Players want freedom AND engaging content

[Vaxalon]

In a flash of enlightenment, Callan quoth...

...the players want freedom AND engaging content. Essentially two mutually exclusive goals. ....

...and yea, verily, I was enlightened.

Now I don't believe, AT THE TABLE, that these goals are mutually exclusive, but the GM must have some source (his own imagination, or those of the players) for new content as the protagonists strike out into uncharted territory.

AT THE DESIGN DESK, however, when writing an "adventure", they are mutually exclusive, especially as the size of the adventure increases.  You can try to anticipate everything the PC's will do, and for the first few hours of play, that's probably a possibility.  After that, though, two things happen:

1> The possibility trees start getting broader and broader; the various eventualities you need to cover start generating more and more material.

2> The chance that you've missed something gets larger and larger

So the longer the adventure you're writing, the amount of material you have to write gets longer and longer, and the chance that it'll be used gets smaller and smaller.

The natural reaction to this, is to try to force the PC's to stick to the prepared material.

This is why I believe that Dungeons and Dragons is really best for what it was originally designed for; dungeon crawls.  The room-and-corridor format creates a natural limit to the freedom side of the equation, allowing the DM to concentrate on his content.  Don't worry about WHY the PC's are exploring the dungeon... let the players work that out for themselves.  Don't worry about what happened before, and what happens after.  If the players start wanting to take their dungeon cash and involving themselves in local politics... switch to some other game.  It'll be way more fun.  DnD is a game that focuses on the "engaging content" side.  That's why people sell adventures for DnD, and games like it.  It allows you to buy most of the engaging content you need for a few sessions of play in one go.

Now I'm sure you Forge grognards are saying, "Well yeah, we knew that, covered on Forge article blah-de-blah and postings foo and bar and baz.  And I think I always knew it myself, but never really had it laid out in simple terms.  Now, in order to make this post into what I hope is a contribution to Forge theory rather than just a summary of a (no doubt old hat) epiphany on my part, I'd like to make a few conjectures:

Sim play tends to fall heavily on the "Prepared Engaging Content" side.  Players who are simming don't WANT freedom.  They willingly constrain themselves from it, in fact, in order to more efficiently explore the content.  That being said, freedom can't be entirely curtailed, or there's no point in playing.

Nar play tends to fall heavily on the "Freedom" side.  If the story takes them in a given direction, players don't want a lack of content to constrain them.  At the same time, a strong foundation in content can make a story richer.

Gam play can go either way.  Players looking for an advantage can look for it in either side.

A good GM needs to be prepared as play shifts from one mode to another, unless they're lucky enough to have a group of players who stick to one mode exclusively.

[Alan]

Hm.  I see a lot of holes in this correlation of desire for previously prepared engaging content vs. "freedom."

The first is freedom to do what?  The term is very vague and can mean different things in different designs.  It has been observed that many Narrativist designs restrict certain kinds of player choices enormously (character generation choices for example).  Likewise, a gamist game like Rune restricts what character's can be and do.  Meanwhile, what's called "freeform" play, often touted as "ruless" usually produces Simulationist play.

Likewise, prepreared engaging content seems unrelated to GNS.  Games like The Riddle of Steel and HeroQuest have large amounts of pre-preared engaging content.  Sorcerer depends on creating such content.  The largely gamist games of Tunnels and Trolls and D&D3e require lots of advance preparation, which must be engaging or the players will wander out of the scenario.  Meanwhile, again, "freeform" simulationst play may have no preparation at all.

Sure creative agendas require certain specific freedoms:freedom to address premise, freedom to step on up, freedom to celebrate the ideal.  But is any particular degree of other specific freedom or amount of prepreared content defnitive of a Creative Agenda?  I think w've had these discussions before and the answer has been CA is not defined by techniques.

[Marco]

I don't think that freedom-vs-content is a real dichotomy, even at the "module design" stage.

That doesn't, however, necessiarily make it easy to design modules with "a lot of freedom"--the key missing element is knowing what content will interest/properly engage the characters and their players and presenting enough background information to give the GM a complete data-set from which to extrapolate it. When I am preping for play with a group I know and characters I am familiar with, I think it's easy to create highly free, very engaging situations for them to interact with.

Freedom in traditional RPGs is, IME, limited by two major factors:

1. The GM's raw ability to extrapolate unexpected circumstances.
2. The GM's level of interest in quickly mutating situations (i.e. if the GM considers the characters sitting at home, doing nothing and having no force act on them to be a degenerate situation then the game may halt if the players decide that's what will happen).

Neither of these are explicitly content related, of course (and they certainly aren't CA related) but they do represent limits on how games can develop.

-Marco

[Vaxalon]

What you seem to be saying, Marco, is that the idea that when one writes an adventure, one is presenting a set of information that is in any way complete is an illusion; what you're really giving the GM is a bunch of building blocks, out of which to build the content portion of the game experience.

Have I got that?

[Josh Roby]

I dunno if that's what Marco is saying, but I'd concur.  Game Design is not about controlling player options but about providing opportunities for player options.  The set of options supported will never be equal or greater to the set of options available to the players, however.  If you're "lucky" your players will be uncreative dullards and you'll write more content than they'll avail themselves to, but guess how often that happens?

I wrote a couple supplements of Tribe 8, some of which were cyclebooks (campaign books tied into the metaplot) in the eighth or tenth iteration or so.  And while I still believe that Tribe 8's design principle was about as solid as you can get in regards to a published metaplot, the strains were pretty plain when we were writing.  It became very clear that as writers we could not write something that would be strictly followed at the game table -- either because we would be basing events off of precedents that the players may not have experienced back in cyclebook 3 or because, after so many adventures and so much XP, it was all but impossible to consider the range of options available to the characters (very similar to game prep for Mage, except not knowing the characters involved).  Instead, we relied on providing a 'this is how it could happen' snapshot with lots and lots of resources for the GM to use however she saw fit.  Thus we provided the "engaging content" without even addressing player "freedoms".  Let the GM handle that mess.

You (or Callan) is absolutely right in that (most) players want engaging content and freedom; but here's the thing -- as a game designer you are completely unable to affect player freedoms.  That will always be up to the players around the table and their particular social contract.  You can write all the rules you like, but they're only going to follow them if it fits what style of play they prefer.  The other side of the equation, however -- that's where it's at.  Provide them with all sorts of cool stuff to tinker with in whatever way they like.

I'd abandon trying to fix the 'mix' of content/freedom to different CAs.  My favorite mode of Simmy play has all the players creating the setting/world/genre collaboratively -- that would be content and freedom dialed up to the max, right?  But then, that's how I play most everything, really.  Alan's closer to target in identifying what kind of freedom is important to play in these instances, but even that is not much more than restating the definitions of the three flavors.

[Marco]

What you seem to be saying, Marco, is that the idea that when one writes an adventure, one is presenting a set of information that is in any way complete is an illusion; what you're really giving the GM is a bunch of building blocks, out of which to build the content portion of the game experience.

Have I got that?

Not a bad way to say it, really (although I would stay away from the term "illusion" which, here, is, IME, all too often bound up in the idea that someone's in denial or someone's beein' fooled). I wouldn't even necessiarily use the term "incomplete" (which, I note, you do not). But I think the description of a traditional module as a tool is dead on.

Original D&D modules worked pretty well because the players and their characters were adventurers in a thinly defined fantasy land who were always up for an underground dungeon crawl. If these guys heard that someone was rustling the local cattle and tracks led back to a big cave--they're on it. You probably didn't get "my guy's an accountant--he doesn't do that" very often

Basically, what I'm saying is that if the GM designes personalized adventures the same way a module wirter does (knowing nothing about the players or characters and only about the game) then they are missing a key piece of information (as you suggest). Namely: the specific sub-set of the game-world that's going to involve the PCs (and appeal to their players).

That's a pretty hit-and-miss way to design adventures, IME. It certainly *is* working with an incomplete data-set.

I wrote an essay on a method of working around that problem (for GMs who do have a known set of players and characters). You can get it here.

-Marco

[Vaxalon]

Okay, so forget the CA baloney.  It was an off-the-cuff attempt anyways.

I think we're both agreed that good "adventures" aren't adventures at all, but rather detailed pieces of setting with many major built-in hooks to grab the attention of the PC's and (if all goes well) the players.

Of course, that's not what most published adventures are, but what with Sturgeon's Law that's to be expected.

So what makes an adventure BETTER?

1> All setting material provided is likely to be useful, because extraneous material makes the GM work harder to familiarize himself with it during prep.
2> Most of the setting material that's highly likely to be needed is provided, to minimize the need for extrapolation.
3> The setting materiel is well integrated, well edited, and non-self-contradictory, to enable familiarization and extrapolation.
4> There are sufficient hooks to engage many different PC motives.

I'm sure there are more.

Looking through the list, this could apply to ANY sort of supplement, not just adventures. 

Looking at this list, I can see why people want to buy adventures.  Fulfilling that list, even when you're putting together an adventure for players and PC's you're already familiar with... it's not easy.  It takes a lot of creativity to pull that all together.  It seems likely to me, that a highly creative aurhor, doing weeks of work, without knowing what kind of PC's will be encountering the material, could possibly do a better job than an uncreative GM could do with a week of prep, even though he knows what kind of PC's he's playing to.

In addition, I think that including an "introductory adventure" in a game is a highly effective tool for portraying what kind of game the designer has in mind.

[Josh Roby]

3> The setting materiel is well integrated, well edited, and non-self-contradictory, to enable familiarization and extrapolation.

Yes, yes, not really, yes, and yes.

That is, the setting material does not need to avoid self-contradiction.  In fact, a little self-contradiction and ambiguity can actually yield more content to be roleplayed in and around.  After all, if there's an open question, you can roleplay answering it.  Even better, your PCs can disagree about it.  Misunderstandings and alternate interpretations can create conflicts galore.  In order to employ this method, however, setting material must be from a non-authoritative source: from the point of view of an individual or individuals, using in-game myths and oral traditions, or similar.  If the source material is questionable, then the players get to question it!

In addition, I think that including an "introductory adventure" in a game is a highly effective tool for portraying what kind of game the designer has in mind.

This has been described elsewhere as the "Core Story" or "Core Game" and it's a highly useful concept.  It can be presented in terms of a complete introductory adventure, or a running example in the "How to Write an Adventure" section, or even in the setting material -- writing from the point of view of a character or characters which are very similar to the characters that players will create.

[Vaxalon]

There's a difference between self-contradiction and ambiguity.

Self-contradiction is P&-P (P and not P) and I can't think of a situation where it's useful.

Ambiguity is more like Pv-P (P or not P) and you're right, it's a highly useful tool.

If I state that a character is a manic-depressive in one part of the material, and he acts like a paranoid in the rest, then I've made the GM's job harder.

[Josh Roby]

Sure, there's a difference, but they can both be used:

Ambiguity: Nobody knows what's in the Creepy Cave, but terrible howls come out of it at night!

Self-Contradiction: (Part A) I been in that Creepy Cave, along with three of my friends, but I'm the only one to live to tell the tale!  There's a swarm of screaming flesh-eating bug monsters in there; I know they're flesh-eating cause they et my right arm!
Self-Contradiction: (Part B) We used to hide out in the Creepy Cave because no one would look for us in there.  When the wind blows just right, certain passages resonate and 'howl' -- it's really quite pretty if you have a bottle of wine and pleasant company.

Or simpler, Faction A's section says Faction B are murderers and cutthroats; Faction B's section says that they're just rebels fighting the Man, AKA Faction A.

As I said, in order to use Self-Contradiction, you can't have an authoritative text -- your "stating the character is manic-depressive" sounds like you're assuming it's authoritative or fundamentally correct, and if contradicted later, it does create confusion.

[Bill Cook]

Marco:

Interesting article. I've always thought it was silly to make characters based around your separate, personal fantasies and then [wrench] insert them into a published module. But I could never talk anyone into playing the pre-gens. Except once. And in that one, all the pictures contained the published characters. To me, it's an ideal choice. Of course, it does nothing to repair the potential disinterest of a particular group, but at least you get better integrity between the characters and the prepared material.

For my own preferred style of play, I support your first and third goals, but not the second. At this point in my gaming history, party unity is more dysfunctional than not.

Overall, your article is accessible and will likely enhance play for groups unfamiliar with these concepts.

** ** **

Wasted prep is a terrible pain. You can lose material because things didn't go the way you'd planned or no one's interested in it. As a writer of prepared modules for a generic group, you've basically got to make some choices. When your potential buyer reads the synopsis on the back cover, hopefully that will give him an idea if it matches his interest and that of his group's. Same thing for running a one-shot at a convention. (Insert 'Event Listing.') As a GM preparing for a group he can elicit, it's good insurance to collaborate.

Depending on the system and player facility, you can also improvise. (Here, I distinguish improvisation that determes 'what play is about' and not just 'how play happens.')

Being so free that you have to enforce your own relevance can be a burden. But engaging content that has to be done my way chafes pretty awfully. You really have to have a dialogue between partakers and prosecutors of story prep. How you stage it is a matter of format and tolerance.

[Marco]

Marco:

Interesting article. I've always thought it was silly to make characters based around your separate, personal fantasies and then [wrench] insert them into a published module. But I could never talk anyone into playing the pre-gens. Except once. And in that one, all the pictures contained the published characters. To me, it's an ideal choice. Of course, it does nothing to repair the potential disinterest of a particular group, but at least you get better integrity between the characters and the prepared material.

For my own preferred style of play, I support your first and third goals, but not the second. At this point in my gaming history, party unity is more dysfunctional than not.

Overall, your article is accessible and will likely enhance play for groups unfamiliar with these concepts.

Thanks Bill! And just to be really clear: party-unity is, IMO, only ever a goal if it's a personal goal for everyone involved (i.e. I, as a player and GM have no problem with split groups so long as everyone's okay with it--but if the guy who drove over an hour to my house doesn't get to play because the party is split up, I might want to re-think the logistics of getting together like this).

-Marco

[Callan S.]

Heya Vax,

I'm afraid I meant the mutual exclusivity to include play as well. I agree with Alan, that 'freedom' is incredibly ambiguous in definition. That's the problem! It's usually defined in game, when adversity is introduced.

GM "Here's some adversity!"
Players "Oh, we step on up and avoid it!"
GM "You can't...it doesn't work because of fiz bam baloo"
Players "Oh, you railroading bastard!"

Further...
Players "We want to be engaged"
GM "Here's something to engage you"
Players use the ambiguity of freedom to step on up and move out of the range of engagement, figuratively running off to the nearest hill.
Players can be heard to distantly shout from yon hill "Why aren't you engaging us!?"

This leads to the following responsiblity arguement:
Players "It's your responsiblity to engage us! You failed in your responsiblity!"
GM "You want freedom! What you do with it is your responsiblity!"
Both parties "Neener neener neener! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!!1!!"

And the reason "freedom" isn't defined prior to play? Because were maintaining a black curtain. A black curtain that supports "Oh, this is an RPG and you can do ANYTHING in it!"

I'll quote Mike from the recent Anatomy of a railroad thread, because it lays it out neatly and I'd just ramble in an example:

I haven't read the hackmaster version of this particular module, but I'm betting that it says this stuff, just much more explicitly. Now this example is specific to linear scenario railroading, but not all modules will have that. I'm not saying that they all, or even most of them, promote railroading. Steading of the Hill Giant Chief, for example is just a map, and one that can be entered from many points, in fact. So it doesn't have railroading subtext. But it has other challenge related subtext. For example, there's a long explanation for why the steading can't simply be burnt down, no matter what the PCs bring to bear. The subtext of which is, "Don't allow the players to avoid going through the dungeon crawl by using creative means. They have to go inside and kill the giants, one by one."

It's subtext because this is a black curtain...we can't just hand shake with the players about not burning down the steading. No, we give the illusion you can do ANYTHING (TM), but secretly the little man behind the curtain will try and get the damn game to work.

You'd be mistaken if you think it's just the GM who maintains this curtain. The players, with a differing agenda, do so as well. The primarly reason is the cherished 'creative idea' assertion. That it comes before all else, because of the curtain and how it says you can do anything. Address of challenge coming first?! That's so wonderful...why would the player make any agreements that would undermine that?

No one wants to define freedom in advance of play, because for various reasons they love the black curtain. The RPG ideal that you can do ANYTHING! *evil cackle!*

Also, it probably just seems too shocking to walk through a steading that is unburnable, just because you shook hands with the GM about that. That'd just start to be like chess or something, where knights move in wierd ways simply for game convention. Can you readily imagine you cherished game world starting to work in just kind of wierd and not particularly life like ways? Even if your gamist, it's probably pretty shocking.

On a side note: I remember giving an actual play account where I left the second poison save to the GM, for him to remember to apply to my character who had been bitten by a spider. The feedback was that it was hardcore gamism. I've wondered what the hardcore really is ever since. I wonder now if it's anything that's like an unburnable steading, so to speak. Thinking about it, perhaps the 'hardcore', rather than being something that 'works sometimes but otherwise dysfunctional' should actually be embraced for it's design potential.

*evil cackle*

[contracycle]

That is, the setting material does not need to avoid self-contradiction.  In fact, a little self-contradiction and ambiguity can actually yield more content to be roleplayed in and around.  After all, if there's an open question, you can roleplay answering it.  Even better, your PCs can disagree about it.  Misunderstandings and alternate interpretations can create conflicts galore.  In order to employ this method, however, setting material must be from a non-authoritative source: from the point of view of an individual or individuals, using in-game myths and oral traditions, or similar.  If the source material is questionable, then the players get to question it!

I don't agree that self-contradiction is ever useful.  Yes, you can role-play answering an open question - and for precisely that reason, you can then never construct any setting material based on that question, ever.  Because you can never know what answer was given in the local group.  Having the PC's disagree about it is worse, not better, becuase this disagreement, seeing as it can never be resolved, is essentially a distraction from useful play.  "Creating conflicts" is not inherently valuable; creating conflicts that allow players to enact a premise or display their character or step on up is valuable.  "conflicts2 can just as easily be negative, especially if they involve the inability to come to a consensus.

I think there is a distinction between setting material and props.  Contradictory props, differeing opinions as expressed by NPC's, sure.  These are useful and grist to the players mill.  But, if the explicatory setting material is contradictory, then its just plain contradictory and fails in its own most basic function - to communicate the setting.  I don't think non-authoritative setting material is useful, but props based on that principle can be.

[Marco]

And the reason "freedom" isn't defined prior to play? Because were maintaining a black curtain. A black curtain that supports "Oh, this is an RPG and you can do ANYTHING in it!"

I've played in fun, functional games where the PCs have avoided adversity, overcome the challenge by creative means, and so on. The reason why this works, when this works is that everyone takes responsibility for their actions (this, not surprisingly, is what is missing in most dysfunction). If the PCs overcome "the dungeon" then they know that they have to come up with something else interesting to do. When the GM provides adversity he understands that if it doesn't engage the players it isn't profitable game material.

A best-effort attempt on both sides is all that's necessary, IME, for relaible, great "do anything" gaming (in quotes because if you take responsiblity for your actions there are, of course, some actions you won't take--but this is not an illusion or a state of denial).

I think your assessment of the black curtain is based on the unwarranted assumption that there will be powerstruggle inherent at the table (perhaps that is where your hardcore gamist stance comes in).

-Marco