Prescripted Story

[ad_hoc]

Who here writes their character's story (or parts of it) before the game starts.

Not to be confused with writing a backstory. I mean, pre-deciding both events (such as but not limited to gaining specific magic items) and character arc/development.

A corollary, if your character dies do you think there is a fault with the game/DM/party? I have seen comments to this effect before.

For me, the goal of the game is to create a story with the other players (which includes the DM).

I write a backstory but everything else I take as it comes. Character death is part of the story so I don't feel it is a failure of the game/DM. In fact the possibility of character death broadens the story possibilities so I think it adds much to the game.

(Note that I am not saying this is the only proper way to play the game. It is just my goal for it and I think it fits well with 5e. I would guess that many issues people have with 5e are the result of having goals that don't work quite as well with the system.)

[Boci]

Who here writes their character's story (or parts of it) before the game starts.

Not to be confused with writing a backstory. I mean, pre-deciding both events (such as but not limited to gaining specific magic items) and character arc/development.

Sometimes sure. Never more than 5%, to assign hard numbers to something which which can never be properly quantified. Character arcs, mechanical progression and the story tied to it, that sort of stuff. Nothing is set in stone until it happens, but I sometimes have loose or not so loose point I intent to reach at some point during the game regarding my character's evolving personality.

Also sometimes by virtue of your backstory, you can plan out arcs. For example, if my backstory has my character as a well education but out of touch minor noble, then even if I don't acknowledge it, I've planed for them to get a slap in the face from reality.

A corollary, if your character dies do you think there is a fault with the game/DM/party? I have seen comments to this effect before.

I don't believe so.

[Sigreid]

No, I don't scope out anything ahead of time. The style my group plays is that the DM tosses out plot hooks based on what the party/players have said and done and the party follows what interests them, allowing the story to evolve from there.

If my character dies it's only one person's fault, mine. Because of our style of play, it's not uncommon for us to come across opponents/obstacles that are just part of the world and we should have the good sense to back off. I.E. the party learns of a lich building power near a small village when they are level 5, they should have enough sense to buy a ticket on the NOPE! train.

[EvanescentHero]

I like to ask my players before the campaign starts what they want to happen with their characters so that I can incorporate their stories and arcs into the campaign.

[Corran]

I like to work beforehand with the DM to see how much sense the elements of my backstory make, and how they would fit with the campaign world, and then modify and adjust accordingly. When the backstory has unresolved situations, which could lead to a character arc, I leave everything up to the DM, including the when/if and how this character arc would play out. Putting a lot of pressure to the DM about sth like this can hurt the campaign. Assume the DM starts working on a character arc which will take place at some point in the future in the campaign. Then, if the DM manages somehow to stay impartial and not save my character when he should have died, that could ruin the whole effort he put in trying to put together a character arc for my character. But this wont be the case most of the time, as DMs who tend to have a character arc in stock for a specific player character, would do their best to not let that character die until the character arc plays out, which rigs completely the game, as it denies the possibility of that character dying, which although that may suck, is what makes the game world all the more realistic and dangerous, and hence the game more exciting. So, in conclusion, I do not agree that character deaths are necessarily a failure, it is just one of many possibilities the game has to offer. And as far as a character arc plays out, well, that can never be predetermined, intead it has to be determined by the actions of the player characters (assuming they have a chance to succeed in the first place, but also there is a chance to fail if the players are unlucky or if the blow it). If the end result is predetermined, well, the players' actions do not really matter.

As character developent goes, I always have a mind as to how I want my character to develop (or not develop at all,like if I aim at playing a consistent rp from the start of the campaign till the end, which is a solid choice), but I always leave room for possible changes to these plans, according to how the campaign story unfolds, and to how certain elements of it could perhaps influence my character in a way I had not thought about it before. Of course, I have the final decision on this, and will do as I see fit, as I best of all can determine which is the most appropriate way my character (who is the product of my own imagination afterall) would react to certain outcomes of the campaign as the story unfolds itself.

So, in conclusion, I decide on my backstory which will determine how I roleplay my character, but I dont hesitate to make even the most extreme changes, if the campaign story gives me enough reason and I feel it's a good idea to do so. Also, characters arcs are quite cool, but a campaign should not be entirely based on them, meaning that the story wouldn't be halted if a player character were to die. By which I mean that the DM should make sure that the campaign world will continue spinning even after a player character's death.

[Falcon X]

A corollary, if your character dies do you think there is a fault with the game/DM/party? I have seen comments to this effect before.
First off, dying is THE fault of the game/DM/party, but it is not a flaw of any of those. D&D is born out of wargaming, and it will never lose the possibility of death. That being said, a strong DM and players can make death more or less likely to happen.

I work with players who have vastly different opinions on this topic, and it really has to be something to taste.
- My sister and I share the opinion that the game loses it's luster if we don't genuinely expect to die. If we think we should live forever, then we will play with a not-fun level of caution. If we know that we will die in-game, then we work hard to play up the stories and risks taken before that point, and, hopefully, go out in an interesting way.
Death hasn't got to be interesting though. My first character ever was a man of Gondor. Played him for six months before he tripped and fell down a hole and died unceremoniously. However, the memories of his life will remain fondly with me forever.
- I have a friend who cannot conceive of not being devastated by his own character's death. He wants a long story that revolves completely around the characters. He gets attached, which is a good thing.


Who here writes their character's story (or parts of it) before the game starts.
Yes and no. I think the character should have a concept of who they want to become, and if there are a few vital plot points you want to see happen, I have nothing wrong with telling the DM that and seeing what happens. The problem is lack of flexibility. Because you have living, breathing PCs and NPCs, they are going to effect the world, and your desired outcome may either become impossible or look different than you expect when you get there.
I do, however, think a DM should work to make it possible for what you want to happen, happen. Albeit, it may look different than you expect (Ex. Your Romeo and Juliet story in Verona ended up being more like West Side Story in Space, because somehow the party went into space and met gangs who sing.)
(

[snacksmoto]

Who here writes their character's story (or parts of it) before the game starts.

Not to be confused with writing a backstory. I mean, pre-deciding both events (such as but not limited to gaining specific magic items) and character arc/development.

A corollary, if your character dies do you think there is a fault with the game/DM/party? I have seen comments to this effect before.

For me, the goal of the game is to create a story with the other players (which includes the DM).

I write a backstory but everything else I take as it comes. Character death is part of the story so I don't feel it is a failure of the game/DM. In fact the possibility of character death broadens the story possibilities so I think it adds much to the game.

(Note that I am not saying this is the only proper way to play the game. It is just my goal for it and I think it fits well with 5e. I would guess that many issues people have with 5e are the result of having goals that don't work quite as well with the system.)

I like to develop a very loose plan on how my character might develop. Nothing in the plan involves gaining specific magic items, although there would be mundane bits of equipment in the plan. I'll usually plan which feats/ASI/class choices/multiclassing that the character will be taking though. It helps me to develop a fuller concept of the character's direction and motivations as I play in addition to what is present in the backstory. By doing so, the DM will be on the same page as I am about the character and will be able to work in more appropriate items.

For example, I had a Half-Orc Outlander Ranger with mild ochlophobia ‎(fear of crowds but not open spaces) and trust issues. He usually wielded a battleaxe with both hands (Hunter/Hordebreaker). His planned feats aimed him at polearm mastery/sentinel. Out of game, I had mentioned to the DM that I wanted the new-to-D&D players to get magic items first.
As it turned out, my character tended to get some good combat rolls and was the powerhouse. The group find a magical longsword, which true to character and intent, handed it to the longsword wielding Champion Fighter commenting it was too light for his liking while hefting his axe. A while later I planned on introducing a different character to round out changes in the player group so the DM had the town's blacksmith break my character's trust prompting him to leave. From what was happening in the homebrew, it seemed that the original plan was for the blacksmith to be able to craft a fine glaive.

If I didn't have a general character plan, it would have been a lot harder for the DM to work my character's plans in as well as the changes. My character might have ended up with a two handed axe which wouldn't fit with the planned feats.

[Lonely Tylenol]

I don't think this is specific to 5e, or even D&D as a whole, but...

I will pre-script elements of my character which inevitably happen as a consequence of backstory events, or because of immutable traits/desires related to the character. For example:

- Jeremiah Tull's insatiable curiosity will lead him to unleash a shadow upon the world which he is incapable of containing. From that point onward, it will be his personal mission to find and seal away the shadow so it may never darken the world again.
- When Saul Goodman fell from Heaven and became mortal, he saw his own death--an act of martyrdom which would grant him redemption and return him to Heaven as a Protectar--and the cause which would become his path to redemption: to free the oppressed peoples from bitter slavery--and their oppressors from a slavery of the mind--and usher a new era of piece. From the day of his fall, Saul works with the single-minded purpose of ushering in a renaissance, free of the fear of even his own death. (Of course, he is still capable of failing this quest and even dying, but the element of predestination marks that as the end of his quest.)
- Surinderjit has an opium addiction. At some point in the campaign, unless the party specifically intervenes, Surinderjit's addiction will spiral out of control, leading to increasingly dangerous, self-destructive actions until Surinderjit is dead, exiled, or broken of his addiction, at which point he will struggle towards an addiction-free life--perhaps slipping, as severe addicts are wont to do--and towards redeeming himself for his past weakness.

Plotting these events out in advance allows me to frame my character's motivation in very specific ways, as well as helps me set a trajectory through which I hit these milestones of character development while also acting within the party's interests. Naturally, I work with the DM for each of these, rather than simply deciding that they will happen at a time determined by me. For the second one, this quest eventually became the sole driving focus of the campaign by the game's end, and it ended with us unseating the throne of its corrupt ruler and actually subverting my own martyrdom, ascending to Heaven once I united the lands under my squire.

[Temperjoke]

Who here writes their character's story (or parts of it) before the game starts.

Not to be confused with writing a backstory. I mean, pre-deciding both events (such as but not limited to gaining specific magic items) and character arc/development.

A corollary, if your character dies do you think there is a fault with the game/DM/party? I have seen comments to this effect before.

For me, the goal of the game is to create a story with the other players (which includes the DM).

I write a backstory but everything else I take as it comes. Character death is part of the story so I don't feel it is a failure of the game/DM. In fact the possibility of character death broadens the story possibilities so I think it adds much to the game.

(Note that I am not saying this is the only proper way to play the game. It is just my goal for it and I think it fits well with 5e. I would guess that many issues people have with 5e are the result of having goals that don't work quite as well with the system.)

I think it's a mistake to script too far in advance because you never know what way it's going to go. Negotiating with the DM as to having certain items in your possession when you start the adventure is one thing, since that allows the DM to balance things evenly, but I feel that character development occurs when things happen that you have to choose how your character reacts to events, such as receiving an item that your character wouldn't normally use. Do you slowly embrace the change? Do you steadfastly refuse to use the new item, despite any advantage you might gain?

As to character deaths, I feel it depends on the manner of death. For example, if it happens because your rolls were bad, well that sucks, but it's part of the game. If you die because you were forced into an action by the DM that you had no way to object to, that's different, especially there was nothing you could do to prevent your death. Such as opening a door to a tavern and getting randomly impaled by a spear from the bad guy, that you were told was on the other side of the continent. (no, it didn't happen to me, just a hypothetical situation) Or if a teammate just randomly decides to become a murderhobo and starts their new life course by killing your character in his sleep, that is definitely a problem and a failure by the group/DM.

[EvilAnagram]

To me, scripting my character's growth seems... unwholesome. It misses the point of cooperative storytelling. I know my character's goal going in, I know where she comes from and how she acts. The story unfolds as my character interacts with those of the other players. This isn't a book or a film, and the job of telling the story can't be scripted by one person. Each story should be the result of everyone interacting according to their own character's motivations, or else the heart of the game has been lost, in my opinion.

[Regitnui]

Personally, I like having a small idea of my character's personal arcs. A drunkard who's trying to break the habit, for example, or a sorceror who discovers his magic isn't everything. I talk to my DM, and we see how the story rolls from there. As a DM, I encourage my players to have a back story and plans for me to form quest hooks off. The game isn't mine alone, but theirs too.

As for death, I have been known to fudge a survival for the squishy mage who caught a blow, but that's more because she was a new player. I like the fact that characters can die/become unplayable, because it's a natural threat. Why should we stop the BBEG? Because he's going to kill you all and torture your souls to get his jollies. It's a cheap way of making the conflict personal, but it works.

[Tenmujiin]

I like to have an idea of MY goals for the character as well as the character's goals. Wether those goals are realised depends on the campaign but I'll try and move the character in that direction as the game goes on, so long as nothing happens to signigantly change it.

[Socratov]

Hehe, I believe I might be the reasong behind this threads existence, or at least what I said over in the magic items thread.

Personally I want to avoid being a kleptomaniac murderhobo (or how most adventurer's are played out). I also want to avoid the good ol' "You look like a trustworthy fellow, why don't we travel together?". I hate such 'story' elements so instead I give my character a reason to go pillage, steal and killadventure: an ambition as you will. I know my character will do certain tings. If I make a polearm master, you can bet big buck on my character trying to 'procure' a special McAwesome polearmweapon. If I play a certain Wizard, you can bet on me wanting to access certain spells to scribe into my book. In some cases I might even create a bucketlist for my character. This might lure my character out of hiding/settled life into the great and wild outdoors of adventure so s/he can actually fulfill that ambition. I don't want to go idly where the winds take me, I have a pan, I want something and I'll have it if I can get my way.

As a DM (not that I have much experience), I'd rather have a party full of ambitions (which are potential storyhooks for me and easy ones to enforce) then a party full of history.

[gfishfunk]

I create a fairly detailed back-story to get myself invested in the character. While I do get frustrated when the DM does not include plot elements (especially when the DM ASKS for a background), I invariably do a better job with my own character when I include my own stuff.

I am totally fine with player death: my own or others. I get frustrated when other players don't treat character death as death, but as a mere impediment. I have transported another player's body back to town and paid for a burial against the objection of the other players. The player whose character died was grateful, however, which I find funny. I was particularly confused when the GM brought back that same dead character as a zombie controlled by an unrelated villain as I had paid for the burial in a local town -- something the DM forgot.

[Joe the Rat]

I don't like planned stories, as player or as DM. I like plot points.

As a player, If there's a personal story to pursue, I line up a history, some motivations, and ask if certain themes or events can be worked in. If I am seeking the renegade monk that killed my master, I'd hope to find clues to that effect. If I am working as an agent of the Nine Hells, getting orders from my higher-ups is expected, as are opportunities to score points for Team Tyranny. It's putting trust in the DM to actually weave these in, but it is more fun to not know how it will roll out.

Now, if you are looking at a story arc of "I'm trying to find X magic item," and have a backstory reason for this quest, and if your DM is cool with it, it should happen. If you want to build a character around a magic item, work it out with the DM.

As a DM, I love getting plot points. They let me weave the characters into the greater story. Now that prisoner is the missing relative. Now that boss monster is the one that destroyed the ranger's hometown. Now I swap this generic magic loot item for a piece of the item set this character is looking for. Now the castle in the woods with a name related corvids has a vampire that is that player's target. Now Player A's plot coupon is in the possession of Player B's Nemesis, who has mooks trained by Player C's missing master. and so on.

[MrStabby]

So in a 5th ed game I am currently playing a Vengeance Paladin. My back story is that my father was killed by a cult of Vecna and I am out for revenge. We will be swapping DMs in a month or so and there will be variations in plot vs action so I want something I can keep for both. At low level I killed the guy who killed my father, now I am chasing the head cleric of Vecna who ordered it (a set of side quests that are pretty easy to intermingle with the main plot - so no real burden on the campaign). You can bet that once this is done I will still be after vengeance and I am going to start following any rumours on the whereabouts of the sword of Kas.

I don't think its right to be too prescriptive about what your character will do, but its fine to talk about their aims. In my case it meant that evil religion in the campaign was Vecna rather than another god, as the DM had a link and it was easier to convince people of what was happening. I can pursue this personal line as long as it doesn't derail the campaign; it gives some more RP parts. What I wouldn't ever do is say that it is more important than plot hooks dangled in front of the party and should take their place (but as the DM can be sure I will be asking some questions in all towns it gives him some knowledge about where he can dangle plot hooks and have them picked up).

[ad_hoc]

I like that there was a range of replies. I think it is easy, especially in a game like this, to develop group think that makes other ways of playing seem weird or awful.

There is something which I think is confusion over where backstory collides with story. I think it is important to have themes and character motivations. When writing a story it is often a good idea to write the ending first, or at least jump around a bit to make everything fit well. You can foreshadow effectively and tie the theme and character arcs together well and such by planning it all out. So it is no wonder that when people write their character's backstories they are thinking about these things.

Where I differ is that I am looking to create a story rather than tell a story. I am not looking to play a D&D game to make a meaningful story that I will then tell other people. The act of creation of the story is where I get my enjoyment from and I want the game to create the story.

It is more than just getting together with friends and brainstorming a story. The game itself plays a big part in how the story unfolds which is where the tension and excitement comes from. When watching a movie everything is prewritten but, barring expectations of tropes, you don't know what is going to happen.

When you write your own story to tell other people you know what will happen because you are writing it. In D&D we are our own audience, but then, we don't have full control of the story, which to me makes it fun. If our group has full control of the story which includes the players deciding character gear and arcs ahead of time and the DM ensuring that certain plot points get hit, then it loses all tension and fun for me.

For those on the other end of the spectrum who use D&D as a tool to collaborate on a story together, rather than the game creating the story, I hope that makes sense why I don't like just Deus Ex Machina mechanices.

[Boci]

I like that there was a range of replies. I think it is easy, especially in a game like this, to develop group think that makes other ways of playing seem weird or awful.

There is something which I think is confusion over where backstory collides with story. I think it is important to have themes and character motivations. When writing a story it is often a good idea to write the ending first, or at least jump around a bit to make everything fit well. You can foreshadow effectively and tie the theme and character arcs together well and such by planning it all out. So it is no wonder that when people write their character's backstories they are thinking about these things.

Where I differ is that I am looking to create a story rather than tell a story. I am not looking to play a D&D game to make a meaningful story that I will then tell other people. The act of creation of the story is where I get my enjoyment from and I want the game to create the story.

It is more than just getting together with friends and brainstorming a story. The game itself plays a big part in how the story unfolds which is where the tension and excitement comes from. When watching a movie everything is prewritten but, barring expectations of tropes, you don't know what is going to happen.

When you write your own story to tell other people you know what will happen because you are writing it. In D&D we are our own audience, but then, we don't have full control of the story, which to me makes it fun. If our group has full control of the story which includes the players deciding character gear and arcs ahead of time and the DM ensuring that certain plot points get hit, then it loses all tension and fun for me.

For those on the other end of the spectrum who use D&D as a tool to collaborate on a story together, rather than the game creating the story, I hope that makes sense why I don't like just Deus Ex Machina mechanices.

What I don't get if why you keep talking about "write your own story", when precisely 0 people have advocated that, because its impossible. It just seems a tad hyperbolic that an epic and organically adventure to liberate the pirate islands which halfway through needs the party to change tactics and request aid from the Lizardmen Kingdom and negotiate the terms of compensation for their military aid suddenly looses all tension and fun because you found out that the magical hand crossbow a party member discovered on the sinking warship was a pre-scripted event. Would it really make that much of a difference?

[Regitnui]

I see most of the people here advocating planning their character arcs ahead of time, while the DM takes care of the overarching story and major NPCs. The players then talk to the DM and then they work together to merge those ideas into a campaign. None of the campaign is preplanned, but the major themes and hooks are. It doesn't stop the story growing organically, just gives the vine a framework.

[CNagy]

Honestly, I prefer just having a backstory and I prefer the same from my players. A backstory set appropriately in the game is going to have some small hooks but they are mostly ways to make the characters feel as if they are part of the world rather than drifting through it, killing things and pocketing the loot.

I try to discourage things like individual character prophesies, twists regarding their birth (secretly a prince!), destiny or fate, things like that. Setting aside how it has the potential to make some characters more special than others, the simple fact is that most roleplayers do not know the character that they are playing until they've spent some time in his skin. There is the character you write down, and then there is the character as you end up playing him--the number of times I've seen tall, dark, and broody become something entirely different in the course of a game session, well, suffice to say that I don't put much stock on characters turning out the way that they are "supposed" to, so plotting out some future action that might not even make sense to the character by the time the character gets there seems like more trouble than it is worth.

[ad_hoc]

Setting aside how it has the potential to make some characters more special than others, the simple fact is that most roleplayers do not know the character that they are playing until they've spent some time in his skin.

Rightly so too.

You didn't quite say this, but I will clarify that it has nothing to do with ability to roleplay. I think being able to play a dynamic character who changes and grows in unforeseen ways is a good thing.

It's not like we don't do that as people too.

People rarely end up in adulthood the way they think they will when they are 18.

[gfishfunk]

I like to give the DM character hooks, not quite character arcs; just things that he can use (at his option) to facilitate a story.

I do not like plots that have absolutely no bearing or importance to the PCs, though. If my PC is an interchangeable cog in the story, its like my background does not matter. Its easy enough to have your plot as a GM and then reach into character backgrounds to thread the two together.

[hymer]

In general, I may plan a character arch ahead of time, but it's subject to change. After all, even if I know what the campaign is going to be about (which I usually don't, and when I do it's only in the broadest possible terms), the details escape me.
Likewise, I may think about certain magical items I might be interested in picking up, and I may take the opportunity to speak to sages or peruse libraries in search of these things, if that would be in character. But I certainly would not expect to receive any of these, unless the DM somehow made me expect them.


A corollary, if your character dies do you think there is a fault with the game/DM/party? I have seen comments to this effect before.

It could be someone's fault. If a player doesn't try to stabilize my dying character when they could, that could be said to be their fault. Or if the DM forgot that the monster is out of nova-juice, and it kills me with another boom, then that would be the DM's fault. But other than that, excrement occurs. Adventuring is a dangerous business, and having no risk at all to my character would make all achievement feel hollow.

Generally speaking, it seems to me that people who want to write their characters to the point OP is implying, such people probably ought to play something other than 5e. Or just write stories rather than play RPGs.

[Regitnui]

Generally speaking, it seems to me that people who want to write their characters to the point OP is implying, such people probably ought to play something other than 5e. Or just write stories rather than play RPGs.

I don't see anyone who here who wants to write their character to that extend. I am a writer. Not even I plan playable RPG characters to that extent.

[hymer]

I don't see anyone who here who wants to write their character to that extend. I am a writer. Not even I plan playable RPG characters to that extent.

OP seems to imply that such players exist. I don't know if OP has seen them, or just seen comments to that effect, as mentioned.
I haven't played with anyone like that, for the record. Well, not since dealing with children as players, anyway, but they seemed more miffed at being thwarted at anything at all, rather than at having any longterm plan for the character foiled.

[Grey Watcher]

I generally prefer light backstories so they don't overshadow the main plot of the game, so having in game moments planned out ahead of time just seems right out the window. If I knew it advance what was going to happen to the character, I'd write a story about them. Part of the appeal of D&D specifically is that I take a character and bounce him or her off of circumstances and other characters that I can't predict.

There is only one exception I can think of, but the character never ended up going anywhere beyond the one-shot she debuted in: she was trying to track down a fellow novice from the convent she grew up in. I had a very specific idea of what she was going to do once she caught up to her wayward sister, but, as I said, never got the chance to play it out.

[ad_hoc]

I do not like plots that have absolutely no bearing or importance to the PCs, though. If my PC is an interchangeable cog in the story, its like my background does not matter. Its easy enough to have your plot as a GM and then reach into character backgrounds to thread the two together.

This touches on a pet peeve of mine.

I have seen many threads where groups break down because the characters go off and do their own thing or fight with the rest of the party. The person posting says they don't know what to do because the player is roleplaying the character well and they don't want to tell them how to play the game.

I think the players have a responsibility to make characters that would work well in a party and would work well with whatever game is being offered.

My solution to each of those threads is the same, the party says okay bye, and the game continues on without that character. The player can then either make a new character that works or go home.

I think the character's backgrounds will come through during the story and change the story and the other characters. I don't think the story should be changed because of character's backgrounds.

[Sigreid]

In general I think it's best to go with a background and goals. That gives the DM lots to work with without putting the game on rails.

[Joe the Rat]

I think the players have a responsibility to make characters that would work well in a party and would work well with whatever game is being offered.
This is key. Unless you are playing d20 Fiasco, the party really should work together. Ultimately, regardless of characters, it comes down to the player.

The player is the one in control of the character. The player is the one who decides whether or not the character will work with the party. Backstory doesn't line up? Motivations unaligned? Find a reason. Doing something that isn't characteristic of that PC? Like you, the player, always act in a consistent and rational manner in your own life? Welcome to the third dimension.

[gfishfunk]

I have seen many threads where groups break down because the characters go off and do their own thing or fight with the rest of the party. The person posting says they don't know what to do because the player is roleplaying the character well and they don't want to tell them how to play the game.

I think the players have a responsibility to make characters that would work well in a party and would work well with whatever game is being offered.

That is not what I am talking about. I'm not talking about everyone having their own agenda and self-absorption. I'm talking about the threads and hood of the character. When the DM weaves it into the story, it actually stops what you are talking about.

Scenario 1: An assassin killed my father. DM response: Okay. Here, goblins are terrorizing a village. = no connection.
Result 1: Ignore backstory, play what the DM has.
Result 2: Go off the rails and subvert the DM prepared material to pursue the backstory.
Scenario 2: An assassin killed my father. DM Response: Okay. Someone approaches you and says he has information on it...but he wants your help taking care of goblins that are terrorizing a village....
Result: Play what the DM has, AND get to play your story.

Players also have a responsibility not to plot spotlight hog, but that is another matter.

RPGs are COLLABORATIVE.
If my character (as a PC) has a story to it with absolutely no relevance on the game, I might as well play as Fy-Tor, murder hbo who sprang from the earth clutching an axe.
If my players (as a GM) don't have a background, I generally work with them in between sessions to give them some PC contacts and make sure that they have an important plot hook that make sense to the character and to the player.

[ad_hoc]

RPGs are COLLABORATIVE.
If my character (as a PC) has a story to it with absolutely no relevance on the game, I might as well play as Fy-Tor, murder hbo who sprang from the earth clutching an axe.


I agree, so you should collaborate with the other players. Why does the person have information on the assassination of your father but not the assassination of the fathers of the other characters?

Design a character who has a backstory that fits with the other characters at the table and the backstory of the campaign. If the campaign is about goblins and each other player has made characters that have to do with dealing with the goblins why is your character concerned with the assassination of his father.

We're not talking about DM and player, we are talking about DM and player and player and player and player.

Collaborate with everyone.

Don't just make up your character ahead of time and expect the group to work around them. Make your character based on what is going on in the group. The DM and other players aren't there to work for you.

[Corran]

Don't just make up your character ahead of time and expect the group to work around them. Make your character based on what is going on in the group. The DM and other players aren't there to work for you.
Have to disagree with you on this one. Sure the character must fit with the group, but fitting and not having anything that can set the character apart from the other pcs and npcs of the world is not the same. And of course the DM and the other players have to work with you in order for you to breathe some life into your character concept, no matter what that concept is or what your backstory involves. If I wanna play a leader type, I have to rely to the rest of the players, cause if they dont back my wants then I cannot do it. Same goes if I wanna play the old wise and respected cleric, the snoty wizard, etc. Meaning that I have to rely on everyone on the table to help me realise this concept, as roleplaying it, is only one half of the coin. The other half is how pcs and npcs alike interact with it.

[ad_hoc]

Have to disagree with you on this one. Sure the character must fit with the group, but fitting and not having anything that can set the character apart from the other pcs and npcs of the world is not the same.

You might want to read my post again.

[Corran]

You might want to read my post again.
Yeah, replied to the wrong post....

[Regitnui]

I agree, so you should collaborate with the other players. Why does the person have information on the assassination of your father but not the assassination of the fathers of the other characters?

Because the other members of the party don't have assassinated fathers?

That's a silly question, ad hoc, unless you expect the players to have the same backstory. Let's expand it out, since you're apparently having difficulty doing that on your own. Our first character is the human noble fighter, who's looking for the person who assassinated his dad. He's one of four:

The willowy elven rogue who's out looking for adventure after living all her life in the oppressive (for an elven teen) homeland.

The gnome transmuter, who's sick of illusions and wants to make his visions real.

And the tiefling cleric, devoting herself to the bringing of light into all the dark places of the world.

Given that the first adventure is a goblin-killing dungeon crawl, how would you make it interesting to all four characters?

How I'd do it, with reference to the above posts; the mayor of the village claims to have knowledge on the fighter's quest, but will only help if the goblins are removed. The rogue gets a chance o really risk her life and help people. The wizard has heard that the goblin leader has a strange magic none of the townfolk recognize, and the cleric has an urgent call from the local priest for assistance.

You like having blank slates. Take the four characters above and engage them in the adventure (initial or one-shot) without tying their back stories and personalities (undefined for your convenience) into it. How do you get your players invested?

[Sigreid]

All you need is a party of characters that aren't pricks, that all have goals that can be accomplished easier with the help of trusted companions. You help me, I help you.

[Boci]

All you need is a party of characters that aren't pricks, that all have goals that can be accomplished easier with the help of trusted companions. You help me, I help you.

And why do I trust these 3 random people in particular?

[Regitnui]

And why do I trust these 3 random people in particular?

Backstory. I've tried getting a mixed group to stick together without plot glue...

[Sigreid]

And why do I trust these 3 random people in particular?

At the start it can be a simple as they are the only ones around that have the skills you need to survive/succeed at whatever. Shouldn't take that many dangerous situations for the characters to start seeing each other as the key to survival in their dangerous undertakings.

[Boci]

At the start it can be a simple as they are the only ones around that have the skills you need to survive/succeed at whatever. Shouldn't take that many dangerous situations for the characters to start seeing each other as the key to survival in their dangerous undertakings.

So rather than backstory or personalty overlaps, we're going for contrivance for the arbitrary party size of 4? Why can't we succeed with 2 companions, why 3? And how do I meet 3 strangers at the exact same time?

Not that the above can't work, I recently had to use it because neither group seemed interested in uniting themselves through background (or they misunderstood and assumed that would be overstepping their bounds), but I prefer players starting the game knowing each other, or at least some of the other party members, and if I have to do a meeting by chance, I try and include some NPCs in there to make it more believable.

[Sigreid]

So rather than backstory or personalty overlaps, we're going for contrivance for the arbitrary party size of 4? Why can't we succeed with 2 companions, why 3? And how do I meet 3 strangers at the exact same time?


Not exactly. I prefer that the party, at least most of them start as residence of the same town, country, army, school, whatever.. They don't need to be friends, or even all that familiar with each other. Heck, they don't even have to have been raised in the area, just stayed there long enough to have a feel for the place. It is, of course easier and totally cool if they're siblings or childhood friends, but "Tim, I found this old map in my master's books. It looks like it's around this area, not too far off. I think we should go have a look. Maybe we should ask Billy if he'll come. I know he's in trouble all the time, but I also know he's not in trouble nearly as much as he should be." also works if they have a common area. Backgrounds don't need to line up, they just need to have a vague idea about each other. Enough to kick it off.

[JoeJ]

And why do I trust these 3 random people in particular?

Because one of them is your cousin, the second is the kid from across the street that you grew up with, and the third is a buddy from your time in the army.

Something I generally do as a DM is require the players to tell me during session 0 how their characters know each other. They can be relatives, old friends, boss-employee, lovers, former lovers, or just about anything they want, but I'm not going to have complete strangers randomly meet in a tavern and decide to go adventuring.

[Boci]

Because one of them is your cousin, the second is the kid from across the street that you grew up with, and the third is a buddy from your time in the army.

Something I generally do as a DM is require the players to tell me during session 0 how their characters know each other. They can be relatives, old friends, boss-employee, lovers, former lovers, or just about anything they want, but I'm not going to have complete strangers randomly meet in a tavern and decide to go adventuring.

That was kind of the point yes. The challenge was "Take the four characters above and engage them in the adventure (initial or one-shot) without tying their back stories and personalities (undefined for your convenience) into it".

[Temperjoke]

That was kind of the point yes. The challenge was "Take the four characters above and engage them in the adventure (initial or one-shot) without tying their back stories and personalities (undefined for your convenience) into it".

"There we were, four guys who all happened to be in that tavern when this gorgeous woman confidently kicked in, walked to the bar, and ordered a whiskey. Every single eye in the place walked over all of her tracts of land. One by one, every guy in the place gravitated to her like moths to a flame, but the four of us were, well, lucky ain't the right word for flies caught in a web. At the time, though, we didn't care. We still didn't care later that night when the four of us were running with her from a horde of bandits.

Man, you guys remember how pissed Arthur's wife was when we got back to town three days later after that adventure was over?"

[goto124]

Throw all of them deep in a dungeon and make them fight their way out. *nod nod*

[Sigreid]

For a first adventure there's always blackmail, employment, wrong place wrong time (at the county fair when the goblins attack) etc.

[JoeJ]

They were all passengers on the same ship, and it sunk in a storm. The campaign begins with them waking up on a beach with only the badly damaged clothes on their backs.

[Boci]

They were all passengers on the same ship, and it sunk in a storm. The campaign begins with them waking up on a beach with only the badly damaged clothes on their backs.

That a great premise for a show yes, but 5 strangers washed up on an island tends to have much more shallow character drama than I want in a D&D game. It can work, but I prefer some level of familiarity between PCs beforehand.

[EvanescentHero]

That a great premise for a show yes, but 5 strangers washed up on an island tends to have much more shallow character drama than I want in a D&D game. It can work, but I prefer some level of familiarity between PCs beforehand.

You don't think five people, often from different races, usually with different ideologies, alignments, and outlooks on life, being trapped and forced to work together, can create anything but shallow character drama?

[Boci]

You don't think five people, often from different races, usually with different ideologies, alignments, and outlooks on life, being trapped and forced to work together, can create anything but shallow character drama?

As friends, that will produce deep character drama yes. As strangers, it will be shallow, because you cannot have deep character drama with a stranger, it just a clashing of personalities. As the game progresses, deeper character drama will become possible, or we could just skip right to that by having players describe a prior relationship in their backstory.

[EvanescentHero]

As friends, that will produce deep character drama yes. As strangers, it will be shallow, because you cannot have deep character drama with a stranger, it just a clashing of personalities. As the game progresses, deeper character drama will become possible, or we could just skip right to that by having players describe a prior relationship in their backstory.

I disagree that strangers can't have deeper drama. On top of that, I see value in roleplaying how a group of total strangers become friends over a period of time.

I'm not saying you're doing anything wrong; I see where you're coming from. I just don't mind players making characters that don't know each other, because there's value to be had no matter how a group comes together.

[Boci]

I disagree that strangers can't have deeper drama.

Can you name an example in fiction of this? I can't think of one, and this is professional writers focusing on this. A D&D group is almost always amateur writers, improvising over the course of an evening and with character iterations at the very least sharing screen time with a survival plot. Getting deep character drama out of that set up from the first scene takes talent.

[EvanescentHero]

Can you name an example in fiction of this? I can't think of one, and this is professional writers focusing on this. A D&D group is almost always amateur writers, improvising over the course of an evening and with character iterations at the very least sharing screen time with a survival plot. Getting deep character drama out of that set up from the first scene takes talent.

Lost.

Everyone starts out as complete strangers, thrown together by an unfortunate happenstance. Characters' early interactions as everyone gets to know each other are full of conflict that goes beyond personality clash (which, by the way, is a completely reasonable form of drama).

For just one example, Sawyer is quickly set up as a pack rat who hordes whatever he can get his hands on, causing instant conflict between himself and anyone he interacts with; it doesn't help that he's an insensitive ass who doesn't care about anyone but himself.

There's far more, but I don't feel this is the place. Suffice to say, the characters are intricate and well-written, and their drama surpasses simple personality clash even when the characters barely know each other.

Of course, if you've seen the show and disagree, then we probably just don't have the same ideas about what that means, which is also fine.

[Boci]

Lost.

Everyone starts out as complete strangers, thrown together by an unfortunate happenstance. Characters' early interactions as everyone gets to know each other are full of conflict that goes beyond personality clash (which, by the way, is a completely reasonable form of drama).

For just one example, Sawyer is quickly set up as a pack rat who hordes whatever he can get his hands on, causing instant conflict between himself and anyone he interacts with; it doesn't help that he's an insensitive ass who doesn't care about anyone but himself.

There's far more, but I don't feel this is the place. Suffice to say, the characters are intricate and well-written, and their drama surpasses simple personality clash even when the characters barely know each other.

But the one example you gave was a personality clash: Sawyer is selfish and doesn't care about the others. If you count that as deep, what's shallow? What would be a simple personality clash?

Plus, that's exactly the kind of story arc I want to avoid, because whilst fun to watch I find them tedious to experience at the game table:

"I'm a jerk"
"Could you not be a jerk?"
"Well, since you asked so nicely"

(and that's the better outcome)

[Temperjoke]

But the one example you gave was a personality clash: Sawyer is selfish and doesn't care about the others. If you count that as deep, what's shallow? What would be a simple personality clash?

Plus, that's exactly the kind of story arc I want to avoid, because whilst fun to watch I find them tedious to experience at the game table:

"I'm a jerk"
"Could you not be a jerk?"
"Well, since you asked so nicely"

(and that's the better outcome)

What exactly do you call drama? Drama is when personalities and goals clash.

[Boci]

What exactly do you call drama? Drama is when personalities and goals clash.

Yes, and shallow drama is when superficial traits collide, deeper drama is when more substantive goals collide.

[Temperjoke]

Yes, and shallow drama is when superficial traits collide, deeper drama is when more substantive goals collide.

See, there's your problem. Individual self interest is "shallow" when really, it's the most realistic goal there is. Some of the best stories I've read involve characters who start out with "shallow" goals, which sometimes develop into something bigger. You seem to think that characters never change; a jerk at the beginning will always be a jerk. Maybe that's true, except what makes a story is that we learn about why the character is a jerk.

[Boci]

See, there's your problem. Individual self interest is "shallow" when really, it's the most realistic goal there is.

No, you're reading too much into the word shallow. It means shallow, that's all. It doesn't mean bad, it doesn't mean unrealistic. It means shallow, because it doesn't reveal anything about the character beyond them beyond them being a jerk, and whilst that can make for great scenes, I don't it them in D&D games.

[EvanescentHero]

But the one example you gave was a personality clash: Sawyer is selfish and doesn't care about the others. If you count that as deep, what's shallow? What would be a simple personality clash?

All right, let's look at another situation with Sawyer, just a few episodes in. Spoilers follow for an eleven-year-old show.

A character named Shannon has asthma. Her inhaler is lost, and her brother makes the reasonable assumption that Sawyer has it, because he has some other things from their luggage. When he refuses to give it up, Jack (sort of the leader of the group) steps in to help; when he is ineffective, another survivor named Sayid offers his assistance.

Sayid used to be a torturer in the Republican Guard. He tortures Sawyer a bit, and eventually Sawyer breaks and reveals that he never had the inhaler in the first place. Why would he lead them on like that, suffer through torture, when he never had the item in question?

These people still barely know each other at this point in the show, and they're certainly not friends. Yet this conflict goes beyond personality clash. We learn more about these characters, and they have meaningful interaction even though they've only known each other for a few days.

Not wanting to see that at the table is perfectly reasonable, but I personally find it interesting. I think you can learn more about the characters and develop them in different ways than if you started with a group of friends.

[Regitnui]

Why would he lead them on like that, suffer through torture, when he never had the item in question?

It sounds like manufactured drama, like the narrator on the Alaskan gold show who tries desperately to make it sound like a piece of equipment needing a replacement part that they already have is the end of the world. "The machine has stopped!" "The part is broken, they have to get one from miles away." "They have one in storage. If they install it wrong, it'll break the machine!" "They installed it easily. Who knows when it'll go wrong again?"

Similarly that plot line just seems like character traits thrown together to get a filler episode. Lost, if you'll forgive me, was notorious for having a shambler of a plot. Kept moving, bits falling off, and eventually collapsed into a pile of half-thought subplots and rot. I'm not sure anyone should use it as an example of good writing.