Five Whys

I’ve been thinking about the Five Whys methodology a bunch lately. Toyota famously used it as a tool as a part of their production methods. It then spread all over business schools and is a part of a bunch of different certification style management approaches.

The idea behind it is to force people to get crisp on the reasoning behind their decisions. In Toyota’s case it was centered on new car features. In other companies it might be used to sharpen arguments or justifications for actions or goals.

I’ve been thinking about it as a framework for creative iteration. As I write and read and rewrite and read and on and on, I keep asking myself why.

Why do I need to say this? Why is this information important? Why is this useful? Why do I keep this in instead of cutting it? Why is this more valuable than something else?

I have been kind of surprised how helpful it has been. Because I write in my layout documents when working on objects like the Mystery Box, I am also editing as I go. Layout is always a consideration. How things present. How they will be read and used.

Asking myself a whole bunch of why questions works really well in this process. So I started to extrapolate it out some to how it might be used for adventure design. This is rough, but I think it works as a framework for low prep play.

Why is the dungeon here?
Dungeon is really just a stand in for any type of adventure location, but the idea is to answer the question as to why this particular location exists. A nightclub in Night City is just valid a dungeon as the tunnels of the Underdark. Give it context.
Why are the adventurers here?
In some games this it is easier than others to answer, but it needs to be answered all the same. I personally like Torchbearer’s no muss, no fuss method of, “you guys are at the dungeon door and know each other, let’s go."
Why might the adventurers not succeed in their goals?
Again, this is about building context and tying the location and the adventurers together. Is it traps? Monsters? The political machinations of the vampire prince of the city? Only pick a few and go.
Why might they succeed?
Personally, I think a lot of games spend a shit ton of time thinking about all the obstacles and not enough time about capabilities. In tech, you gotta think about what bad actors can and will do more than what you will do in order to understand the context better.
Why is this fun?
If an adventure isn’t fun, there is no point in playing it. Fun can be the emotional drain of a family tragedy or the silly crawl through a dungeon. Whatever you make has to fit the bill for your group.

I like this approach because it lets you easily grab some materials you likely already have lying about to run a game. Even with games that notoriously require “Lots of prep” the framing makes it easy to make choices because you can keep asking yourself why questions within each category.

It even makes adjustments along the way easier as you can ask those questions of yourself when not sure what to do next. If something unexpected happens and you have to introduce something new, you just need to take two minutes to answer a few questions to connect the dots.

Why do I need this orc? Why here? Why do they want to thwart the party?

More than once I have heard people lament their inability to improv as a game master, but I think they are trying to solve the wrong problem. Everyone wants to be quick witted. But being comfortable with the ambiguity isn’t about becoming a late night host.

It’s about taking a breath and creating context without having to do too much work. Fuck work.