-appropriate ability> check, the player succeeds, and so the GM narrates that the PC can, indeed - with his/her Arcane senses - detect a Shadowfell echo of this building, that is the source of grim malaise about the place.
One generic label for this sort of approach is "no myth" - it's not perfect, but it tries to capture the idea that material - setting content and backstory is not there from the start as an input, but rather is an output of play, of framing and action resolution, that grows over time. Another generic label is "story now" - because the emphasis of play is on the immediacy of the situation and the imperatives to action, rather than a sense that a significant focus of play is coming to grips with the content (maps, keys, notes, timelines) that have already been authored by the GM.
Just as there can be variations of the traditional approach, so there can be variations of this alternative approach. For instance, the GM might use a setting book to help get material for framing scenes, or to help get material for narrating consequences like the drunk warrior on the landing; and different systems will have different ways of resolving action declarations, particularly those that implicate new player-author content like Shadowfell echoes. What is key, though, even when a setting book is being used, is that the content is introduced as an output of play; it's not treated as a constraining input in the manner of the traditional approach.
Systems which are particularly associated with some form of "no myth"/"story now" include Apocalypse World, Dungeon World (which calls it "draw maps, leave blanks"), Burning Wheel, Blades in the Dark (which is also a good example of a system that uses a setting book to obtain material to help with framing scenes and narrating consequences); indeed, many "indie" RPGs.
I think it can help in many discussions, both about D&D but even moreso when branching beyond D&D, to recognise that these difference are possible, and that there is no single way of approaching the authorship of the fiction that is identical to RPGing as such.
Last edited:
