PDA

View Full Version : Protagonisting



Mokèlé-mbèmbé
2018-06-04, 09:09 AM
I don't want to dictate to anyone the "correct" way to tabletop role-play. Part of its appeal is that it has such a diversity of philosophies and approaches. I go for the "collaborative storytelling" method, myself, as I'm sure many of you do. Those of you who do have possibly encountered what I'm talking about. It's something I've experienced a number of times myself and I haven't been proud with the way I handled it those times.

This is the one player who attempts to make everything about their character and their character's conflict. It's difficult in a tabletop RPG to have any one single protagonist like you would in a more traditionally told story, because every one at that table has brought their own egos and their own stakes to the game. Even so some people cannot be persuaded from temptation and will put the spotlight on them even if they have to contrive it.

And so often they take criticism of this as a criticism of themselves as a person. In the past I may have been a bit pointed or overboard in my criticism of their behaviour, and I regret that, but even under polite suggestion I have known some of these people to become very prickly and defensive.

I was wondering if there was an optimal way to deal with people who attempt to subvert the DM and artificially inflate the value of their character at the cost of the other PCs. If there had been methods which worked for you in the past.

Ixtellor
2018-06-04, 09:19 AM
Can you provide an example where it caused a problem?

Mokèlé-mbèmbé
2018-06-04, 09:27 AM
I tried not to because I didn't want to feel gossipy or that I was singling any one person out. But I'll try.

This was some time in the late 2000s, as I recall. A younger gentleman (around 17-18) played a Rogue in D&D 3.5 Edition campaign that leaned on storytelling. The DM was pretty highly regarded in our city for his settings and his involved stories. This Rogue had a very good backstory, very motivated, a lot of potential for a nice personal arc to it. But our DM segmented the campaign into sections that pertained to particular characters. So one major part of the campaign would deal with on PC's plot arc and when that resolved it would transition, quite naturally, to another. This is something this young man couldn't quite grasp, and in plots that roundly had very little to do with him he attempted to insert himself and his character. It came to a head during one very dramatic scene where the island nation that one of the other PCs (the druid) came from was invaded and occupied by an opposing force. Instead of this being a major character moment for the Druid however the Rogue began a very obnoxious habit of making it about his character's failure to defeat the bad guy. Not a bad concept on its own, but he was stepping on other people's lines, turning the conversation to his character and pointedly ignoring the plot significance for the druid. The DM, during the break, politely asked him to realise that there were other players at the table and he stormed off mid-session. We didn't see him again.

Koo Rehtorb
2018-06-04, 09:59 AM
Well, part of the problem here is that specific character arcs are kind of a bad way to run a game. It puts too much focus on one character for any given segment of the game.

That said, personal experience says, kick these people out and the sooner the better. They're not going to improve, you're going to have more fun when they're gone, and you're going to wonder why you didn't do it sooner.

Max_Killjoy
2018-06-04, 10:16 AM
This is one of the reasons I cringe at the assertion that "roleplaying is storytelling" -- too many people expect a story to have a cast of characters with specific Hollywood-style roles, including "the protagonist" / "the lead".

Mokèlé-mbèmbé
2018-06-04, 10:31 AM
This is one of the reasons I cringe at the assertion that "roleplaying is storytelling" -- too many people expect a story to have a cast of characters with specific Hollywood-style roles, including "the protagonist" / "the lead".

Well, I think there are problems inherent to most any style of play. I'm not discrediting the very real problems with "roleplaying as collaborative storytelling" but I don't feel it's any less valuable than another style.

I'm sorry it makes you cringe. Perhaps you need to look at it differently.

Psyren
2018-06-04, 10:38 AM
The DM, during the break, politely asked him to realise that there were other players at the table and he stormed off mid-session. We didn't see him again.

Sounds like a positive result.

To answer your query more broadly though - one good thing for the players to do is to provide character baclgrounds/motivations/concepts ahead of time, even if they're general. The GM can then weave them into the world, and more importantly, into each other. Every major plot scene the party goes through should involve at least two of the players at the table, and more if possible. That way, even when the other characters have less to do in a given scene, the interplay between the focus characters will serve as a source of engagement for the others. It also emphasizes the larger point that D&D is not about having one single protagonist.

Kaptin Keen
2018-06-04, 10:41 AM
A friend of mine - a GM, that is - works heavily with personal goals, plots and ambitions. His approach is hugely simple: The great majority of personal plots, quests, ambitions, stories and so on are handled via email, and not at the table. Everyone gets maybe 10 minutes of the GM's time pr. session, to resolve such things as are solo, without the party.

In an old Vampire game, one character ran a night club, another lead a criminal gang, I had a spy ring/information broker - and so on.

Quertus
2018-06-04, 10:53 AM
I was wondering if there was an optimal way to deal with people who attempt to subvert the DM and artificially inflate the value of their character at the cost of the other PCs.


began a very obnoxious habit of making it about his character's failure to defeat the bad guy. Not a bad concept on its own,

The DM, during the break, politely asked him to realise that there were other players at the table

Well, of course, my first comment has to be, if the GM has anything that can be subverted, that's your problem right there.

This isn't a play, the players haven't read the script. A GM that has "plans" that require certain behaviors from the PCs / players is wrong.

That said, players who can't grasp the concept of sharing the spotlight... Hmmm... I'm being wrong-minded. Let me try again.

Some players believe, in games (and sometimes in life, as well) that there is only one possible way to do things - their eyes have not been opened to the wider range of possibilities yet.

Or maybe the player's eyes are open, and they just consider it Badwrongfun to use such a communistic / socialist / welfare* model of spotlight "sharing", firmly believing that a capitalist / anarchy / Darwinist* model of "take what spotlight you can" is the correct approach.

Or maybe their eyes are open, and they would be fine with it, but they somehow missed that it's the druid's turn.

Or... Well, there are lots of possibilities. Point is, your GM clearly failed his social role in figuring out what was going on and addressing it. The answer to what approach is optimal depends on the root causes. So the optimal approach is to determine the root causes.

* I'm not really up enough on politics / social sciences / whatever* to know the right words here**.
** oh, look, a recursive** explanation! :smalltongue:

kyoryu
2018-06-04, 11:12 AM
Basic spotlight hogging.

https://i.imgur.com/IVljfT9.jpg

2D8HP
2018-06-04, 11:52 AM
Don't ask for back-stories.

I'm serious.

When it was just a group of friends hanging out, and going "Let's play a game" this wasn't a problem as often, but now it's common for GM's to ask strangers to audition by submitting a "back-story" as homework, or something, and when people invest the time and toil in writing something up they want it to mean something, and since the GM picked the story, they try to play the character in that story.

Stop it.

Create characters together as a team instead.

Unfortunately it's more work to pick people instead of reading some tales (or, judging by which ones of mine get accepted, counting the pages submitted and picking the longest ones as a measure of "commitment" or whatever).

Maybe even start suggesting what kind of PC's are appropriate for the game?

Maybe even make some pre-gens?

It took me a while before I sussed out that this new "submit a back-story" ritual, wasn't actually for the GM to create adventures around, and not everyone has caught that yet.

Basically, if you don't want protagonists, don't ask for a story as homework (and if you don't, you still probably have to work in tutoring someone away from habits picked up from other tables)!

kyoryu
2018-06-04, 12:31 PM
Don't ask for back-stories.

I'm serious.

The problem with backstories, especially ones done in isolation, is that they get people invested into the idea of a certain story for their character, and that may be one that's incompatible with what the rest of the group wants.

If you want to have backstories, I'd recommend having them roughed out in session zero and writing them afterwards.

The whole "make your character before the first game, with no idea of who everyone else is or what the game is about" thing is just such a recipe for disaster.

Illven
2018-06-04, 02:17 PM
Maybe even start suggesting what kind of PC's are appropriate for the game?

Maybe even make some pre-gens?

I think the second one is going too far, and could possibly lead to a dm being overly controlling. "Oh the character (that I made for you.) wouldn't do that." For an action the rest of the party has no problem with.

Koo Rehtorb
2018-06-04, 02:40 PM
I post a premise for the game and I ask people to submit a sample character that they may or may not choose to play in the game. This has proven remarkably effective at selecting for people who:

1) Are willing to put effort into the game. It weeds out people who can't be bothered to type more than a couple sentences. I am not interested in doing all the work for people who aren't interested in doing anything themselves.
2) Understand the themes and premise I'm going for. It weeds out people who clearly don't understand what the game is about.
3) Speak English fluently.

The Jack
2018-06-04, 02:48 PM
Vampire

See, I and my friends sort of see vampire as a -serve yourself- kind of game. Go for your own agenda even when the -main quest- is rolling. Small groups and sandboxing, Too much focus and it's all very trenchcoat'n katanas.

I find vampire works best with 1-3 players whilst DnD needs 3-5. Really helps the game in roleplaying and the sloggish combat suffers less.

Kaptin Keen
2018-06-04, 03:29 PM
See, I and my friends sort of see vampire as a -serve yourself- kind of game. Go for your own agenda even when the -main quest- is rolling. Small groups and sandboxing, Too much focus and it's all very trenchcoat'n katanas.

I find vampire works best with 1-3 players whilst DnD needs 3-5. Really helps the game in roleplaying and the sloggish combat suffers less.

Well - yes, Vampire is a fairly ego-centric RPG. Still, I mean, the example holds, even if it's the sort of system that might lend itself to the opposite type of play =)

2D8HP
2018-06-04, 03:56 PM
I think the second one is going too far, and could possibly lead to a dm being overly controlling. "Oh the character (that I made for you.) wouldn't do that." For an action the rest of the party has no problem with.


That's a good point. I do remember being told what to play for a Cyberpunk game, and it was lame.


I post a premise for the game and I ask people to submit a sample character that they may or may not choose to play in the game. This has proven remarkably effective at selecting for people who:

1) Are willing to put effort into the game. It weeds out people who can't be bothered to type more than a couple sentences. I am not interested in doing all the work for people who aren't interested in doing anything themselves.
2) Understand the themes and premise I'm going for. It weeds out people who clearly don't understand what the game is about.
3) Speak English fluently.


Yeah that's what I ususlly see now, if you stretch the word "premise", and perhaps I'm one who just doesn't understand most premises then, as usually what I see GM's first show looks like a dimly related history ("10,000 years ago the McEldrich's settled the continent of Customlandia"), and I seldom get a clue from that, and almost always (if invited to play) have to quickly suss out what style of PC is appropriate after play starts.

And when do these "Session 0's" that legends speak of happen?

I remember some brief one's for games of Cyberpunk and RuneQuest years ago, and a briefer one for Pendragon, but the other 50+ games?

Nope, I've never seen one.

Maybe it would help if more GM's would just tell players what kind of PC's are appropriate?

Koo Rehtorb
2018-06-04, 04:13 PM
Yeah that's what I ususlly see now, if you stretch the word "premise", and perhaps I'm one who just doesn't understand most premises then, as usually what I see GM's first show looks like a dimly related history ("10,000 years ago the McEldrich's settled the continent of Customlandia"), and I seldom get a clue from that, and almost always (if invited to play) have to quickly suss out what style of PC is appropriate after play starts.

It's more along the lines of if I say "This is a teen superhero game" I don't want people who show up expecting to play the Punisher. If I'm GMing Pendragon I don't want someone who shows up wanting to play a Saxon witch. I want a sample character that demonstrates someone understands what the game is about.


Maybe it would help if more GM's would just tell players what kind of PC's are appropriate?

I'm not interested in hand holding. I want people who can look at a premise/system and understand what is and isn't appropriate based on that all on their own. Because if they don't understand that then I'm going to have to be doing extra work during the game to keep them up to speed, and I hate doing unnecessary work to cover for people who didn't do their own research.

2D8HP
2018-06-04, 04:24 PM
...I don't want someone who shows up wanting to play a Saxon witch...


It's not even my real nose, they put it on me!
If quoting python on the barest pretext is wrong I don't want to be right!

Malimar
2018-06-04, 05:40 PM
Don't ask for back-stories.
You've already banged on this drum extensively elsewhere. It doesn't seem to have much to do with the present topic. Just seems like axe-grinding.

Beleriphon
2018-06-04, 06:23 PM
I'm not interested in hand holding. I want people who can look at a premise/system and understand what is and isn't appropriate based on that all on their own. Because if they don't understand that then I'm going to have to be doing extra work during the game to keep them up to speed, and I hate doing unnecessary work to cover for people who didn't do their own research.

I don't think its hand holding to tell players things like: "We're doing a dark fantasy game kind of like The Witcher but with regular D&D Rules so make morally ambiguous but not evil characters that would fit in a setting where professional monster killers are thing"; or, "We're playing superheroes, the idea is you're all new heroes on the scene, make characters that could members of the Teen Titans"; or, "This is a space pirate game in a space operate setting 2000 years into the future, science doesn't make sense just go with it."

None of those are hand holding

Knaight
2018-06-04, 06:31 PM
This is one of the reasons I cringe at the assertion that "roleplaying is storytelling" -- too many people expect a story to have a cast of characters with specific Hollywood-style roles, including "the protagonist" / "the lead".

"Protagonist" is not a Hollywood style role. That's a basic literary theory term for the character focused on in the narrative, and stories with obvious protagonists trace back through known history and an unknown length of time before that. For instance the Epic Of Gilgamesh has a protagonist. Specifically, Gilgamesh.

Koo Rehtorb
2018-06-04, 06:43 PM
I don't think its hand holding to tell players things like: "We're doing a dark fantasy game kind of like The Witcher but with regular D&D Rules so make morally ambiguous but not evil characters that would fit in a setting where professional monster killers are thing"; or, "We're playing superheroes, the idea is you're all new heroes on the scene, make characters that could members of the Teen Titans"; or, "This is a space pirate game in a space operate setting 2000 years into the future, science doesn't make sense just go with it."

None of those are hand holding

I didn't suggest telling them literally nothing. I suggest telling them enough that a reasonably competent player can understand the premise of the game, and then ask them to prove that they're a reasonably competent player. It's probably elitist of me, yes.

Max_Killjoy
2018-06-04, 06:51 PM
"Protagonist" is not a Hollywood style role. That's a basic literary theory term for the character focused on in the narrative, and stories with obvious protagonists trace back through known history and an unknown length of time before that. For instance the Epic Of Gilgamesh has a protagonist. Specifically, Gilgamesh.

...

True, and completely beside the point.

Note the quote-unquote around the word "protagonist". Note "/ the lead" part. Note the "the" in front of "protagonist".

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheHollywoodFormula

RazorChain
2018-06-07, 06:14 AM
Well, part of the problem here is that specific character arcs are kind of a bad way to run a game. It puts too much focus on one character for any given segment of the game.

That said, personal experience says, kick these people out and the sooner the better. They're not going to improve, you're going to have more fun when they're gone, and you're going to wonder why you didn't do it sooner.

Not focusing on the characters is a bad way to run a game. Ruins immersion and you feel that your character isn't part of the world. The sooner you start to focus on your character goals, ambitions and backstories the less time you have to focus on boring stuff that is irrelevant to the characters

Knaight
2018-06-07, 06:23 AM
Not focusing on the characters is a bad way to run a game. Ruins immersion and you feel that your character isn't part of the world. The sooner you start to focus on your character goals, ambitions and backstories the less time you have to focus on boring stuff that is irrelevant to the characters

What was proposed wasn't "not focusing on the characters". What was proposed was not using the specific narrative structures of focusing heavily on one character at a time. That doesn't mean that you aren't focusing on the characters. Things like A-plot B-plot structures, on top of anything that lets the PCs play off each other heavily would also fit that.

kyoryu
2018-06-07, 10:31 AM
Not focusing on the characters is a bad way to run a game. Ruins immersion and you feel that your character isn't part of the world. The sooner you start to focus on your character goals, ambitions and backstories the less time you have to focus on boring stuff that is irrelevant to the characters

There's a huge difference between:

A) Focusing on the characters

B) "Okay, this is the story I want for my character, and we've got to have it in the game, and I've chosen this in a way that doesn't really fit in with the premise and in fact will make fitting in with the premise more difficult, but this is the story I want."

RazorChain
2018-06-07, 11:49 AM
What was proposed wasn't "not focusing on the characters". What was proposed was not using the specific narrative structures of focusing heavily on one character at a time. That doesn't mean that you aren't focusing on the characters. Things like A-plot B-plot structures, on top of anything that lets the PCs play off each other heavily would also fit that.


There's a huge difference between:

A) Focusing on the characters


I see nothing wrong with focusing on a narrative structure that puts one character in the limelight through some sessions. In fact I've played through whole campaigns where one players took the part of the "protagonist" as the campaign revolved around him reclaiming his homeland and rightful inheritance. I often run games in an episodic fashion where the focus shifts on one or two PC's for couple of sessions, this doesn't mean that the others just sit there twiddling their thumbs, watching the others play.





B) "Okay, this is the story I want for my character, and we've got to have it in the game, and I've chosen this in a way that doesn't really fit in with the premise and in fact will make fitting in with the premise more difficult, but this is the story I want."


This is something completely different, this is a player demanding a story arc that doesn't fit the premise of the game. I was responding to Koo Rehtorb's post about specific character arcs not the OP about a player trying to hijack the campaign and demanding that the game focuses solely on him.

tensai_oni
2018-06-07, 12:11 PM
There are whole RPGs built around assumption that each arc or story has a specific focus character who gets the spotlight. Chuubo's being an example.

I've run games where players were explicitly told to provide personal story arcs with as much or little detail as they wanted, and these arcs would be put into the game - with changes if they don't fit the overarching plot, but these changes were discussed with the players in question and concessions were made to make sure everyone is satisfied.

It worked great, but just like in OP's situation, it created scenarios where some players were hellbent on hogging the spotlight and making it all about themselves, even when it was supposed to be other players' time to shine.

The solution? It's an OOC problem, and OOC problems have OOC solutions. Mainly, being told to cut that out, and if they refuse to change their behaviour, removal from the group.

RazorChain
2018-06-07, 12:16 PM
There are whole RPGs built around assumption that each arc or story has a specific focus character who gets the spotlight. Chuubo's being an example.

I've run games where players were explicitly told to provide personal story arcs with as much or little detail as they wanted, and these arcs would be put into the game - with changes if they don't fit the overarching plot, but these changes were discussed with the players in question and concessions were made to make sure everyone is satisfied.

It worked great, but just like in OP's situation, it created scenarios where some players were hellbent on hogging the spotlight and making it all about themselves, even when it was supposed to be other players' time to shine.

The solution? It's an OOC problem, and OOC problems have OOC solutions. Mainly, being told to cut that out, and if they refuse to change their behaviour, removal from the group.

I agree, I've run personal story arcs with great success. But then I've had players that don't want personal story arcs, just to quote one player I played with "I'm perfectly fine with playing a supporting role". He just wanted Hulk smash and that was fine with me because then I could just focus more on the other players.

VelociRapture12
2018-06-07, 12:19 PM
I have often found that groups that have characters woven into the world can work, but only if the group has been playing the game together for awhile. The longer the group stays together the better the harmony between players is and it helps them understand how the story is flowing and when it is their time to shine. A new group doesn’t quite get that and won’t care whose time it is because they don’t know the other players very well/ at all.

kyoryu
2018-06-07, 01:12 PM
I see nothing wrong with...

This is something completely different, this is a player demanding a story arc that doesn't fit the premise of the game. I was responding to Koo Rehtorb's post about specific character arcs not the OP about a player trying to hijack the campaign and demanding that the game focuses solely on him.

Yes, my point exactly.

RazorChain
2018-06-07, 05:11 PM
Yes, my point exactly.

Well....eh....uh...I guess we are in agreement then.

Quertus
2018-06-07, 05:22 PM
I agree, I've run personal story arcs with great success. But then I've had players that don't want personal story arcs, just to quote one player I played with "I'm perfectly fine with playing a supporting role". He just wanted Hulk smash and that was fine with me because then I could just focus more on the other players.

So much this. We don't all game for the same reasons, there is no one size fits all solution. Give each player what they want, rather than wasting time and effort giving them things that they don't care about. As in your example, where you gave narrative focus to the ones who wanted it, and just let Hulk smash.

Koo Rehtorb
2018-06-07, 08:04 PM
Not focusing on the characters is a bad way to run a game. Ruins immersion and you feel that your character isn't part of the world. The sooner you start to focus on your character goals, ambitions and backstories the less time you have to focus on boring stuff that is irrelevant to the characters

This is not what I said.

Seto
2018-06-08, 05:41 AM
Honestly - maybe the game wasn't very well run? My first thoughts are:

1. It's normal that the Rogue wanted to react to the arc and find out what effect it had on his character, even if it wasn't "his" arc. When something happens, each player is within their rights to roleplay how their character feels about it. "My character is frustrated because I can't defeat my enemies" is not spotlight-hogging, it's legitimate. It's not "making it about himself", it's roleplaying. Now it's true that you shouldn't dwell on those things, just mention your character's reaction in passing. I wasn't there, and maybe he was too loud, or talked all the time instead of letting other players react; but if that's the case, the fault is with him not paying enough attention to others, not with "collaborative storytelling" or with the type of game you're playing.

2. Therefore when you want to have a story arc focused on a character, the way to do it is not "shut up other players and let the right character roleplay". Everyone should have equal roleplay and reaction opportunities. But to make sure that the right character is owning "his" arc, make sure he's essential to doing things. If the Druid knows his island and the people on it, if the locals look up to him and ask him to lead the assault, if he knows essential shortcuts etc... The Rogue can roleplay all he wants, he won't take the spotlight away from the Druid.

The Jack
2018-06-08, 06:20 AM
If the player wants to control what their party would do next, as their character would want to contol what their party would do next, then that'd be fine, so long as they don't OoC squirm when things don't go the direction they want.

If the player wants to make **** up and willfully misinterpret what the DM says into bull to give their character more importants and spotlight... It's either a talk, a screwover or a boot.
(though I don't mind if they're playing a crazed character and the player's on board with me)


But I think on the flipside of things; I ****ing despise it when a DM changes/adds bull**** to your backstory without consulting you to shoehorn the character into something it's not. I believe you can add a few details in and add to it masterfully, though I've never seen someone do that.

Knaight
2018-06-08, 07:18 PM
I see nothing wrong with focusing on a narrative structure that puts one character in the limelight through some sessions. In fact I've played through whole campaigns where one players took the part of the "protagonist" as the campaign revolved around him reclaiming his homeland and rightful inheritance. I often run games in an episodic fashion where the focus shifts on one or two PC's for couple of sessions, this doesn't mean that the others just sit there twiddling their thumbs, watching the others play.

I don't either (I see downsides, but they're not always applicable). I just recognize that it isn't the only narrative structure, and that the existence of other structures means that one can simultaneously dislike that structure and still favor narrative in general.

Quertus
2018-06-09, 01:16 AM
But I think on the flipside of things; I ****ing despise it when a DM changes/adds bull**** to your backstory without consulting you to shoehorn the character into something it's not. I believe you can add a few details in and add to it masterfully, though I've never seen someone do that.

Although I fully agree with this sentiment, I missed how it's relevant (if I had seen the relevance, I'd be ranting alongside you).

The Jack
2018-06-09, 05:08 AM
Although I fully agree with this sentiment, I missed how it's relevant (if I had seen the relevance, I'd be ranting alongside you).

It pushes you into the spotlight when you don't want to be.

Max_Killjoy
2018-06-09, 03:00 PM
So much this. We don't all game for the same reasons, there is no one size fits all solution. Give each player what they want, rather than wasting time and effort giving them things that they don't care about. As in your example, where you gave narrative focus to the ones who wanted it, and just let Hulk smash.

More broadly, let each PC focus on what the player enjoys as much as is possible without detriment to the overall campaign and enjoyment.

Mordaedil
2018-06-11, 07:22 AM
Reading the example given, the player got frustrated and bored because the focus was on another character for too long for his tastes. It happens sometimes, honestly. I would suggest you as a DM try to not focus too long on a single specific character without allowing the others to interject. If someone has a certain passage they need to get through solo before the game can move on, tell the others there will be a break while you converse with this individual alone for a bit, take them aside and do what you need to while the others do something else, even allow them to roleplay amongst themselves if that is what they fancy or take bathroom breaks or play other games if this stretches on for too long. There is no problem if you write a lot of backstory for your character, but one has to remember that most of that is self-indulgant. The DM isn't likely to read all of it, but he might use some of it. This enrichens the game and makes it more interesting for you and can even help inform the other players about your character. Discuss your character with your DM.

(Note that the advice to not write backstories is a dumb one, that just means you end up with a shallow cardboard cut-out that has no place or meaning and no driving force, a true murder hobo)

Scripten
2018-06-11, 09:46 AM
If someone has a certain passage they need to get through solo before the game can move on, tell the others there will be a break while you converse with this individual alone for a bit, take them aside and do what you need to while the others do something else, even allow them to roleplay amongst themselves if that is what they fancy or take bathroom breaks or play other games if this stretches on for too long.

When I am able to (which, in my experience, is most occasions), I try to set up solo situations such that they happen simultaneously with difficult decisions or particularly challenging encounters. My group deliberates on roleplaying decisions a lot, so if I can take one player away from the table for a little bit, they can work through things and possibly come to a consensus without wasting too much time. They also appreciate having real surprises and secrets in the party, which is, I know, a big no-no around these parts, but they're generally mature about it.


There is no problem if you write a lot of backstory for your character, but one has to remember that most of that is self-indulgant. The DM isn't likely to read all of it, but he might use some of it. This enrichens the game and makes it more interesting for you and can even help inform the other players about your character. Discuss your character with your DM.

(Note that the advice to not write backstories is a dumb one, that just means you end up with a shallow cardboard cut-out that has no place or meaning and no driving force, a true murder hobo)

Writing a ten-page essay backstory is fairly useless, IMO. For one thing, it puts all of the interesting parts of the character's life behind them, but it also makes it tougher for the DM to pull out useful information to bring the character into the adventure. The best backstories, for me, are ones that include no more than one or two inciting incidents, a smattering of mundane lifestyle details, and one to three important NPCs.

I have no issue with someone who writes a huge backstory as long as they can isolate those items to hand to me, though. Assuming, of course, that they don't get upset when I miss a small detail about their third cousin's half-missing eyebrow.

RazorChain
2018-06-11, 03:26 PM
Writing a ten-page essay backstory is fairly useless, IMO. For one thing, it puts all of the interesting parts of the character's life behind them, but it also makes it tougher for the DM to pull out useful information to bring the character into the adventure. The best backstories, for me, are ones that include no more than one or two inciting incidents, a smattering of mundane lifestyle details, and one to three important NPCs.

I have no issue with someone who writes a huge backstory as long as they can isolate those items to hand to me, though. Assuming, of course, that they don't get upset when I miss a small detail about their third cousin's half-missing eyebrow.

I agree, too long a back story is not very useful for me as a GM. Have this friend that would ramble endlessly about his character or future characters and write self masturbatury fiction about them which would end with him saying something like this

"And that's why my character is secretly the Prince of Shadows and can manipulate shadows and darkness and teleport between shadows....and summon shades to fight for him"

Or

"And that means my character is a God, the brilliance is that he doesnt know about it!!!"

kyoryu
2018-06-11, 03:51 PM
Writing a ten-page essay backstory is fairly useless, IMO. For one thing, it puts all of the interesting parts of the character's life behind them, but it also makes it tougher for the DM to pull out useful information to bring the character into the adventure. The best backstories, for me, are ones that include no more than one or two inciting incidents, a smattering of mundane lifestyle details, and one to three important NPCs.

I have no issue with someone who writes a huge backstory as long as they can isolate those items to hand to me, though. Assuming, of course, that they don't get upset when I miss a small detail about their third cousin's half-missing eyebrow.

The bigger danger, to me, is that when you write that huge backstory, it's super easy to get invested in how things are going to happen with your character and really want them to go a certain way.

And often this is done without talking to the rest of the group or knowing what the campaign is going to be like. So you've got this huge arc planned that may not be compatible at all with what the rest of the group, or the GM, are doing. And that's where conflicts start to occur.

wumpus
2018-06-11, 04:22 PM
If a DM asks for backstories and isn't ready for what he gets, then what?

Wouldn't it make more sense to give out a general "introduction to the land/some idea of what skills/background might be needed for the quest?".

I've heard a lot about backstories. I understand that DMing can take a ton of time if you want details on your realm. How often is that communicated to the players in advance? [ok, I just left the "when the world becomes the kitchen sink" thread and this really hammered this home].

kyoryu
2018-06-11, 04:31 PM
If a DM asks for backstories and isn't ready for what he gets, then what?

Wouldn't it make more sense to give out a general "introduction to the land/some idea of what skills/background might be needed for the quest?".

I've heard a lot about backstories. I understand that DMing can take a ton of time if you want details on your realm. How often is that communicated to the players in advance? [ok, I just left the "when the world becomes the kitchen sink" thread and this really hammered this home].

You are 100% correct on this. Clear communication between all parties is key.

Unfortunately, it doesn't happen a ridiculous amount of the time, or people ignore it, and then you end up with disasters.

"Hey, let's play D&D! Come up with characters and backstories, and we'll meet on <date>" is a recipe for disaster, and it's waaaaay too common.

RazorChain
2018-06-11, 04:42 PM
If a DM asks for backstories and isn't ready for what he gets, then what?

Wouldn't it make more sense to give out a general "introduction to the land/some idea of what skills/background might be needed for the quest?".

I've heard a lot about backstories. I understand that DMing can take a ton of time if you want details on your realm. How often is that communicated to the players in advance? [ok, I just left the "when the world becomes the kitchen sink" thread and this really hammered this home].

The group I am in tends to work together on characters and backstories.

We have a session zero and then we might use a couple of months throwing ideas back and forth online until we are ready.

For instance I'm going to run a mini campaign over a long weekend (3 days of play) in late september. The group is already preparing.

As been mentioned the key is communication. Another factor is trust and knowing your fellow players

Max_Killjoy
2018-06-11, 04:44 PM
There are backstories, and then there are backstories.

The concept is good, but sometimes the execution is awful.

wumpus
2018-06-11, 05:49 PM
You are 100% correct on this. Clear communication between all parties is key.

Unfortunately, it doesn't happen a ridiculous amount of the time, or people ignore it, and then you end up with disasters.

"Hey, let's play D&D! Come up with characters and backstories, and we'll meet on <date>" is a recipe for disaster, and it's waaaaay too common.

Obviously this is key, but I was thinking that even a token attempt at communication involving a "world and quest backstory" before expecting the players to fit into this world would help.


There are backstories, and then there are backstories.

The concept is good, but sometimes the execution is awful.

I suspect the problem isn't "backstory" so much as "predefined character arc" that refuses alteration by fellow players nor DM.

Does "session zero" have to be done in person? That sounds like something that could be handled more or less offline, with possibly one short live teleconference. Yes, I've been out of the loop for awhile, why do you ask?

Quertus
2018-06-11, 06:40 PM
I suspect the problem isn't "backstory" so much as "predefined character arc" that refuses alteration by fellow players nor DM.

I may weigh in on backstory and session 0 in a bit, but this notion of pre-planned character arcs really baffles me. I play the game to Explore the world, and find out what happens to the character. The notion of pre-plotted character arcs is, to me, like reading the ending of a book first.

Knaight
2018-06-11, 06:49 PM
I may weigh in on backstory and session 0 in a bit, but this notion of pre-planned character arcs really baffles me. I play the game to Explore the world, and find out what happens to the character. The notion of pre-plotted character arcs is, to me, like reading the ending of a book first.

That said, there is something to be said for arc-bait, where characters have a particular trait just asking to get pulled on. This can be especially true if building things between pairs of characters, and some of the most enjoyable roleplaying I've seen has been based on arc-bait getting picked up, particularly when you've got arc-bait on multiple characters that works together well.

Take character secrets. Characters having a dark secret can inform their actions even if it never even threatens to show up, but it's so much more interesting when it's just under the surface, threatening to come up if not actively suppressed, where they need to actively work to hide it - until they eventually fail, the secret comes out, and it doing so allows for a turning point. Character secrets are built in arc-bait.

RazorChain
2018-06-11, 09:38 PM
I may weigh in on backstory and session 0 in a bit, but this notion of pre-planned character arcs really baffles me. I play the game to Explore the world, and find out what happens to the character. The notion of pre-plotted character arcs is, to me, like reading the ending of a book first.

This isn't about the player planning a story arc. It's about the player expressing wishes though his background and leaving questions.

The best backgrounds leave a good question to be answered. In his backstory one of my PC's wound up in jail because a member of a rival merchant house was found bisected in his room at the inn.

So he left me this question as a GM to answer. Who killed the rival and why? And why try to frame it on him?

Another PC in the same campaign wrote a short story where his master in the slayer order was betrayed by a another slayer and killed and his character was left for dead. So he wants to find the slayer that killed his master. A simple revenge story.

The third PC has parents that were connected to an assassins guild and his parents were poisoned when he was 15, his father died but his mother survived, but the incident left his mother invalid so he has spent his time trying to find some cure for his mother. The same night his parents were poisoned his twin sister ran off and he doesn't know why.


The players aren't planning any story arcs, they are providing me with information that allow me to make build adventure, intrigue and mystery. Most of what we play is about the characters, it starts like a small snowball that just gets bigger and bigger as their actions have consequences.

Glorthindel
2018-06-12, 04:20 AM
Not focusing on the characters is a bad way to run a game. Ruins immersion and you feel that your character isn't part of the world.

I don't agree with this as a solid rule - the characters are part of the world, not necessarily its focus, and sometimes it is more damaging to immersion to force events to thread into a backstory that has no reason to be entwined.

Sure, it would seem out of place if natural intersection points aren't explored or acknowledged (if a character comes from a certain village, events lead the party to that village, and then no-one acknowledges the character when he is there, that would be jarring and detract from the atmosphere), but to me it is equally incongruous if coincidence conspires to have every event in the characters lives miraculously tie in to the events the party are currently involved in.

It depends significantly the story being told, and the type of game being run. In a more open world game, or one consisting of a series of unconnected smaller stories, there is certainly more scope to tie backstories in, but if the game is more of a single epic quest (or just located geographically in a way that isn't compatible with a backstory element) then the coincidence needed to tie everyones stories into the larger narrative can often seem contrived and unrealistic.

Max_Killjoy
2018-06-12, 06:48 AM
I don't agree with this as a solid rule - the characters are part of the world, not necessarily its focus, and sometimes it is more damaging to immersion to force events to thread into a backstory that has no reason to be entwined.

Sure, it would seem out of place if natural intersection points aren't explored or acknowledged (if a character comes from a certain village, events lead the party to that village, and then no-one acknowledges the character when he is there, that would be jarring and detract from the atmosphere), but to me it is equally incongruous if coincidence conspires to have every event in the characters lives miraculously tie in to the events the party are currently involved in.

It depends significantly the story being told, and the type of game being run. In a more open world game, or one consisting of a series of unconnected smaller stories, there is certainly more scope to tie backstories in, but if the game is more of a single epic quest (or just located geographically in a way that isn't compatible with a backstory element) then the coincidence needed to tie everyones stories into the larger narrative can often seem contrived and unrealistic.


"Coincidence Pileup".

Agreed, it gets eye-rolly pretty quick when everything neatly ties together and the story or campaign is on its 376th "it just so happens".

Quertus
2018-06-12, 06:57 AM
This isn't about the player planning a story arc. It's about the player expressing wishes though his background and leaving questions.

I suspect the problem isn't "backstory" so much as "predefined character arc" that refuses alteration by fellow players nor DM.

Ummm...


The best backgrounds leave a good question to be answered. In his backstory one of my PC's wound up in jail because a member of a rival merchant house was found bisected in his room at the inn.

So he left me this question as a GM to answer. Who killed the rival and why? And why try to frame it on him?

Another PC in the same campaign wrote a short story where his master in the slayer order was betrayed by a another slayer and killed and his character was left for dead. So he wants to find the slayer that killed his master. A simple revenge story.

The third PC has parents that were connected to an assassins guild and his parents were poisoned when he was 15, his father died but his mother survived, but the incident left his mother invalid so he has spent his time trying to find some cure for his mother. The same night his parents were poisoned his twin sister ran off and he doesn't know why.

I mean, I normally have a half a dozen balls as a very low minimum that I'm juggling in the background of any given sandbox, and you think it's good for me to add 4-14 more? :smallconfused:

I've had players who didn't have the patience to last through an entire session for me to touch on their special snowflake background, and you want to encourage this behavior?

I say this, not as any form of attack, but to explain exactly the level of confused I am as to how this works. Do you think that it's possible to build a bridge from where I am to somewhere where I can at least see what you're talking about?


I don't agree with this as a solid rule - the characters are part of the world, not necessarily its focus,

The PCs should be the focus of the game, not of the world.


It depends significantly the story being told, and the type of game being run. In a more open world game, or one consisting of a series of unconnected smaller stories, there is certainly more scope to tie backstories in, but if the game is more of a single epic quest (or just located geographically in a way that isn't compatible with a backstory element) then the coincidence needed to tie everyones stories into the larger narrative can often seem contrived and unrealistic.

Maybe it's just me, but I prefer for events to be engaging in their own right, not because of their connection to the PCs.


Does "session zero" have to be done in person? That sounds like something that could be handled more or less offline, with possibly one short live teleconference. Yes, I've been out of the loop for awhile, why do you ask?


"Hey, let's play D&D! Come up with characters and backstories, and we'll meet on <date>" is a recipe for disaster, and it's waaaaay too common.

Session zero is best done as a conversation.

I come from a background that values role-playing above all else. Where "because it's what my character would do" would be consisted good behavior, and metagaming was the ultimate evil. One where the GM sets the ground rules and expectations, and, so long as those were followed, any problems in the game were the GM's fault. So my wording may have some bias from that.

But session zero is best done as a conversation, where the GM explains the adventure, the player describes a prospective character, and they work together to tie the character into the adventure.

Further, this is a good time to catch potential issues with party dynamics, from the statistical to "do we really want a Paladin, an Assassin, an Undead Hunter, and an Undead Master in the same party?" Or even to work to tie the party together and/or create / plan a party dynamic.


I agree, too long a back story is not very useful for me as a GM.

I mean, personally, I write my backstory just for me, to inform my character's personality and decisions. I don't expect or want the GM to read it - it's supposed to be a black box, whose interface is session zero.

Pelle
2018-06-12, 07:07 AM
"Coincidence Pileup".

Agreed, it gets eye-rolly pretty quick when everything neatly ties together and the story or campaign is on its 376th "it just so happens".

If the DM is responsible for providing all adventure goals, it may become a little contrived, yes. However, it doesn't feel that contrived in character driven games, where the players decide which goals to pursue. If the husband of one of the characters was killed by mobsters, it doesn't feel coincidental when the characters decide to get revenge on that mobster family, and also discover what other nefarious business the family was up to.

I think the backgrounds provided by RazorChain sounded great for these kind of games. Not sure how he plays, but to me it would be natural to just round off the game when the characters has obtained their goals. Hitting them with another big eoic adventure afterwards would be coincidental again, but I'll rather start a new game with fresh characters.

RazorChain
2018-06-12, 08:05 AM
If the DM is responsible for providing all adventure goals, it may become a little contrived, yes. However, it doesn't feel that contrived in character driven games, where the players decide which goals to pursue. If the husband of one of the characters was killed by mobsters, it doesn't feel coincidental when the characters decide to get revenge on that mobster family, and also discover what other nefarious business the family was up to.

I think the backgrounds provided by RazorChain sounded great for these kind of games. Not sure how he plays, but to me it would be natural to just round off the game when the characters has obtained their goals. Hitting them with another big eoic adventure afterwards would be coincidental again, but I'll rather start a new game with fresh characters.

This is what I do. I just center the entire game on the characters.

The Slayer in the revenge story, of course he's working with the bad guys that ties into another plot. Some plots mature slowly with the pieces coming together in the long run. So when my Players are satisfied or I get tired of the game and try to tie it all up, then the game ends.

This is what I call a character driven game. It's almost entirely driven by the characters backgrounds and goals.

Pelle
2018-06-12, 09:29 AM
This is what I do. I just center the entire game on the characters.

The Slayer in the revenge story, of course he's working with the bad guys that ties into another plot. Some plots mature slowly with the pieces coming together in the long run. So when my Players are satisfied or I get tired of the game and try to tie it all up, then the game ends.

This is what I call a character driven game. It's almost entirely driven by the characters backgrounds and goals.

Yeah, sounds good.




I say this, not as any form of attack, but to explain exactly the level of confused I am as to how this works. Do you think that it's possible to build a bridge from where I am to somewhere where I can at least see what you're talking about?


Recently I ran a one-shot adventure, where the characters were given a short mission in a big city. Not the focus of the adventure, but I had decided that in the background there was a conspiracy among the lesser nobles, and they had made contact with a diabolic cult of which it was possible to observe signs of during the adventure.

Now, the players had made characters that fitted nicely together with what I had planned so far, and wanted to continue playing the characters. One was a nobleman, denounced from his family when he showed signs of demonic heritage at puberty, wanting revenge on his intolerant family. Another character was also a nobleman, heir to his family, caring mostly about proving his honour and progressing the status of his family.

So after the intended one-shot, I just reevalauted the state of the world. It made perfect sense that the family of the outcast was involved in conspiracy, and his demonic features could be due to the cult somehow. Not so much a coincident that he's involved, it was already established that 40% of the noble families were in the conspiracy, and there were multiple hints of fiendish involvement.

Already, his motivation is to get back at his family, and the other nobleman is motivated to stop the conspiracy for his family's honour. The players are now self driven, and pursue the goals of their characters. I didn't need to engineer hooks designed to draw a random stranger into this business, just play out how the conspirators naturally respond to the PCs and an adventure emerge by itself.

Other times I have ideas for an exciting adventure, and cooperate with the players to make characters that want to be involved with it. So it depends what comes first, the DM wanting to run a specific adventure, or players wanting to run characters with a specific motivation or agenda.

kyoryu
2018-06-12, 11:02 AM
This isn't about the player planning a story arc. It's about the player expressing wishes though his background and leaving questions.

Again, the issue is that when people write (especially long) backstories before talking to the rest of the group, it's entirely too easy for them to get way too invested in certain questions/aspects of their character that don't actually fit with the rest of the game.

In many ways, it's the same problem as a GM deciding "this is the adventure" and trying to force it when the players are uninterested, or in forcing a specific outcome. Since everyone has input into what happens (through the actions of their characters if nothing else), gaming works best when everyone has a fairly open mind as to how things will turn out.


The best backgrounds leave a good question to be answered. In his backstory one of my PC's wound up in jail because a member of a rival merchant house was found bisected in his room at the inn.

So he left me this question as a GM to answer. Who killed the rival and why? And why try to frame it on him?

And OTOH I've had people bring characters to a game where the character was an extreme anti-human elf that basically wanted to kill all humans and was in love with the princess of hte elves and a bunch of other crap.

This in a game that was supposedly about hunting monsters.

I'm not against backgrounds. But I am against people writing entire backgrounds on their own before even discussing their character with the group. That character idea wasn't bad per se. But it didn't fit in with the rest of the group at all.


I don't agree with this as a solid rule - the characters are part of the world, not necessarily its focus, and sometimes it is more damaging to immersion to force events to thread into a backstory that has no reason to be entwined.

A lot of that depends on the style of game. In more open-table games, you can't really wind the events around the characters because who knows what characters you'll have? In other games, it's really good form to incorporate when possible. It's kind of a question of "is it about exploring a world that has independent existence, or is it a story about these specific characters?"


I mean, I normally have a half a dozen balls as a very low minimum that I'm juggling in the background of any given sandbox, and you think it's good for me to add 4-14 more? :smallconfused:

Nope, you replace some of your balls with ones from the PCs.


I've had players who didn't have the patience to last through an entire session for me to touch on their special snowflake background, and you want to encourage this behavior?

Jerk players are jerks. And they'll be jerks regardless of the style of game or how it's run. Get rid of the jerks. (Minimizing damage in the process is useful, too!)


I say this, not as any form of attack, but to explain exactly the level of confused I am as to how this works. Do you think that it's possible to build a bridge from where I am to somewhere where I can at least see what you're talking about?

It's a matter of investment. When players write stuff into their characters, they're interested and invested in it. Using this increases player interest in your game. This is a good thing. (Again, different styles of game, caveat caveat caveat, blah blah balh).


Maybe it's just me, but I prefer for events to be engaging in their own right, not because of their connection to the PCs.

Well, of course you think the events you come up with are interesting. That's why you come up with them. The players don't have that attachment.

What I like to do whenever possible is to ninja the stuff. Take the stuff the players come up with, and then roll it into my plans. Take it, own it, twist it a little. Now the resulting ball is part of what they came up with (and are therefore invested in) and part of what I came up with (and am therefore invested in). Win/win!

Think of it as more like Iron Chef. You get some ingredients, but it's up to you to add others and turn it into a tasty dish.


But session zero is best done as a conversation, where the GM explains the adventure, the player describes a prospective character, and they work together to tie the character into the adventure.

Further, this is a good time to catch potential issues with party dynamics, from the statistical to "do we really want a Paladin, an Assassin, an Undead Hunter, and an Undead Master in the same party?" Or even to work to tie the party together and/or create / plan a party dynamic.

Absolutely. I think the best process is to come to session zero with few expectations (on all sides) apart from the general pitch. Hash out details, including broad strokes of your characters. Then, take those broad strokes and come up with a background/backstory that works to support that basic character.

The Fate Core Phase Trio also is a super cool thing because it ends up tying your characters together (getting rid of that annoying first session "why would I work with them" garbage) as well as giving examples of exactly what people think adventures with their characters should look like.


This is what I do. I just center the entire game on the characters.

The Slayer in the revenge story, of course he's working with the bad guys that ties into another plot. Some plots mature slowly with the pieces coming together in the long run. So when my Players are satisfied or I get tired of the game and try to tie it all up, then the game ends.

This is what I call a character driven game. It's almost entirely driven by the characters backgrounds and goals.

Which doesn't mean the GM doesn't get to introduce stuff. Even if you have an overall plot, you need bad guys and enemy organizations and all that stuff, right? Why not just crib it from what the players wrote?

RazorChain
2018-06-12, 01:25 PM
Again, the issue is that when people write (especially long) backstories before talking to the rest of the group, it's entirely too easy for them to get way too invested in certain questions/aspects of their character that don't actually fit with the rest of the game.

In many ways, it's the same problem as a GM deciding "this is the adventure" and trying to force it when the players are uninterested, or in forcing a specific outcome. Since everyone has input into what happens (through the actions of their characters if nothing else), gaming works best when everyone has a fairly open mind as to how things will turn out.

And OTOH I've had people bring characters to a game where the character was an extreme anti-human elf that basically wanted to kill all humans and was in love with the princess of hte elves and a bunch of other crap.

This in a game that was supposedly about hunting monsters.

I'm not against backgrounds. But I am against people writing entire backgrounds on their own before even discussing their character with the group. That character idea wasn't bad per se. But it didn't fit in with the rest of the group at all.



Let me quote myself from earlier in the thread


I agree, too long a back story is not very useful for me as a GM.



The group I am in tends to work together on characters and backstories.

We have a session zero and then we might use a couple of months throwing ideas back and forth online until we are ready.

For instance I'm going to run a mini campaign over a long weekend (3 days of play) in late september. The group is already preparing.

As been mentioned the key is communication. Another factor is trust and knowing your fellow players

kyoryu
2018-06-12, 02:34 PM
Let me quote myself from earlier in the thread

Yeah, I think we're on the same page.

My point was just that there is a degenerate and toxic form of "backstory creation" that causes issues.

To quote myself from earlier:


There's a huge difference between:

A) Focusing on the characters

B) "Okay, this is the story I want for my character, and we've got to have it in the game, and I've chosen this in a way that doesn't really fit in with the premise and in fact will make fitting in with the premise more difficult, but this is the story I want."

RazorChain
2018-06-12, 04:46 PM
Yeah, I think we're on the same page.

My point was just that there is a degenerate and toxic form of "backstory creation" that causes issues.

To quote myself from earlier:

You know there are so many issues about everything in Roleplaying that sometimes I can't help myself thinking that nobody is having fun. We have issues about railroading, versimilitude, power gaming, martial vs caster, story withing RPG's, That Guy and so many more.

Then I think back on the 30 years of playing and almost all of the time I have been playing with a steady group that has common ideals about Roleplaying (mostly) it has been fun.


But back to backstories. I often build my campaigns around my characters and their backstories. This means I have to get a backstory, occasionally I have a player that doesn't want to be part of the drama, he just wants a supporting role and then I just respect that. On both occasions this has happened the players have put combat in focus even to the degree that I have had to rein them in because they were starting to get disruptive and being detrimental to the game.

This isn't because they were bad players, it's just because they wanted to play a combat oriented game that focuses on killiing monsters and looting them and I and the rest of the group weren't catering to their needs.


Basing a campaign around the characters and their backgrounds means they are invested in the campaign from the start. Some people have pointed out that other players get bored when they aren't in the limelight and roleplaying is a collective experience and focusing on one PC is badwrongfun. I'll just say this, the kick I get out of GMing almost all the time is the happiness of my fellow players. When they experience that cool moment that they talk about for numerous sessions afterwards, when they are excited about the next sessions, when they are theorizing on messenger about the game and planning their next move. That is my fun, in a way it's the joy you expericence through others ( if you have children then you really know what I mean). It's also the same energy I got when I was performing on stage and got reactions from the audience.

I am invested in my players and my players are invested in each other and their characters. They sat together and made their characters, they helped each others out with their backstories and even made some connections between some of the characters. They have read each others backstories. So when Luzio (PC) first met his nemesis the other players had been waiting for that showdown just as long as the player who plays Luzio. When Alma had been bloodbonded by a Vampire and turned against the group, the group went after that Vampire with a vengeance to free their fellow from the bond.

Because how can a guy at a shady inn doling out a quest to the group be better than a fellow PC wanting you to come on a quest that is important to him.

It's like I meet a guy at a bar who asks me and my mates to murder some goblins in a cave or good friend and companion wants me to help him track down the nefarious Slayer, Casimir Blaylock, who killed his master.

Even when the group is resolving a personal quest of one of the PC's it doesn't mean they don't have a voice, an opinion or can't make decisions, or that there aren't plenty of roleplaying opportunities. The talker still uses his skills to persuade, the sneaky guy still uses his talents for skullduggery, the warrior still fights common enemies and the wizard still uses his magic to solve problems.

Quertus
2018-06-12, 05:27 PM
Because how can a guy at a shady inn doling out a quest to the group be better than a fellow PC wanting you to come on a quest that is important to him.

There's a lot more I want to respond to later, but let me start with this: based on the many games with the many groups at many tables that I've participated in (on both sides of the screen), IME, the shady guy at the bar has a much higher success rate than the PC does to get the PCs to go on a quest.

That's how it's better. :smallannoyed:

RazorChain
2018-06-12, 06:33 PM
There's a lot more I want to respond to later, but let me start with this: based on the many games with the many groups at many tables that I've participated in (on both sides of the screen), IME, the shady guy at the bar has a much higher success rate than the PC does to get the PCs to go on a quest.

That's how it's better. :smallannoyed:

I think that depends entirely on the group :D The two groups I'm playing with atm are more interested in adventure that pertains to their characters.

Don't get me wrong we still play games where we are solving all the problems in town for people we don't care about, either for money, power or prestige.

Some campaigns even revolve around the operation or mission like Shadowrun, Cyperpunk or Gurps:Black Ops.

It's just my groups prefer to have personal involvement and personal stakes at risk.

One thing I dont get is why? Why would anyone do a quest for a unknown NPC instead for a fellow PC?

If my good friend Frederick, who I've been playing with for almost 25 years makes a Druid who is trying to protect his forest from some ancient evil that is corrupting it, why would I not get involved? I know he's going to help my character to recue the soul of his beloved from hell. And we are going to have fun, plenty of RP opportunities and plenty of banter. "By the Gods Fred, trees don't need rescuing, maidens do!"

Quertus
2018-06-12, 07:47 PM
One thing I dont get is why? Why would anyone do a quest for a unknown NPC instead for a fellow PC?

Beats me. I'm just reporting my analysis of observed behavior in the field. Humans are strange enough that I've got a huge backlog of "why the ****" to ponder. At my current rate of figuring out (or giving up), this particular one is probably slated to get my attention around 300 years from now.

Knaight
2018-06-12, 08:02 PM
One thing I dont get is why? Why would anyone do a quest for a unknown NPC instead for a fellow PC?

They're not - they're doing a quest for the DM instead of a fellow PC, the unknown NPC just happens to be the DM's way of introducing them. The whole idea that a GM makes a story that the players deliberately follow (at least to some extent) is pretty ubiquitous, as is the idea that the GM makes material for the players to use.

I've had to specifically untrain this habit before, with players new to me but not to the hobby trying to suss out the existing story and get the group to find and follow it, when I'd never made one, just set up a situation for the PCs to react to and enough material to let me improvise from there, where the campaign was going to go much more smoothly with proactive players following their own agendas.

JoeJ
2018-06-12, 08:21 PM
As time goes by, I've been moving more and more toward letting players start with just 1 or 2 sentences of back story and fill in the rest as things come up during play. I'll veto something if it violates the established continuity, or steps on some important secret, or if the other players object to something that feels too contrived or is unbalancing. Otherwise, if you want to reveal something about your past that's relevant, I'll usually just charge you a plot point/hero point/inspiration/etc. and go with it.

RazorChain
2018-06-12, 09:27 PM
They're not - they're doing a quest for the DM instead of a fellow PC, the unknown NPC just happens to be the DM's way of introducing them. The whole idea that a GM makes a story that the players deliberately follow (at least to some extent) is pretty ubiquitous, as is the idea that the GM makes material for the players to use.

I've had to specifically untrain this habit before, with players new to me but not to the hobby trying to suss out the existing story and get the group to find and follow it, when I'd never made one, just set up a situation for the PCs to react to and enough material to let me improvise from there, where the campaign was going to go much more smoothly with proactive players following their own agendas.

This is a bit funny though because in the end the GM is running both quests, both the one introduced by the NPC and the PC.

I guess my experimental RPG period served me well. We experimented a lot with the GM and Player roles by both allowing players to introduce things during play or just switching roles during the session where the one that introduced a plot would run it as a GM.

RazorChain
2018-06-12, 09:33 PM
As time goes by, I've been moving more and more toward letting players start with just 1 or 2 sentences of back story and fill in the rest as things come up during play. I'll veto something if it violates the established continuity, or steps on some important secret, or if the other players object to something that feels too contrived or is unbalancing. Otherwise, if you want to reveal something about your past that's relevant, I'll usually just charge you a plot point/hero point/inspiration/etc. and go with it.

There are a lot of background techniques. I got a new player into my group and she is playing a sister to another character. Instead of making a background I've just used a interview where I interview the character by asking the questions I want answers to as the GM.

Another thing is I introduce a NPC and ask the player how his character knows the NPC. This has resulted in jilted lovers, childhood friends, petty rivals etc. It makes the PC seem a part of the world with relations to it's inhabitants.

kyoryu
2018-06-13, 10:52 AM
You know there are so many issues about everything in Roleplaying that sometimes I can't help myself thinking that nobody is having fun. We have issues about railroading, versimilitude, power gaming, martial vs caster, story withing RPG's, That Guy and so many more.

90% of the issues boil down to people issues. A small few are actual system issues that can be papered over if you're dealing with reasonable people.

It's all symptoms of playing with toxic people, which seem to be sadly common amongst RPG players (ironically, for such a fundamentally social hobby).

But still, I think there's a number of best practices that can reduce friction amongst generally-decent people. "Writing backstory after we've communally come up with the party" is one of them.

Quertus
2018-06-14, 08:18 AM
90% of the issues boil down to people issues. A small few are actual system issues that can be papered over if you're dealing with reasonable people.

It's all symptoms of playing with toxic people, which seem to be sadly uncommon amongst RPG players (ironically, for such a fundamentally social hobby).

But still, I think there's a number of best practices that can reduce friction amongst generally-decent people. "Writing backstory after we've communally come up with the party" is one of them.

I'm not sure what to make of your "sadly uncommon" comment.

For the best practices, it makes a number of assumptions. First, it assumes that the party exists before the characters do. This is only one way to play the game.

Second, it assumes that everyone will have the patience to wait for a background to be created once people have their characters ready. I've generally not seen such patience in the field.

Last, it assumes that one can put the cart before the horse, and have a character first and a backstory second. Personally, I could do so with a playing piece, but not so readily with a character.

Max_Killjoy
2018-06-14, 09:26 AM
If it's like what happens to me when I'm writing posts, the phrasing of that line was changed at least twice but one of the words was missed during the changes made before hitting "SUBMIT".

(It actually happened writing this post, I had typed "wasn't changed", decided to to switch to "was missed" and almost posted "wasn't missed".)

Delta
2018-06-14, 10:14 AM
But still, I think there's a number of best practices that can reduce friction amongst generally-decent people. "Writing backstory after we've communally come up with the party" is one of them.

That's a nice concept that I like to follow, but for example, I have some players I play with regularly that, when starting a new campaign, seem to be pathologically unable to have their character finished before the first session of actual play. Even having a session 0 does not help, at this point I've just given up changing them, just stating very clearly that a) they can't expect the campaign to be tailored to their characters if I don't know them in advanced and b) if they show up with something that completely doesn't fit the bill, I'll just veto it. But connecting those characters to the others is something that simply can't happen before we start playing, for obvious reasons.

Quertus
2018-06-14, 10:15 AM
If it's like what happens to me when I'm writing posts, the phrasing of that line was changed at least twice but one of the words was missed during the changes made before hitting "SUBMIT".

(It actually happened writing this post, I had typed "wasn't changed", decided to to switch to "was missed" and almost posted "wasn't missed".)

That would make sense. As would autocorrect shenanigans. But there could have been deeper wisdom intended, like MtG common / uncommon / rare / mythic, or something. Or it could have been an unexpected (and possibly incongruous) opinion altogether. Thus, I wasn't sure.

kyoryu
2018-06-14, 11:23 AM
I'm not sure what to make of your "sadly uncommon" comment.

Typo! I meant 'common'. Way too many toxic people in this hobby.


For the best practices, it makes a number of assumptions. First, it assumes that the party exists before the characters do. This is only one way to play the game.

But... it kind of does, right? Like, we have a bunch of people that are going to play together, so they need to be a party. So the idea of a party exists.

Are there cases where it doesn't actually make sense to use this? Yeah, I can see some adventure starts where people are somehow thrown together or whatnot. Outside of this, does it make sense? I think it does. I use this whenever there's not a reason to avoid it, and it cuts down soooo much on a bunch of the BS friction and "party deciding why they should work with each other BS".


Second, it assumes that everyone will have the patience to wait for a background to be created once people have their characters ready. I've generally not seen such patience in the field.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. What's the sequence you're thinking of?


Last, it assumes that one can put the cart before the horse, and have a character first and a backstory second. Personally, I could do so with a playing piece, but not so readily with a character.

I think I know what's going on here. You're assuming I mean a full mechanical detailing like in D&D 3. I'm not really talking about that - I'm more talking about coming up with the character concept and a basic level of background/personality/etc. Since I usually run Fate, we usually put in the basic mechanical bits (that aren't background/personality/etc.) at the same time, but that's a matter of a few minutes at most. For a game with higher mechanical-creation time (GURPS, D&D 3.x, etc.) I'd probably leave that as "post-session-zero" stuff.


That's a nice concept that I like to follow, but for example, I have some players I play with regularly that, when starting a new campaign, seem to be pathologically unable to have their character finished before the first session of actual play. Even having a session 0 does not help, at this point I've just given up changing them, just stating very clearly that a) they can't expect the campaign to be tailored to their characters if I don't know them in advanced and b) if they show up with something that completely doesn't fit the bill, I'll just veto it. But connecting those characters to the others is something that simply can't happen before we start playing, for obvious reasons.

Again, define "finished". I'm mostly talking about character concept, and a rough version of the personality/backstory/etc.

Quertus
2018-06-14, 03:41 PM
a) they can't expect the campaign to be tailored to their characters if I don't know them in advanced and b) if they show up with something that completely doesn't fit the bill, I'll just veto it. But connecting those characters to the others is something that simply can't happen before we start playing, for obvious reasons.

Good point. When the characters the players bring aren't guaranteed to be acceptable - as is often the case IME - it's kinda silly to build everything around them, only to have it all fall apart when they have to bring someone else.


Are there cases where it doesn't actually make sense to use this? Yeah, I can see some adventure starts where people are somehow thrown together or whatnot.

In Ocean's Eleven, the characters were not thrown together randomly - they were picked for a very specific set of skills.


But... it kind of does, right? Like, we have a bunch of people that are going to play together, so they need to be a party. So the idea of a party exists.

Yes, it exists. As of today, we know that we'll be playing through Ocean's Eleven. The character I'm looking at bringing has existed for 12 years, and can fill the role of...

... Oh, and you're thinking of bringing that character? Cool, we've got history together. :smallsmile:


Outside of this, does it make sense? I think it does. I use this whenever there's not a reason to avoid it, and it cuts down soooo much on a bunch of the BS friction and "party deciding why they should work with each other BS".

There are a bunch of "BS friction" things to consider. Why should we work together is one. Why should we (collectively) do this particular mission is another. Why should we (individually) do this particular mission, and, as people bail, why are we accepting and working with this new guy is another. Maintaining "immersion" / suspension of disbelief when "always, there are two (or four, or eleven) of them" is another.

Different groups will have more or less trouble with different parts of this.

A group with no session zero is at the most risk overall. A new character, whose player doesn't know who he is, is at the most risk of developing incompatibility with the adventure, or the party. Players who value characters, and character growth will have the most problems, whereas groups that value gameplay will have the least. A group of war gamers is actually at the least risk of having any of these problems.

Tailoring your technique to the needs of your group seems optimal.


I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. What's the sequence you're thinking of?

Well, I was responding to, "Writing backstory after we've communally come up with the party". So, game is declared, session zero is had, and, IME, most of the players are done with their characters by the end of the planning session, and want to get started playing right now!


I think I know what's going on here. You're assuming I mean a full mechanical detailing like in D&D 3. I'm not really talking about that - I'm more talking about coming up with the character concept and a basic level of background/personality/etc. Since I usually run Fate, we usually put in the basic mechanical bits (that aren't background/personality/etc.) at the same time, but that's a matter of a few minutes at most. For a game with higher mechanical-creation time (GURPS, D&D 3.x, etc.) I'd probably leave that as "post-session-zero" stuff.

Yes, it's fair to say that most of my experience congress from D&D (pun). Seems to me, that such simple mechanical playing pieces would utterly guarantee that must everyone I've ever gamed with would want to start playing the moment that session zero was over! :smallfrown:

JoeJ
2018-06-14, 04:09 PM
That's a nice concept that I like to follow, but for example, I have some players I play with regularly that, when starting a new campaign, seem to be pathologically unable to have their character finished before the first session of actual play. Even having a session 0 does not help, at this point I've just given up changing them, just stating very clearly that a) they can't expect the campaign to be tailored to their characters if I don't know them in advanced and b) if they show up with something that completely doesn't fit the bill, I'll just veto it. But connecting those characters to the others is something that simply can't happen before we start playing, for obvious reasons.

What do you mean by having their character finished? I don't consider any character finished until they're retired from play. Until them, they're still growing and changing in response to events.

Delta
2018-06-14, 04:22 PM
What do you mean by having their character finished? I don't consider any character finished until they're retired from play. Until them, they're still growing and changing in response to events.

I mean having a playable character. To give you one example: Last time I tried running Shadowrun for that group, those two players first during our session 0 told me that they were thinking about maybe some kind of "monster hunter" adept and maybe a "black mage" style concept, but they weren't sure. They did know they already had an orc hacker girl and a ninja assassin type character in the group. The campaign hook was focused on gangs, drugs and organized crime, I had warned everyone in advance this would not be a campaign for "nice" runners, it would get dirty, it might well get ugly along the way.

When we met for the first session, what I got was a drone rigger specializing in civilian water drones working as an honest to god lifeguard at a private swimming facility as a day job and an amateur driver, not even a rigger, who was still living with his mom and almost walked out of the first meeting because he wasn't sure he could accept working for guys selling drugs. He had absolutely no useful skills the rest of the group hadn't already covered.

That one example was the moment my "I will veto your characters if they don't fit" rule. They didn't even do it to be obnoxious or anything, they're just... clueless. They had heard everything I had said about the campaign and for some reason thought those character concepts would fit in perfectly.

JoeJ
2018-06-14, 05:01 PM
I mean having a playable character. To give you one example: Last time I tried running Shadowrun for that group, those two players first during our session 0 told me that they were thinking about maybe some kind of "monster hunter" adept and maybe a "black mage" style concept, but they weren't sure. They did know they already had an orc hacker girl and a ninja assassin type character in the group. The campaign hook was focused on gangs, drugs and organized crime, I had warned everyone in advance this would not be a campaign for "nice" runners, it would get dirty, it might well get ugly along the way.

When we met for the first session, what I got was a drone rigger specializing in civilian water drones working as an honest to god lifeguard at a private swimming facility as a day job and an amateur driver, not even a rigger, who was still living with his mom and almost walked out of the first meeting because he wasn't sure he could accept working for guys selling drugs. He had absolutely no useful skills the rest of the group hadn't already covered.

That one example was the moment my "I will veto your characters if they don't fit" rule. They didn't even do it to be obnoxious or anything, they're just... clueless. They had heard everything I had said about the campaign and for some reason thought those character concepts would fit in perfectly.

That's… strange. I wonder why they misunderstood so badly.

I make character creation part of session 0. I don't mean I talk about it then, I mean that's when the characters are actually created. That way I can provide input about what is or is not going to work well, as well as answer any questions. And the players can bounce ideas off of each other, make sure they have all the niches that they think they need covered, and work out among themselves how their characters know each other and why they're hanging out together. (It also reduces the temptation to fudge die rolls, since everybody is sitting around the table together.)

Delta
2018-06-15, 05:43 AM
That's… strange. I wonder why they misunderstood so badly.

I make character creation part of session 0. I don't mean I talk about it then, I mean that's when the characters are actually created. That way I can provide input about what is or is not going to work well, as well as answer any questions. And the players can bounce ideas off of each other, make sure they have all the niches that they think they need covered, and work out among themselves how their characters know each other and why they're hanging out together. (It also reduces the temptation to fudge die rolls, since everybody is sitting around the table together.)

Those two are just too good at hearing what they want to hear. And it hasn't happened only once, another example: I ran a new fantasy campaign, and my pitch for the characters was "Okay, your characters will be at the top of the list if the Empress wants something done, and if she sends you on a suicide mission, ideally, your guys answer should be 'I am sorry I have but one life to lay down in service of the beloved Empress!' and charge at the almost invincible ancient undead dragon and its undead army threatening the empire", and also told them that the hook to get the adventure started was the biggest tourney of the year held in the capital at the same time as a big wizards summit was being held in the capitals magic academy, so plenty of reasons for characters to be there. So... what I finally got from one of them was a dwarven master crafter specializing on siege weapons and the like whose only relevant ties to the human Empire was having worked as a mercenary there for a couple years.

Again, said player had absolute no idea until I told him that his character didn't really fit in. I have long since given up trying to understand the thought process that led him there, that way lies madness.

Ideally, I'd love to do the character creation together, but often, it's not realistic. Even if we do have a session 0 (which doesn't always happen since we often only get to meet up every couple months or so, so we try to get most of that stuff done online beforehand if possible), the games we run tend to be set in a rather complex system and setting, many of my players as well as myself if I'm playing have been known to spend several days on our characters and backstories, so most often it doesn't go beyond "I'd like to play a noble warrior who may be somewhat of a group leader type" and another going "I'd like to play a primary spellcaster this time, maybe a wizard from the academy in city A", it usually doesn't get much more detailed than this and things often get changed between then and the first session. Usually this isn't a huge problem because most players will ask me "Hey, I had an idea about my character and background, is that alright?" and I can tell them what works and what not, or even flat out say "Hey, your character sounds like it might fit in with another players background, why don't you two talk about it and figure out if and how you know each other?"

This has worked out very well in the past, except for those players, because I feel like most often, those characters get done just in the nick of time and often have absolutely nothing to do with the concept they first came up with (one of them is extremely guilty of this because I have noticed in the past that she's terrible at articulating what she actually wants, if you ask her what she wants to play, she overthings it long enough to come up with something complex, layered and whatnot because she thinks that's what she should want to play, when all she really want is to play a gal with a big hammer smashing things), but telling them to do it any earlier hasn't worked out either.

All this has lead me back to the two rules I first mentioned because it was the simplest way for me as a GM to deal with stuff like this. Every player knows my door is always open to talk about ideas and I'll gladly give them hints and recommendations if they want it, but if you show up with a character you just built minutes before the game, yeah, you can't expect the setup to be about your character early on and if it doesn't fit at all, I reserve the right to say so.

The Jack
2018-06-15, 11:57 AM
As someone said, for such a social thing, pen and paper games do attract a lot of problem(ed) people.

From experience; All new players to a system should play simple characters and not purposely indulge in making multiple, contextually unusual plot threads. The less baggage your character has the better*. You shouldn't really try to play against type either**. Once you're more familiar with the system and who you're playing with; go for it. But people really jump the gun.

*social flaws/merits in WoD are awesome but you really need to keep them grounded.

** Playing against type isn't a simple thing because some things are stricter than others. It's more of a problem to overplay the type of a brujah vampire (you'll get into a lot of trouble) than it is to play a brujah standing out from the other rabble, but it's downright abominable to even consider playing a less-than highly competent lasombra vampire; They'd never pick you, or they'd kill you off.


If you can't sum the entirety of your character's backstory in a paragraph (no, an unbroken wall of text doesn't constitute a good paragraph) then either your character needs revising or you're starting at a much higher level.

I think people need to consider others as much as themselves, maybe moreso, when they create a character. I'm happy to have characters have disputes or try to take control. But players shouldn't be doing those things.

JoeJ
2018-06-19, 11:54 PM
I think people need to consider others as much as themselves, maybe moreso, when they create a character. I'm happy to have characters have disputes or try to take control. But players shouldn't be doing those things.

I just started reading the FATE Core rules, and one thing near the beginning that I found is that you're expected to include two other PCs in your own character's backstory. I think that's a very cool idea, and I plan to poach it for other games as well.

kyoryu
2018-06-20, 10:43 AM
I just started reading the FATE Core rules, and one thing near the beginning that I found is that you're expected to include two other PCs in your own character's backstory. I think that's a very cool idea, and I plan to poach it for other games as well.

The Phase Trio is utterly brilliant and is a huge benefit for just about any game.

Quertus
2018-06-20, 12:18 PM
I just started reading the FATE Core rules, and one thing near the beginning that I found is that you're expected to include two other PCs in your own character's backstory. I think that's a very cool idea, and I plan to poach it for other games as well.


The Phase Trio is utterly brilliant and is a huge benefit for just about any game.

I have a love/hate relationship with this idea.

I like the idea of characters being connected - there's nothing like signing up for an Ocean's Eleven gig, and finding out that your character knows one or more of the other PCs.

But trying to roleplay "suddenly, an existing relationship" often falls flat, and hurts immersion.

Further, from a roleplaying perspective, having that character in that position in your background is often as detrimental to the credulity of your personality as when the GM totally misrepresents your other background elements. It's just really tough to build a believable character with such dissonance thrown in.

So, I think I'd prefer to stick with character reuse, and actually knowing other characters, and actually having formed relationships with them, over trying to fake it.

But I do love it when it works.

JoeJ
2018-06-21, 11:46 PM
I have a love/hate relationship with this idea.

I like the idea of characters being connected - there's nothing like signing up for an Ocean's Eleven gig, and finding out that your character knows one or more of the other PCs.

But trying to roleplay "suddenly, an existing relationship" often falls flat, and hurts immersion.

Further, from a roleplaying perspective, having that character in that position in your background is often as detrimental to the credulity of your personality as when the GM totally misrepresents your other background elements. It's just really tough to build a believable character with such dissonance thrown in.

So, I think I'd prefer to stick with character reuse, and actually knowing other characters, and actually having formed relationships with them, over trying to fake it.

But I do love it when it works.

It's great if you can run a second campaign in an existing world and all the PCs already know each other. That's usually not the case, though. Or throwing a bunch of strangers together in perilous circumstances can also be a lot of fun if you want a campaign where much of the focus is on the interaction between the PCs. (Especially if you're playing a game that does non-lethal PvP well.O Most campaigns that I've played, however, have been focused outward; the story is all about the party interacting with the world. In that type of campaign, having the PCs begin with an existing investment in each other and a reason that they're adventuring together adds enormously to verisimilitude.

kyoryu
2018-06-22, 02:43 PM
But trying to roleplay "suddenly, an existing relationship" often falls flat, and hurts immersion.

That's a bit of a misconception of how it works.

In general, I pitch the trio as "the first six or so episodes of the TV show that our games is". So the "relationships" are "we met fairly recently and have a reason to work together. We're past the 'do we shoot them stage', but not to the 'best buddies' stage".

The "do we shoot them" stage is utterly boring to me. We know they're going to team up because that's the game. So let's just skip that.

(The Phase Trio also gives players a chance to say exactly what they think an adventure in your game should look like, which is super useful to the GM).

Quertus
2018-06-22, 03:22 PM
It's great if you can run a second campaign in an existing world and all the PCs already know each other. That's usually not the case, though. Or throwing a bunch of strangers together in perilous circumstances can also be a lot of fun if you want a campaign where much of the focus is on the interaction between the PCs. (Especially if you're playing a game that does non-lethal PvP well.O Most campaigns that I've played, however, have been focused outward; the story is all about the party interacting with the world. In that type of campaign, having the PCs begin with an existing investment in each other and a reason that they're adventuring together adds enormously to verisimilitude.

All? No, I find that having all the PCs know each other usually strains verisimilitude, unless there's a darn good reason. No, I was just talking about knowing / having worked with one or two of Ocean's Eleven before.

Not really generally a fan of PvP, but I am a fan of building relationships (and tactics) with other PCs.

Whether the focus is inward or outward (to use your shorthand), I'm a huge fan of the PCs being invested in the adventure. However, for sufficiently Sandboxy play, that can get a bit tricky.


That's a bit of a misconception of how it works.

In general, I pitch the trio as "the first six or so episodes of the TV show that our games is". So the "relationships" are "we met fairly recently and have a reason to work together. We're past the 'do we shoot them stage', but not to the 'best buddies' stage".

The "do we shoot them" stage is utterly boring to me. We know they're going to team up because that's the game. So let's just skip that.

(The Phase Trio also gives players a chance to say exactly what they think an adventure in your game should look like, which is super useful to the GM).

Ah. That is different from what I thought. Hmmm... That sounds roughly equivalent to a good session 0, then, I think.

JoeJ
2018-06-22, 04:03 PM
All? No, I find that having all the PCs know each other usually strains verisimilitude, unless there's a darn good reason.

I don't understand what you mean by "a darn good reason" to know somebody. You know the people you've met. For most of us, the people we usually hang out with are a subset of the people we know. Why would it be any different for adventurers?

Cluedrew
2018-06-22, 04:49 PM
On Knowing PCs: I think if it supposed to just be a bunch of chance meetings that just happen to connect everyone yes that is a bit of a stretch. On the other hand I have played a campaign where the opening was "you are on patrol when". The party was the patrol and have been working together for a while. And we had it worked out that one person had almost got another killed previously, two were rivals, two were best friends and one had saved another's life before play even started. I think the

On Backstories: I think the best backstory I have ever written was just 3 scenes. An actual story if you will rather than a plot description. Really these didn't establish anything that wasn't in the character description, although it went into more detail on the personality because you got to see it as opposed to read an overview. Other than that I don't do backstories. You (and I?) will figure out who the character is once the campaign begins and I see no reason to rush that.

Quertus
2018-06-22, 05:38 PM
I don't understand what you mean by "a darn good reason" to know somebody. You know the people you've met. For most of us, the people we usually hang out with are a subset of the people we know. Why would it be any different for adventurers?

If I'm getting into an Ocean's Eleven situation as, say, a driver, then, sure, I might know the con man, or the safe cracker. But, if I've worked with everybody there - especially on the same previous job, when this job is theoretically unrelated? I'm bailing pronto, because something's wrong here.

When I'm given a project in a big company, sometimes I know one or two of the people, sometimes I've worked with one or two of them before. But, unless this is a follow-up to a previous project, I expect that there will be more new faces than old.

I expect it to be the same way for most any team that is being picked for their specific skill set - sometimes, the required skills will overlap such that some people will know each other, but it would be weird for two unrelated teams to require the same skill sets.

Thus, knowing a few members of the team aids verisimilitude; knowing the whole team detracts from it.


On Knowing PCs: I think if it supposed to just be a bunch of chance meetings that just happen to connect everyone yes that is a bit of a stretch. On the other hand I have played a campaign where the opening was "you are on patrol when". The party was the patrol and have been working together for a while. And we had it worked out that one person had almost got another killed previously, two were rivals, two were best friends and one had saved another's life before play even started. I think the

That's fair. Although, as I said, I'm leery of people's ability to pull off, "suddenly, best friends" believably.


On Backstories: I think the best backstory I have ever written was just 3 scenes. An actual story if you will rather than a plot description. Really these didn't establish anything that wasn't in the character description, although it went into more detail on the personality because you got to see it as opposed to read an overview. Other than that I don't do backstories. You (and I?) will figure out who the character is once the campaign begins and I see no reason to rush that.

How about the one I've been conditioned to care about: making sure that the character is a good fit? If you don't know the character, how can you know if they'll be a good fit?

PhoenixPhyre
2018-06-22, 05:52 PM
My standard campaign opener (before character generation) is


You are all graduating from the Sanctioned Adventurer Qualification Course tomorrow. Today is your final ranking practical exam. You've been working together for the last 6 months; you've gone through Introduction to Adventuring Tactics, Introduction to Monsters and Dungeons, as well as the rest of the core curriculum. Build characters that will work well together. and then tell me a short description of what they were doing before they started the Course.

This neatly explains

a) why they're adventuring (because they've chosen to become professional adventurers)
b) how they know each other (because they've been a team throughout their training)
c) how they know what each other can do
d) how they'll be a good fit. Because that's a design-time requirement and I'll veto any characters that are bad fits, in personality or mechanics.

The backstories are very very short and the personalities pretty much blank slates with only the lightest of broad brush strokes to be filled in during play. I occasionally ask a question or two so I know how best to place them into the world as far as place of origin, etc. as well as to know what they'd know without a roll.

My current group (all new to the tabletop):

1) human barbarian, apprentice blacksmith in a big city
2) wood elf wizard, urchin in a city who learned her first spells by watching and mimicking the wizardry students in the bars and on the streets.
3) dwarf druid, farmer.

This style doesn't work for all campaigns, but it works well for me and my groups.

JoeJ
2018-06-23, 02:32 AM
If I'm getting into an Ocean's Eleven situation as, say, a driver, then, sure, I might know the con man, or the safe cracker. But, if I've worked with everybody there - especially on the same previous job, when this job is theoretically unrelated? I'm bailing pronto, because something's wrong here.

When I'm given a project in a big company, sometimes I know one or two of the people, sometimes I've worked with one or two of them before. But, unless this is a follow-up to a previous project, I expect that there will be more new faces than old.

I expect it to be the same way for most any team that is being picked for their specific skill set - sometimes, the required skills will overlap such that some people will know each other, but it would be weird for two unrelated teams to require the same skill sets.

Thus, knowing a few members of the team aids verisimilitude; knowing the whole team detracts from it.

So it sounds like you're thinking in terms of a situation where people are just picked for one mission by some higher authority? That has not been very common in games I've played, except for Top Secret. It's a fine premise for a one-shot adventure, but it really doesn't work for a campaign. If I'm running that kind of scenario I just provide pre-gens and don't worry about backstory.

What I'm talking about with PCs who know each other is the more stereotypical party who will be together for an entire campaign. They might be looting dungeons, or trying to put the mob out of business, or running their own tramp starship, but the expectation is that they will have many adventures together before the characters are retired.

Quertus
2018-06-23, 06:41 AM
So it sounds like you're thinking in terms of a situation where people are just picked for one mission by some higher authority? That has not been very common in games I've played, except for Top Secret. It's a fine premise for a one-shot adventure, but it really doesn't work for a campaign. If I'm running that kind of scenario I just provide pre-gens and don't worry about backstory.

What I'm talking about with PCs who know each other is the more stereotypical party who will be together for an entire campaign. They might be looting dungeons, or trying to put the mob out of business, or running their own tramp starship, but the expectation is that they will have many adventures together before the characters are retired.

Well, the context in which I brought up Ocean's Eleven was me pointing out that there were multiple ways to play the game. Responding to the existence of troop play - or even open tables - with an appeal to a single style of play is a step backwards.

Also, I don't exactly consider Ocean's Eleven to be a one-shot. I was more talking about the idea of a lengthy adventure, in the same system and world as the past 20 adventures - and, oh, look, some of the characters know each other.

But the idea that the characters may know each other when bright together for their particular skills seems much more likely than them knowing each other when brought together by random fate. We all happened to be in this elevator when the earthquake struck? What a coincidence! No, I chose "chosen for their skills" as among the likely premises in which it's reasonable for characters to have known each other.

MrSandman
2018-06-23, 09:14 AM
But the idea that the characters may know each other when bright together for their particular skills seems much more likely than them knowing each other when brought together by random fate. We all happened to be in this elevator when the earthquake struck? What a coincidence! No, I chose "chosen for their skills" as among the likely premises in which it's reasonable for characters to have known each other.

Well, it needn't be fate that brought the characters together. It may simply be that they were friends/family/whatever that found something that needed to change (evil lord, goblin raiders, political system) and decided to do something about it together.

I think that it isn't a matter of what premise you use (characters did not know one another before/some knew some/all knew all) but a matter of how you deal with it. Personally I cringe when characters don't know one another beforehand, several of them are the arrogant loner/I'm above that scum type who don't want to work together and only end up adventuring together because there is a label saying "PC" sewn in their clothes (and that happens a lot both in role-playing games and fantasy literature).

Quertus
2018-06-23, 12:25 PM
Well, it needn't be fate that brought the characters together. It may simply be that they were friends/family/whatever that found something that needed to change (evil lord, goblin raiders, political system) and decided to do something about it together.

I think that it isn't a matter of what premise you use (characters did not know one another before/some knew some/all knew all) but a matter of how you deal with it. Personally I cringe when characters don't know one another beforehand, several of them are the arrogant loner/I'm above that scum type who don't want to work together and only end up adventuring together because there is a label saying "PC" sewn in their clothes (and that happens a lot both in role-playing games and fantasy literature).

"You're all decided to take down the evil overlord - decide how you've all gotten together" is a fine introduction to a game. But I still cringe at the thought of people playing "old friends".

"This quest is more important than my personal disdain or even hatred of you" is also fine, and rife with role-playing opportunities. And opportunities for character growth, for those who are into such things. :smallwink:

MrSandman
2018-06-23, 03:03 PM
"You're all decided to take down the evil overlord - decide how you've all gotten together" is a fine introduction to a game. But I still cringe at the thought of people playing "old friends".

"This quest is more important than my personal disdain or even hatred of you" is also fine, and rife with role-playing opportunities. And opportunities for character growth, for those who are into such things. :smallwink:

I guess we agree that there's good and bad ways to do it. What's the problem with people playing old friends, though? I've played old friends with other people and been in games where people played family and I didn't find it problematic.

Cluedrew
2018-06-23, 03:36 PM
How about the one I've been conditioned to care about: making sure that the character is a good fit? If you don't know the character, how can you know if they'll be a good fit?I don't understand the question. Rather I don't understand how it relates to my comment on backstories. I still have a character, I just don't have their past.

Quertus
2018-06-23, 06:02 PM
For my stab at "one size fits most" best practices, I suppose I'd endorse having a series of one-shots before planning a larger campaign.

That way, the players can get a feel for their characters, the GM, each other. They can have a reasonable idea who various characters are, how they'd react, etc. What types of things the GM is good - and bad - at. They can sit down, and make informed decisions to plan a party that they think would work together, and a mission that they'd all be engaged with.

As an added bonus, the characters who have been in one-shots together have a real shared history, rather than having to make something up.

(for those who've asked in other threads, after such a series of one-shots is one of the times when players & GMs who have seen me play several characters often ask me to play Quertus, my signature academia mage for whom this account is named. I've never directly asked why, so I can only make educated guesses on that front.)


I guess we agree that there's good and bad ways to do it. What's the problem with people playing old friends, though? I've played old friends with other people and been in games where people played family and I didn't find it problematic.

Just that I've seen it fall flat many times. One particularly noteworthy example was when I was handed a pregen, and another player was handed the PC who was my wife. Yeah, there was no history, no chemistry there. And, not having time to discuss it, we clearly made different assumptions from the (terrible? lack of?) write-up about what our relationship was like, was based on, etc.

Hopefully, it's easy to imagine how two people could pull off "childhood friends" or some such equally poorly.


I don't understand the question. Rather I don't understand how it relates to my comment on backstories. I still have a character, I just don't have their past.

Oh. Silly me, not really getting this whole "having a character without a past" thing. The two are too intimately bound in my play style for that concept to even register. :smallredface:

You know, I feel like I ought to be able to tie these two conversations together, about having a "childhood friend" with no shared history, because you both have no history whatsoever...

Cluedrew
2018-06-23, 06:54 PM
Oh. Silly me, not really getting this whole "having a character without a past" thing. The two are too intimately bound in my play style for that concept to even register. :smallredface:What is past is gone. It may have left the starting state of a campaign behind but it doesn't mean anything. The character I wrote that backstory for was very dedicated to his work and didn't have many social connections outside of it. Because when his "condition" started showing his teacher reacted better to it than his family. Thing is the whole reason that is true is I wanted a relatively socially isolated character that was skilled in his trade. I created a bit of a history to check the "adulthood test" since it was an odd character. But my back story took place the day he left to go to the tavern where the adventure started.

I actually just made some of that up. I know his family didn't react very well and he is well regarded professionally, but I never decided the relationship he had with the teacher of the time. Yet it fits in quite nicely and in the off chance it did come up I could of made it up as quickly as I did for this post. (Less time than I spent typing it.)

So in conclusion: Yeah I feel I can know who a character is without knowing who they were.


You know, I feel like I ought to be able to tie these two conversations together, about having a "childhood friend" with no shared history, because you both have no history whatsoever...I did actually do that once, another player and I played siblings one time. We knew what the relationship between them was modeled after the conversation where we tried to figure out there relationship, so we did have them interact with no surprises. On the other hand they were step-siblings and I don't think we ever worked out who had which biological parent or how long the who PCs had known each other. Although from their interactions it had been a while.

Quertus
2018-06-24, 07:04 AM
What is past is gone. It may have left the starting state of a campaign behind but it doesn't mean anything.

This is only true if the PC is a static caricature. If the PC is open to change, then knowing why they are the way that they are informs how events can shape them, what the best catalysts for change are, how they can change.


The character I wrote that backstory for was very dedicated to his work and didn't have many social connections outside of it. Because when his "condition" started showing his teacher reacted better to it than his family. Thing is the whole reason that is true is I wanted a relatively socially isolated character that was skilled in his trade. I created a bit of a history to check the "adulthood test" since it was an odd character. But my back story took place the day he left to go to the tavern where the adventure started.

I actually just made some of that up. I know his family didn't react very well and he is well regarded professionally, but I never decided the relationship he had with the teacher of the time. Yet it fits in quite nicely and in the off chance it did come up I could of made it up as quickly as I did for this post. (Less time than I spent typing it.)

So in conclusion: Yeah I feel I can know who a character is without knowing who they were.

I did actually do that once, another player and I played siblings one time. We knew what the relationship between them was modeled after the conversation where we tried to figure out there relationship, so we did have them interact with no surprises. On the other hand they were step-siblings and I don't think we ever worked out who had which biological parent or how long the who PCs had known each other. Although from their interactions it had been a while.

I mean, sure. Just like GMs could make up the underlying facts of the adventure when it comes up, a player could wait until it comes up to make up the underlying facts of their character. Just, both are rife with failure cases, and likely to fall flat, especially to a discerning audience. So why would you ever do that?

EDIT: I have no idea why you peg me as the resident Avatar of role-playing :smalltongue:

PhoenixPhyre
2018-06-24, 07:51 AM
This is only true if the PC is a static caricature. If the PC is open to change, then knowing why they are the way that they are informs how events can shape them, what the best catalysts for change are, how they can change.

I mean, sure. Just like GMs could make up the underlying facts of the adventure when it comes up, a player could wait until it comes up to make up the underlying facts of their character. Just, both are rife with failure cases, and likely to fall flat, especially to a discerning audience. So why would you ever do that?

EDIT: I have no idea why you peg me as the resident Avatar of role-playing :smalltongue:

None of these are consistent with my experience. I've found that filling in the details in advance (whether as a DM or a player) creates rigid structures that don't change easily to fit changing circumstances. They lock you into a path that must be true, else all falls apart. This means that if the character/situation has to change for the observed narrative to make sense, the whole thing must be redone from top to bottom or you risk glaring inconsistencies.

Indeterminate backstories (that become fixed once observed) are much more flexible and responsive. Once something's been observed at the table (once you state a part of the character's history, for example), it's a fixed thing. Before that, it's open. You know the present state, but can choose how they reached that state.

You seem to think that history is destiny. That the past arc of a character defines how they'll be in the future. Nothing is further from the truth, not in real life nor in fiction (good fiction at least). Yes, sudden, jarring changes require explanation. But they happen. I've seen them myself. I've seen people devoted to a life of petty evil change and become pillars of the community over a short time span. I've seen formerly good, upstanding people throw away everything they've believed in and burn their bridges over a petty personal disagreement or disappointment about not getting a promotion.

RazorChain
2018-06-24, 12:51 PM
"You're all decided to take down the evil overlord - decide how you've all gotten together" is a fine introduction to a game. But I still cringe at the thought of people playing "old friends".

"This quest is more important than my personal disdain or even hatred of you" is also fine, and rife with role-playing opportunities. And opportunities for character growth, for those who are into such things. :smallwink:

I dont really see the problem here, most of the people I play with are old friends, some of whom I've been playing with for over 25 years. It's not hard to play old friends with an old friend. Is it harder pretending to be an old friend than an Elf for example?

Any way is valid how you want to introduce the group. Meeting at an inn to do some adventure is just as valid as complicated relationships. This is just a matter of what theme you want to explore within the game. I've played friends, rival, lovers, ex lover, children and siblings to other PC's.

The only thing that stands out as being the hardest to play is complete strangers that have nothing in common and the group imploding because the evil necromancer and the paladin are having problems aligning their goals while the greedy CN rogue is waiting on the sideline, hoping it ends in violence so he can stab the survivor in the back and loot them both while everyone maintains that you can't make them compromise their characters concepts and make them work together. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt

Quertus
2018-06-24, 01:01 PM
None of these are consistent with my experience.

You nearly lost me right here. Barring things like amnesiacs, most everyone should, in theory, have experience with themselves. So, for this to not match your experience with yourself, you must believe... what? That your personality is "LoL random"? That you are a caricature? That you would be far more believable if you didn't have a past?


I've found that filling in the details in advance (whether as a DM or a player) creates rigid structures that don't change easily to fit changing circumstances. They lock you into a path that must be true, else all falls apart. This means that if the character/situation has to change for the observed narrative to make sense, the whole thing must be redone from top to bottom or you risk glaring inconsistencies.

I dunno - I find that water being wet, or being composed of Hydrogen and Oxygen hasn't caused any glaring inconsistencies in reality that cause the whole thing to need to be reworked from top to bottom. :smallconfused:

So, you're a fan of the quantum ogre, who happens to be wherever (and whatever?) the story needs him to be?


Indeterminate backstories (that become fixed once observed) are much more flexible and responsive. Once something's been observed at the table (once you state a part of the character's history, for example), it's a fixed thing. Before that, it's open. You know the present state, but can choose how they reached that state.

But... you don't even have that! You've stated previously that you exclusively want characters who don't know themselves, who discover who they are over the course of play.

But, sure. For those who, unlike you, want to have characters with a personality but no history, I'm still left with a problem. Because their every action is an observed phenomenon, every action is connected. Suddenly deciding some bit of backstory may well subtly conflict with how you've been playing the character. Maybe you won't see it, just like maybe GMs who decide campaign facts mid-game don't see the glaring inconsistencies such behavior leaves in its wake, but that doesn't mean that no-one else can.

So why? Why would you open the possibility for inconsistency rather than start from a solid base? What advantage do you gain by not knowing your character's history to make this tactic worthwhile?


You seem to think that history is destiny. That the past arc of a character defines how they'll be in the future. Nothing is further from the truth, not in real life nor in fiction (good fiction at least). Yes, sudden, jarring changes require explanation. But they happen. I've seen them myself. I've seen people devoted to a life of petty evil change and become pillars of the community over a short time span. I've seen formerly good, upstanding people throw away everything they've believed in and burn their bridges over a petty personal disagreement or disappointment about not getting a promotion.

This makes it sound like you believe that the entire field of psychology is a lie, and humans are composed entirely of whimsy.

Ok, I think I made my reading comprehension roll on my second pass through this. Let me try again.

Contrary to your characterization of my position, we're actually in agreement here. These changes happen, and they happen for a reason.

But where I'm coming from is, they can't have those reasons and therefore can't really believable happen to someone with no history. Thus, it sounds like you prefer, even by your own definitions, to begin play running a caricature rather than a character - someone who is immune to such changes by virtue of not having their reasons defined yet.

Is that what you really enjoy? Starting with a caricature, and turning them into a character? The act of characterizing?

That would be consistent, and would explain a lot. But it's not exactly my cup of tea. I only enjoy the running of a characterized character - the act of characterizing them is, to me, just a required chore on the path to what I enjoy.

JoeJ
2018-06-24, 01:05 PM
Well, the context in which I brought up Ocean's Eleven was me pointing out that there were multiple ways to play the game. Responding to the existence of troop play - or even open tables - with an appeal to a single style of play is a step backwards.

Also, I don't exactly consider Ocean's Eleven to be a one-shot. I was more talking about the idea of a lengthy adventure, in the same system and world as the past 20 adventures - and, oh, look, some of the characters know each other.

But the idea that the characters may know each other when bright together for their particular skills seems much more likely than them knowing each other when brought together by random fate. We all happened to be in this elevator when the earthquake struck? What a coincidence! No, I chose "chosen for their skills" as among the likely premises in which it's reasonable for characters to have known each other.

I haven't seen that movie, but I understand that it's about a group of people who come together to pull off a heist and then go their separate ways, right? That sounds like the very definition of a one-shot adventure.

And 20 adventures in the same world but only some of the characters know each other? Are you assuming, then, that the players are constantly creating new characters? Or is it that different players are dropping in and out? Or both?

Either way, I would not run a game like that. The lack of continuity would be too jarring for me to enjoy.

Quertus
2018-06-24, 01:12 PM
I dont really see the problem here, most of the people I play with are old friends, some of whom I've been playing with for over 25 years. It's not hard to play old friends with an old friend. Is it harder pretending to be an old friend than an Elf for example?

If you honestly don't see the difference in the way that you treat your different friends - or, perhaps more bizarrely, honestly don't treat them any differently from one another - then, sure, it'd be easy.

But, um, I know that I sure don't work that way, and I strongly suspect that the majority of humanity doesn't, either.


Any way is valid how you want to introduce the group. Meeting at an inn to do some adventure is just as valid as complicated relationships. This is just a matter of what theme you want to explore within the game. I've played friends, rival, lovers, ex lover, children and siblings to other PC's.

Emphasis on "complicated" here. As the man said, "Everything should be as simple as it can be - and no simpler". Most humans, IME, vastly oversimplify things.


The only thing that stands out as being the hardest to play is complete strangers that have nothing in common and the group imploding because the evil necromancer and the paladin are having problems aligning their goals while the greedy CN rogue is waiting on the sideline, hoping it ends in violence so he can stab the survivor in the back and loot them both while everyone maintains that you can't make them compromise their characters concepts and make them work together. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt

I mean, I'm not sure if you're intentionally referencing the party of the Paladin, the Assassin, the Undead Hunter, and his dear friend, the Undead Master, and my character, but, yeah. Of course, being "dear old friends" was perhaps the most jarring part of that arrangement. :smalltongue:

Quertus
2018-06-24, 01:18 PM
I haven't seen that movie, but I understand that it's about a group of people who come together to pull off a heist and then go their separate ways, right? That sounds like the very definition of a one-shot adventure.

And 20 adventures in the same world but only some of the characters know each other? Are you assuming, then, that the players are constantly creating new characters? Or is it that different players are dropping in and out? Or both?

Either way, I would not run a game like that. The lack of continuity would be too jarring for me to enjoy.

ok, I suspect that, for many people, Ocean's Eleven would be run as a one-to-three-shot. Bad example on my part. :smallredface: I had intended to aim for more of a, say, 20-session adventure.

Still, have you never ran multi adventures in the same world? Have you never heard of troop play, where each player has several characters in the same world? That's the kind of thing that I'm talking about, which, IMO, makes the world have greater continuity, feel more alive.

Cluedrew
2018-06-24, 01:29 PM
This is only true if the PC is a static caricature. If the PC is open to change, then knowing why they are the way that they are informs how events can shape them, what the best catalysts for change are, how they can change.I think PhoenixPhyre covered the other part pretty well, and part of this actually, but I have something to add here. Although more information can help you understand that character and help inform decisions about them. On the other hand the things that are going to cause the character to change are the things that are going to happen, not the ones that have already happened. Those have already had their effect on the character and if I know the summation of those effects on the character, do the particular effects matter? Occasionally in my experience, but uncommonly enough filling them all in would be a massive excess of effort and I've never had problems filling in those occasional details as of this time.


EDIT: I have no idea why you peg me as the resident Avatar of role-playing :smalltongue:That might actually be a separate issue. More about how you form a character than the fact you do. But that is a topic for another thread. Possibly a particular other thread.

JoeJ
2018-06-24, 01:37 PM
Still, have you never ran multi adventures in the same world? Have you never heard of troop play, where each player has several characters in the same world? That's the kind of thing that I'm talking about, which, IMO, makes the world have greater continuity, feel more alive.

I usually run multiple adventures in the same world, with the same characters continuing adventure after adventure, like an episodic TV show. That's what I mean when I use the word "campaign." Even if each player has several characters - which is not usually the case - they're still all part of the same small group (a superhero team, for example).

ImNotTrevor
2018-06-24, 03:53 PM
The way I've often pulled PCs together is to have them decide which one of them was the one who pulled them all together.

In a Stars Without Numbet campaign I ran a few years back that character was a guy who went by "Fats." He was a very, very large individual with lots of connections to criminal organizations.

So everyone had a connection to Fats, but not necessarily to one another. Some had been with Fats for a while, others were new. Fats wasn't a questgiver, he was just a proactive individual putting a group together.

In Blades in the Dark, whichever character is the Spider will probably have that role. (They're literally the class that has social connections and favors as their primary ability.)

There are many ways to arrange these things, none of which are inherently superior. But as with all things it's highly contextual.

Quertus
2018-06-24, 04:13 PM
I think PhoenixPhyre covered the other part pretty well, and part of this actually, but I have something to add here. Although more information can help you understand that character and help inform decisions about them. On the other hand the things that are going to cause the character to change are the things that are going to happen, not the ones that have already happened. Those have already had their effect on the character and if I know the summation of those effects on the character, do the particular effects matter? Occasionally in my experience, but uncommonly enough filling them all in would be a massive excess of effort and I've never had problems filling in those occasional details as of this time.

Barring highly introspective characters, I agree - it's the new stimulus that is the catalyst for the change.

But, yes, knowing what turned the character into X greatly impacts what it takes to get to Y. Otherwise, therapists wouldn't be asking questions like, "tell me about your mother", they'd just ask, "who are you", and "who do you want to be", plug those into a Transformation equation, and tell you what you need to hear to make that happen.


That might actually be a separate issue. More about how you form a character than the fact you do. But that is a topic for another thread. Possibly a particular other thread.

Ah, that wasn't clear - I wasn't referencing the how, just the cares.


I usually run multiple adventures in the same world, with the same characters continuing adventure after adventure, like an episodic TV show. That's what I mean when I use the word "campaign." Even if each player has several characters - which is not usually the case - they're still all part of the same small group (a superhero team, for example).

Sure. Unless they're the only supers in the world, though, one of the most common pitfalls in such a game is, "wait - while we're doing this, what's the rest of the world doing?". This is why, IMO, troop play style games, where the PCs all control multiple (ideally, like 5+) characters in the world have an advantage in terms of verisimilitude - you know what other parts of the campaign world were doing. And you get those cool moments of, "oh, I've worked with you before".

Ok, maybe it's just me. :smallredface:

Koo Rehtorb
2018-06-24, 04:17 PM
I've long held the opinion that if you can't play a consistent and interesting character without having an elaborate backstory then you're probably not very good at roleplaying. It's really not very hard. In fact, GMs do it all the time.

Optionally, you can add in like three one sentence statements about defining events in a new character's life to give them something a little more fleshed out, but it's totally not necessary.

JoeJ
2018-06-24, 06:05 PM
Sure. Unless they're the only supers in the world, though, one of the most common pitfalls in such a game is, "wait - while we're doing this, what's the rest of the world doing?". This is why, IMO, troop play style games, where the PCs all control multiple (ideally, like 5+) characters in the world have an advantage in terms of verisimilitude - you know what other parts of the campaign world were doing. And you get those cool moments of, "oh, I've worked with you before".

Ok, maybe it's just me. :smallredface:

Probably not just you, but 5 characters for one player is too many for me. That's too many to keep track of, and the lack of consistent characters from one story to the next would make it too hard to do a long story arc. And I've never had a problem deciding what other important things are going on in the world while the PCs are doing their thing.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-06-24, 06:31 PM
Barring highly introspective characters, I agree - it's the new stimulus that is the catalyst for the change.

But, yes, knowing what turned the character into X greatly impacts what it takes to get to Y. Otherwise, therapists wouldn't be asking questions like, "tell me about your mother", they'd just ask, "who are you", and "who do you want to be", plug those into a Transformation equation, and tell you what you need to hear to make that happen.


I do believe that most therapists are using traditional, not very well justified methods. So arguments from psychiatry don't do much for me.

Knowing what's happened to someone has very little predictive value about the future. I've seen people who went through absolute crap and are totally healthy, sane, and great people. I've known people who grew up with every advantage, everything "by the book" who were total pieces of work.

Knowing someone's real values, on the other hand, is predictive (to a larger degree). And that doesn't require a huge backstory.

I could see a character backstory written as a list of traits each with an illuminatory event or two. The event is either what brought it on or an example of how they've applied that trait in the past.

Afraid of fire: Saw her parents die in a fire as a kid.
"Never tell me the odds": Habitually takes the high-risk high reward options, as when she doubled down, all in, on a risky bet in <place>.
Etc.

Except for the very major events, only things that are repeated frequently have a significant, lasting effect on character. So only focus on habits and the few, key events. Everything else averages out.


I've long held the opinion that if you can't play a consistent and interesting character without having an elaborate backstory then you're probably not very good at roleplaying. It's really not very hard. In fact, GMs do it all the time.

Optionally, you can add in like three one sentence statements about defining events in a new character's life to give them something a little more fleshed out, but it's totally not necessary.

Agreed.


Probably not just you, but 5 characters for one player is too many for me. That's too many to keep track of, and the lack of consistent characters from one story to the next would make it too hard to do a long story arc. And I've never had a problem deciding what other important things are going on in the world while the PCs are doing their thing.

My players have trouble tracking what happened to their one character in the previous session, and several need frequent reminders about the mechanical abilities (because they're busy adults who don't spend all day thinking about TTRPGs unlike myself). Jumping between characters and scenarios every week would horribly confuse them. Especially since it would then be N weeks (instead of 1 week on average) between times they'd deal with any individual character. So progression is N times slower. And plots are harder to follow and easier to forget. And it would exponentially increase the load on the DM, since you have to juggle interactions between ~N^2 scenarios (since you can have crossovers). Remembering who has done what with whom (and thus who knows what piece of information) scales really really poorly and makes any coherence require a lot more work.

MrSandman
2018-06-25, 03:53 AM
This is why, IMO, troop play style games, where the PCs all control multiple (ideally, like 5+) characters in the world have an advantage in terms of verisimilitude - you know what other parts of the campaign world were doing. And you get those cool moments of, "oh, I've worked with you before".

Ok, maybe it's just me. :smallredface:

That may work, if your approach is that characters form adventuring groups exclusively on the basis of skill. Somebody has a mission in mind, puts together a bunch of professionals whom she thinks have the appropriate skills, sends them off to their fate. Okay. But there are loads of other reasons why a group of adventurers might work together: loyalty, duty, friendship, availability, and so on. The characters may be an elite squad that works well together and are sent on missions. As long as no one dies or retires, or unless major personal issues arise, there's really no need for them to work with other people more than on rare occasions when the mission requires it. Or they may be the only powerful vassals of a low-rank noble and have no reason or desire to work with other people. Or they may be in a setting where you can't really just trust anybody, and they are (and should be) extremely wary of other powerful people, especially adventuring parties.

What you say can work and be believable in its appropriate setting. But there are countless other options.

JoeJ
2018-06-25, 05:35 AM
That may work, if your approach is that characters form adventuring groups exclusively on the basis of skill. Somebody has a mission in mind, puts together a bunch of professionals whom she thinks have the appropriate skills, sends them off to their fate. Okay. But there are loads of other reasons why a group of adventurers might work together: loyalty, duty, friendship, availability, and so on. The characters may be an elite squad that works well together and are sent on missions. As long as no one dies or retires, or unless major personal issues arise, there's really no need for them to work with other people more than on rare occasions when the mission requires it. Or they may be the only powerful vassals of a low-rank noble and have no reason or desire to work with other people. Or they may be in a setting where you can't really just trust anybody, and they are (and should be) extremely wary of other powerful people, especially adventuring parties.

Groups that are expected to regularly encounter violence - commando squads, SWAT teams, fighter squadrons, etc., usually retain the same members for as long as circumstances permit. Having the people with the highest individual skill is less important in those kinds of jobs than having people who work well as a team. The same reasoning applies to adventuring parties in fiction (although for fiction "work well as a team" means interact dramatically in ways that the audience will find compelling.)

Max_Killjoy
2018-06-25, 06:44 AM
That may work, if your approach is that characters form adventuring groups exclusively on the basis of skill. Somebody has a mission in mind, puts together a bunch of professionals whom she thinks have the appropriate skills, sends them off to their fate. Okay. But there are loads of other reasons why a group of adventurers might work together: loyalty, duty, friendship, availability, and so on. The characters may be an elite squad that works well together and are sent on missions. As long as no one dies or retires, or unless major personal issues arise, there's really no need for them to work with other people more than on rare occasions when the mission requires it. Or they may be the only powerful vassals of a low-rank noble and have no reason or desire to work with other people. Or they may be in a setting where you can't really just trust anybody, and they are (and should be) extremely wary of other powerful people, especially adventuring parties.

What you say can work and be believable in its appropriate setting. But there are countless other options.

You beat me to it.

To me, the most plausible answer to "why are these people working together today" is "they worked together yesterday". :smallbiggrin:



Groups that are expected to regularly encounter violence - commando squads, SWAT teams, fighter squadrons, etc., usually retain the same members for as long as circumstances permit. Having the people with the highest individual skill is less important in those kinds of jobs than having people who work well as a team. The same reasoning applies to adventuring parties in fiction (although for fiction "work well as a team" means interact dramatically in ways that the audience will find compelling.)

See, reasons I reject "gaming is storytelling" -- "storytelling" is just too broadly filled with these tropes and cliches about the characters needing to interact in a "dramatic" and "compelling" way. When I'm gaming, I want the characters to be as "real" as possible, not as dramatically contrived as possible.

Anyway, agreed on keeping teams together, not throwing a new team together for each job or mission. If I have to chose between someone who I've worked with for years on black ops, who puts 9 out of 10 in the ten ring, and some guy I just met who puts 10 out of 10 in the ten ring, I'm going to work with the guy who has a feel for how I'm going to react, and mutual, so that one of us doesn't accidentally put a round in the other's ten ring when someone tries to ambush us and we're taking cover while returning fire.



I do believe that most therapists are using traditional, not very well justified methods. So arguments from psychiatry don't do much for me.

Psychiatry is full of people who consider themselves "Freudian" or "Jungian"... which would be like physics departments having a large number of Aristotelian or Newtonian adherents still insisting that the universe works by the exact rules those men laid down.