PDA

View Full Version : How much do you like to collab on backstories (players and DMs)



Zhorn
2019-06-06, 12:50 PM
Just a general question on people's opinions on it, from either side.

A few of my players are emailing me their drafts of their backup characters for me to workshop with them on how to fit them into the world and story, fine tune their goals and past experiences, all the nitty-gritty stuff.

Do other DM's enjoy this? Do some try to avoid it?
Do players like their DM's working with them on character creation, or do they rather it be a solo affair?

As a DM I enjoy it because it give me a view into the kind of content that can be made to fit the character and what to tweak in the modules to make the campaign have that more unique and personalised feel.

DMThac0
2019-06-06, 01:12 PM
I like the players in my games to try to, at the very least, answer three questions:

What in your past made you want to adventure?
Did you lose a loved one? Was there a quest that's been past down each generation? Did you find yourself destitute and adventuring was the only way to survive?

What motivates you currently to continue adventuring?
Are you trying to reclaim your rightful place in an order? Did you find the name of the creature/person who destroyed your tribe? Is the money and fame worth the risk?

What is your ultimate goal before you retire?
Obtain a status where no one can challenge your authority? Lay your family to rest and know you've done them proud? Gain enough money to own your own land and rule?

Then, if the players are of a mind, if they want to detail more, they can. It's up to them to put all the extra fluff into their background. I'll simply look it over and, if necessary, make adjustments or ask more questions to fill in any blanks or inconsistencies.

MrSandman
2019-06-06, 03:06 PM
I like it when everyone collaborates in creating everyone's stories. It tends to create parties with better cohesion and aligned goals.

Jay R
2019-06-06, 08:57 PM
It's crucial to coordinate, at least on the basics, or someday you'll be running a character who was raised by elves on a world in which elves don't exist.

I tend to write a first draft, or a set of ideas, and then run it by the DM. He can throw out the things that don't fit the world, suggest modifications that make it more a part of his background, and work out the aspects of it that my character doesn't know about.

By the time I get to the table,. I want to have gone back-and-forth with the DM several times, so my character is one the DM believes in, and his backstory is one the DM can use.

I once wrote a backstory for Flashing Blades in which my character had earned a Favor from the Bishop of Lucon years ago, but when he went back there, the bishop was nowhere around. Since my character was a smuggler who had done a little political work for him, he didn't dare ask about him. The DM grinned and said, "Well, you are likely to see the Bishop again when you get to Paris." He knew as well as I did that the Bishop had been promoted, and was now Cardinal Richelieu.

My current gnome illusionist has been given a quest, but he doesn't know who it came from, where he's suppose
d to go, or what he is supposed to do. Obviously, this sort of puzzle requires the cooperation of the DM.

RedMage125
2019-06-06, 10:37 PM
I agree that some coordination is crucial. If nothing else, to prevent someone attempting things that do not exist in your world. Or violate some of your house rules.

Me? I have a list for all PC options (races, [sub-]classes, and so on), that delineates these options as Green Light (no restrictions), Yellow Light (there's a special consideration or restriction for this option), or Red Light (my default answer is "no", unless you can really impress me with a great backstory and concept).

Drow, for example, are a Yellow Light race. That had mostly to do with my own idiosyncrasies. I detest the "driz'zt clone". I've seen too many. There are 2 communities on the surface that a drow PC could have come from. One is a largely drow-occupied small town, and one is a large (mostly human) city which, for story reasons relating to something that occurred in a game I ran in college, is accepting of drow, and has a small population thereof. Drow PCs in my world grew up their entire lives on the surface. They are not "chaotic rebels striving against their evil kin". they of course know of the spider queen, but have never even met a priestess of her.

Dragonborn have a Yellow Light consideration. If they are Draconic Origin Sorcerers, their class and racial Dragon Ancestry types must match. Just for the sake of consistency. OTOH, maybe you've got a great story to support your Gold Dragonborn who is a Silver Draconic Origin Sorcerer. Let's hear it.

Hobgoblins are Red Light. Almost all of them are evil and are primarily a "monster race". But...story trumps restrictions. Maybe you've got a great backstory and character concept that I could make work.

Tabaxi, Tritons, and Aaracokra right now are Red Light. I simply never had them in my world previously, and haven't bothered figuring out how they fit in yet. That's a bit of laziness on my part, admittedly.

Warforged are straight-up Red Light because they do not exist in my world. No exceptions.

But I also like to work with my players, especially when they come up with great new stuff. Once, when I ran 4e, for example, I had a marine come up with an entirely innovative idea for a Shaman. Now, if you're not familiar, 4e Shamans were Primal Leaders, and they were usually accompanied by some kind of spectral animal. World Speaker Shamans, OTOH, were accompanied by a spirit that coalesced rock, dirt, plant matter into a physical form for itself. Flavor-wise, Shamans were the ones who spoke with Primal Spirits, as opposed to druids who commanded them, or barbarians, who invited them into their bodies. So short version is his character was middle aged. As a young man, his wife and child were killed by gnolls, but he survived. He became a hermit for 15 years, living alone in a shack in the woods, talking only to a rock, and believing he was going mad when the rock spoke back to him. Eventually, the rock convinced him that they were speaking because the Primal Spirits had chosen him to be a World Speaker, to be a voice for them in the mortal world. The convinced him to actually try going out in the world, and showed him how he could help it call more power into itself (his World Speaker companion). He took up his old spear and armor, and left to re-enter the world for the first time in over a decade. It helped that the first people he ran into were a druid and barbarian, who immediately recognized his gifts as shamanistic power, and thought nothing odd about it. So here he is, a middle-aged man, been a hermit for years, believing he was mad, and just now starting to realize he might not be crazy after all. Radically different, right? I loved it. I was mostly only involved to narrate that he ran into the druid and barbarian first, as they would re-enforce his clarity and sense that he was not crazy.

Quertus
2019-06-06, 10:59 PM
Just a general question on people's opinions on it, from either side.

A few of my players are emailing me their drafts of their backup characters for me to workshop with them on how to fit them into the world and story, fine tune their goals and past experiences, all the nitty-gritty stuff.

Do other DM's enjoy this? Do some try to avoid it?
Do players like their DM's working with them on character creation, or do they rather it be a solo affair?

As a DM I enjoy it because it give me a view into the kind of content that can be made to fit the character and what to tweak in the modules to make the campaign have that more unique and personalised feel.

As a player, I want "single author fiction" backstory. Just as I want no input on the world*. Because I enjoy *discovering* the world in game.

However, I enjoy collaborating on what has happened to bring my character to the world, what happened to make them appropriate for the adventure, what has happened to make the adventure appropriate for them.

I am opposed to changing published modules, and to GMs using my backstory elements in the game. The former because it detects from both the shared experience and the "fairness" of the module; the latter because, as they are not the authors of the characters in my background, it is not the GM's place to run them, and any attempt to do so will invariably fail, badly.

However, outside that? Including new magical secrets for Quertus to learn, and people who have read his books? Crazy Cthulhu monsters for Balteus to try to befriend, and loot for him to donate to the church? Riddles for Armus to solve, and secrets for him to uncover? Moral lessons for Raymond to ignore, and Deus ex Machina / plot device level allies for him to assist right out of the game? Innocents for Xyzzy to beat to a bloody pulp to protect them, and scary monsters for him to run away from? Sounds awesome!

OK, so most of my characters aren't as thematic / focused as Quertus, so it's not as easy to add stuff "just for them" - and not as hard to find things that they'll engage. Shrug.

That said, I've often seen GMs include things "just for player X", or "just for character Y", and then watched the GM be sad when those things were ignored. Further, I've watched GM's whole plotlines crumble when they were hinged on a particular PC doing a particular thing that they included "just for them", and then they… didn't.

So, I would advise following rules of good adventure design (like the Rule of Three, at a minimum) first, and considerations of "just for you" content as a distant second.

* Or whatever the scope of the adventure is

Pauly
2019-06-07, 08:22 AM
I’m all for collaboration to answer the question of “why is this adventuring party working together?”.

Apart from that I prefer for the players to work on their own character’s back story. Once they have worked out the connections that bind them I want the players to be the author of their character.

One thing I try very hard to avoid is shoehorning a player into a particular party role because the other members chose first. The “We need a healer and everybody else is fighter, rogue, mage so you’ll have to be the cleric” kind of input to another player’s character.

Jay R
2019-06-07, 09:30 AM
Apart from that I prefer for the players to work on their own character’s back story. Once they have worked out the connections that bind them I want the players to be the author of their character.

Yes, of course. But they are not the authors of the rest of the world. And a backstory includes aspects of the rest of the world.

I had a player who wanted to make the local village priest evil, and prejudiced against non-humans. But that NPC priest already had a very important role, and that wasn't it.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-06-07, 09:45 AM
I don't require much backstory for my player characters. I care about current motivations more than anything else: 5e's Personality/Bond/Ideal/Flaw. That said, I like to collaborate on backstory. I've run a couple 1-person sessions where we narratively play through the backstory of the character, working together to find them a place. In two cases, the players (unprompted) ended up being woven together (with trauma and changes to explain why they didn't know each other) and then those two (who were the only ones by that point) got woven into the plot in a way that made everything more meaningful for them. I leave large gaps in the world for players to fill and will take lots of suggestions.

Since PCs are always graduates of the Sanctioned Adventurer school, they all have that in common. They adventure because that's their job, if for no other reason. But why did they accept the offer to join the SA? That's up to them.

That said, I have a lot more restrictions on races/origins than most. Not on classes[1], but on racial origins. If you're a dragonborn, you're from #Culture2. As an option, you can use Variant Backgrounds (https://www.admiralbenbo.org/index.php/homebrew/133-player-option-regional-backgrounds), trading a bit of control over the details in exchange for an extra proficiency or so. I also have variant races (https://www.admiralbenbo.org/index.php/2-uncategorised/134-player-option-variant-races) that are optional. You can be the "standard" ones, or you can be a variant by tying yourself to a specific region.

[1] There is one culture who will need some good explanation as to why you're a cleric, because it's a culture that does not worship the gods (instead venerating ancestor spirits and practicing vaguely shinto-esque animism). But being a Byssian cleric is possible, just unlikely.

Quertus
2019-06-07, 09:46 AM
Yes, of course. But they are not the authors of the rest of the world. And a backstory includes aspects of the rest of the world.

I had a player who wanted to make the local village priest evil, and prejudiced against non-humans. But that NPC priest already had a very important role, and that wasn't it.

Which is one reason my characters "aren't from around here", so that this problem doesn't come up. My village priest can be evil without wrecking the GM's world.

Great Dragon
2019-06-07, 10:56 AM
As the DM, I really love working with Players on backstory.

There are some steps that I tend to use.

1) I'll do my best to explain my Game World, providing information about it where needed.
Players are always welcome to ask for more.

1a) I explain any Rule Changes (especially to New Players) and if any of these are still in Playtesting.

2) I provide all Character Creation options.

There are some limitations on Races, but mostly on why these became "Adventurers" and how they got to wherever the Game is starting/continuing.

I let the Players pick Backgrounds; with Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws - and I'll offer to help them to better define the Concept for their Character. I will ask if they want me to use Bonds as "Plot/s".
I do use Inspiration.

3) Now, (sub)-classes are a little trickier.
For the most part, all of these that are in an official book, are allowed.

Players that want to try a UA, DM's Guild, DnD Beyond, or Homebrew Class/Subclass can bring a printed copy, and I'll give it a shot.

So far, the only Subclass that I have really felt needed to be changed, is Hexblade Warlock. For reasons posted in other Threads.
(Some Playtesting still needed to find best Hexblade option that works for my games)


*****
Then, I'll offer to help flesh out Backstory.

Listening to their Ideas, and seeing what already exists that at least comes close to that. If nothing does, then I'll work with the Player/s to get as close as possible with the Rules.


*****
When I'm the Player, just flip the process.

Sure, I want my Character to be as Unique as possible - within the Rules, but still be plausible in the DM's World.


*****
Thanks for reading.

Ventruenox
2019-06-07, 03:06 PM
I think collaboration at the very beginning makes for a better campaign, from pre-session zero and onward.

I start with the DM's description of the campaign setting. I read up a little bit on the available areas, races, and cultures. Then I go to my stable of character concepts I have just lying in wait. I pick out one and hold it up like a suit in the mirror, in this case the mirror being the campaign setting document.

I will pull a few details or NPCs from the setting and craft a first draft of a backstory. I'll send that up to my DM and ask his opinions for his game, and also ask if another player has something that seems to tie in with what I wrote. At this point I'll either loop in the other player or revise my backstory to more accurately fall in line with his setting. Submit 2nd draft to DM and repeat process.

By the time session zero comes around, I should feel like I have an entertaining character who belongs in the world. As part of session zero, all participants will collaborate on how or if they know each other, and why they might be adventuring together. We will share highlights of our respective backstories (and allot at least 20 minutes for our one player who wrote 10 pages) and enjoy the new voices we will be listening to over the next few months. We are not opposed to RP inter-party conflict, but we will avoid any PvP situations.

Honest Tiefling
2019-06-07, 05:55 PM
As a player...Well, I'm probably the type to pester the DM for every single detail regarding the home region of my character. I mostly play in homebrew, so I want to hear the cool ideas DMs have for the world that they have so lovingly created. Probably have annoyed a few for asking for such details, but I can only try to be less annoying next time.

I think that parties that have cohesive reasons to stick together work best. This does mean that usually, workshopping everyone's backstory together makes it so you can have an actual singular story instead of the 'tale of those five guys who all faffed about in different directions' type thing. However, sometimes you get THAT backstory that while not made with the party, still meshes with it and provides interesting conflict and really adds something to the party. Like the dashing smuggler who is working with a party of nobles, but the roleplay itself is working out quite well and everyone is on the same page as what to do next. So working together works best most of the time, but sometimes someone going off on their own with that can work out quite well.

Or you can get that idiot who while being told of the alignment, motives, and general theme of the campaign will show up with something stupid. Maybe your mounted charger should be shelved for the political game taking place on a chain of islands...

geppetto
2019-06-07, 06:20 PM
As a player I do a backstory only to explain who my character is and motivations. I dont really care if it gets worked into the campaign or not, most of the time I would prefer not.

As a GM i just want a vague explanation of why you chose a dangerous career and how got to the starting location of the game. I will probably not be setting up any adventures using your backstory and am not all that likely to include anything specifically from it.

I'm open to players pointing out reasons why their background might help them for reason X in whatever situation though occasionally. Nothing hugely game changing but its good for lore about the world and the occasional NPC connection.

All in all I feel like backstories should basically be an afterthought and occasional non mechanical advantage token for non combat situations.

jjordan
2019-06-07, 07:02 PM
Do other DM's enjoy this?
Love it. I'd like it more if I didn't have to pull teeth to get it.

Quertus
2019-06-07, 08:18 PM
I think that parties that have cohesive reasons to stick together work best. This does mean that usually, workshopping everyone's backstory together makes it so you can have an actual singular story instead of the 'tale of those five guys who all faffed about in different directions' type thing. However, sometimes you get THAT backstory that while not made with the party, still meshes with it and provides interesting conflict and really adds something to the party.

So, both IME, and from talking to other Playgrounders, I of course agree that "parties that have cohesive reasons to stick together work best", but quibble that known, well-defined characters will tend to work better for producing that desired state than a bunch of new characters - even if you're "workshopping everyone's backstory together".

However, that is a minimal difference, in most cases, and not terribly interesting to me compared to asking just how you accomplish this task.

See, whenever I've tried it, things have gone horribly wrong. Characters who supposedly were best friends have almost immediately grown to hate each other, players have made horrific assumptions like assuming characters have XYZ relationship just because they are married / siblings / whatever, etc. Most of the attempts at this technique that I have witnessed or been a part of, it has been not just bad but horrible for the game.

So, I know it *can* be done right. My question is, do you have any advice for how to make it work? Because, at my tables, and at "adjacent" tables, it almost always guarantees that the campaign will go down in flames.

Honest Tiefling
2019-06-07, 08:36 PM
So, I know it *can* be done right. My question is, do you have any advice for how to make it work? Because, at my tables, and at "adjacent" tables, it almost always guarantees that the campaign will go down in flames.

I uh...Am not going to admit that I really know how to make it work, as sometimes it's gone well, and other times, no. Sometimes the game just doesn't gel for other reasons.

But I am going to ask how in the nine unholy abysses is this actually going worse!? Going to need some examples here, but let me pitch some ideas:

A bit of it might just be player mindset. The type of player who enjoys making stuff up on the fly and putting their own spin and coming up with crazy plans in the nick of time might not work well with this approach. They might need a read of how the table goes to decide what they are going to do. Not having an idea of the energy or how the players work together might really not work for them. Some people aren't just good with improv, it's their element. Now, if you assemble a group of people who will write you five pages of backstory, memorize the map, and have highlighted passages in the player handout, then you might have a better time of things during session 0.

So...In essence, get wizards not bards.

Another idea might be to not allow people to connect backstories in very close ways UNTIL session 0. Yes, they might all be Dragonborn from the City of Paladinsville, but no making siblings/rivals/lovers out of characters of other players (this includes NPCs in the backstory). Be especially careful if the people haven't roleplayed together before, as they don't have an idea of what the other person is going to want. Perhaps have people indicate which NPCs in their backstory can be altered and which can't. For instance, if one of our example Dragonborn is born from a powerful sorcerer and wishes to achieve the same level of magical might, other players can't just decide things of that NPC due to their importance to the character. A cousin, on the other hand, from a distant branch of the family might be fair game if the player so chooses.

Pauly
2019-06-07, 09:25 PM
So, both IME, and from talking to other Playgrounders, I of course agree that "parties that have cohesive reasons to stick together work best", but quibble that known, well-defined characters will tend to work better for producing that desired state than a bunch of new characters - even if you're "workshopping everyone's backstory together".

However, that is a minimal difference, in most cases, and not terribly interesting to me compared to asking just how you accomplish this task.

See, whenever I've tried it, things have gone horribly wrong. Characters who supposedly were best friends have almost immediately grown to hate each other, players have made horrific assumptions like assuming characters have XYZ relationship just because they are married / siblings / whatever, etc. Most of the attempts at this technique that I have witnessed or been a part of, it has been not just bad but horrible for the game.

So, I know it *can* be done right. My question is, do you have any advice for how to make it work? Because, at my tables, and at "adjacent" tables, it almost always guarantees that the campaign will go down in flames.

The way I’ve done it, and it hasn’t been a real problem with player and/or character relationships is

Step 1) players arrive with their character concepts. At this stage they aren’t fully fleshed out, but a skeleton on which you can hang details from. (Eg I want to be a stealthy backstabbing rogue, or I want to be strong fighter)

Step 2) The DM gives a briefing of the world/campaign. For example, I might say the starting adventure is set in Seville Spain in the early 1700s. The main NPCs are mid to upper level nobility. The party is expected to be able to handle diplomacy and combat. Your characters will start the game with little money.
(From this briefing the players should understand that they need to develop characters with enough social status to engage with nobility socially and that can speak Spanish and be rounded to to handle non-combat RPing.

Step 3) Ask the players to explain their character concepts and to come up with reasons as to why the party is working together. For example characters with a soldiering background may be in the same regiment. Other PCs may share a rural background and know each other from childhood. At a pinch you can use ye olde distant relative. One character may be an apprentice to a contact of another character.

Step 4) At this point players suggest to each other what skills may be important to the group and which characters should prioritize which skills.

Step 5) Develop the character properly, generate stats and abilities. Write a more detailed backstory. Establish character quirks/flaws.

The only time this approach has had issues is when someone drops in with a pre-written character and refuses to modify it in light of other player’s and the DM’s input.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-06-08, 08:15 AM
The only time this approach has had issues is when someone drops in with a pre-written character and refuses to modify it in light of other player’s and the DM’s input.

This. Very much this. The keys to making characters that work well together are
a) being flexible. Have a character concept, but keep it broad.
b) talk about it before solidifying anything.
c) lean into the campaign concept.
d) character first, then backstory that matches. Heck, you can even just establish basic characterization/motives, start play, then solidify the backstory as it becomes apparent who the character really is. Let the character speak to you.

Pelle
2019-06-08, 08:27 AM
So, I know it *can* be done right. My question is, do you have any advice for how to make it work?

Mostly by everyone playing in good faith and being mindful of each others enjoyment during play...

farothel
2019-06-08, 09:11 AM
We Always have a session 0 to do character creation together. While the full backstories are often done afterwards, the basics have to be agreed upon at the table.

As GM I've done mostly roleplays where people are part of an organisation (Alternity Dark Matter's Hoffman institute, Star Trek), so that has to be in the background of course.

As Player, I'll like to write backgrounds. How close we are as party depends on the type of roleplay. In the last L5R campaign for instance, the GM said that the party had to have connections before we started. In a lot of roleplays we often have parties that have some friction, but that's all part of the fun, right?

Tanarii
2019-06-08, 10:09 AM
Recently, exactly not at all. I don't want to see the players written backstory. Any parts that are relevant can be boiled down into a motivations & hooks summary or a narrative mechanic. And I usually only want to see that if it's relevant to my part, running the game, which means a hook or a narrative mechanic.

Right now I mostly run 5e, which has personality trait. Those include a narrative mechanic (inspiration) and hooks (most commonly the Bond trait.). I'm also setting up a trial run of a Forbidden Lands campaign, which has Player Relationships, Prides, and Dark Secrets. The latter matters the most to me, since it's my Hook trait.

Most decent RPGs seem to be going this direction recently. Back stories, thank god, appear to be going the way of the dodo. Except they never really will, because so many players and GMs are secretly (or openly) aspiring writers, with all the baggage and negative impact on gaming that comes with it.

Wuzza
2019-06-08, 10:17 AM
Just a general question on people's opinions on it, from either side.

A few of my players are emailing me their drafts of their backup characters for me to workshop with them on how to fit them into the world and story, fine tune their goals and past experiences, all the nitty-gritty stuff.

Do other DM's enjoy this? Do some try to avoid it?
Do players like their DM's working with them on character creation, or do they rather it be a solo affair?

As a DM I enjoy it because it give me a view into the kind of content that can be made to fit the character and what to tweak in the modules to make the campaign have that more unique and personalised feel.

TTRPG's are a collaborative game. You should thank your stars that your players are invested enough to make an effort to work with you at it.
I asked all of my players to come up with some sort of back story, even if it's just a few lines of text. I don't need specifics, that I can change/amend to fit in with the background of my world. It also gives you a pretty good idea of where they see their characters coming from, and where they fit in with the world. It can also gives you pointers on where to direct the story. The more your players are invested, the more they will "buy in".

Quertus
2019-06-08, 12:08 PM
@Pauly - your step 3 is exactly what I would recommend to bind existing characters together, and to the adventure. And it works great!

But nothing you've said addresses tying the characters backgrounds together - making them parents, siblings, lovers, slaves, teachers, and patrons of one another. From your omission, should we infer that your response is "don't"?

@Honest Tiefling - in my biased opinion, things fell apart from assumptions - people assumed that being parents, siblings, lovers, slaves, teachers, and patrons of one another meant one particular type of relationship.

Because I love blaming GMs, imagine the GM whose plot demanded that Zoe have a hard time choosing between Mal and Wash, because he just *assumed* that their relationships would make that a difficult decision. Or, worse, a GM whose plot *demanded* that she chose differently than she did, because that GM was just that type of idiot. In that scenario, having those pre-established relationships is not the actual problem, but exacerbates and can serve as a focal point for those problems.

However, I think a better answer is, people were lazy. Because they already had "existing relationships", they just assumed that the strength of those would be enough, and therefore just ignored the "be good to each other" / relationship / party dynamic minigame.

This all ties in to why I prefer to build relationships during the game. But I know that the alternative *can* work.

Still, I'm biased, and you, having seen both success and failure, are in a better position to tell what the difference was than me, biasedly blaming what I saw, and potentially missing the bigger picture.

From my biased recounting, do you believe that minimizing improv or delaying choosing connections would have helped?

@PhoenixPhyre - your point "a" - and, arguably, all your points - seem the opposite of Honest Tiefling's advice to minimize improv.

Would it be a complete mischaracterization of your stance to describe it as the marriage of "choose differently" and "Participationism"?


Mostly by everyone playing in good faith and being mindful of each others enjoyment during play...

This… I mean, it's bloody great advice in general. So I decided to keep your very short quote. But… would that help with the GM who assumed things based on stated relationships? Would it help when characters suddenly feud over politics, undead, slavery, murdering prisoners? I think… maybe? But what do you think?

PhoenixPhyre
2019-06-08, 01:20 PM
@PhoenixPhyre - your point "a" - and, arguably, all your points - seem the opposite of Honest Tiefling's advice to minimize improv.

Would it be a complete mischaracterization of your stance to describe it as the marriage of "choose differently" and "Participationism"?


Yes, to a degree. Because those points were in chronological order.

That is, before the game begins you should be flexible and not insist on a particular implementation of a concept. What the first principle warns against is pre-generating a character before discussing it with everyone and then refusing to modify that.

The rest speak to how you should go about implementing that broad concept into a specific character
* choose an implementation (including personality and motivations) that works with the campaign premise & party
* choose an implementation that works and is grounded in the particular world
* once you've adapted to those constraints, then begin writing a backstory that results in the chosen character.

That is, instead of writing a backstory and then creating a character, build a specific character and then write a backstory to justify those meta-inspired choices.

Pauly
2019-06-08, 03:42 PM
@Pauly - your step 3 is exactly what I would recommend to bind existing characters together, and to the adventure. And it works great!

But nothing you've said addresses tying the characters backgrounds together - making them parents, siblings, lovers, slaves, teachers, and patrons of one another. From your omission, should we infer that your response is "don't"?

i

I’ve always done it that the character comes first then the backstory. So the character and a rough iteration of their stats and abilities are created first, then the backstory second.

I have always felt the backstory first then the character method lends itself to generating incompatible parties and/or parties missing vital elements.
Also having the party roles defined first gives the players some idea as to the natural power/relationship links that will happen during play.

NB by ‘character’ I mean the mechanical stats and abilities to play the game, what goes on the “character sheet”.

The biggest problem I see with people arriving at session zero with a complete pre-generated character, however, is that it forces players who didn’t pre-generate a character to play a character that addresses the unfilled party needs. If I want to play a rogue but there are already 2 rogues in the party and no healers then I feel an obligation to play a cleric even if I don’t want to be a cleric.

Malphegor
2019-06-08, 03:47 PM
I should probably tell my DM before I roll up a huge strength barbarian in a party with a barbarian already (I was kinda on the spot as my wizard character is technically dead and I didn’t want to ruin people’s fun by having them seek a way to revive him (we were literally one level away from stopping petrification effects. One level! hah) barbarians are relatively easy to build in a hurry)

Hm. I might send him some of my future character ideas. Just so he’s forewarned of what horrors I will do to his table if he lets me.

MrSandman
2019-06-08, 04:15 PM
@Pauly - your step 3 is exactly what I would recommend to bind existing characters together, and to the adventure. And it works great!

But nothing you've said addresses tying the characters backgrounds together - making them parents, siblings, lovers, slaves, teachers, and patrons of one another. From your omission, should we infer that your response is "don't"?


Is your list supposed to be comprehensive or are these the first examples that came to mind?
Either way, I find it a really odd list. Although I've had people play siblings once or twice, usually when people tie their characters' backgrounds together - in my experience - they go for friends, co-workers, disciples of the same master, people who got together through some event, acquaintances, people who met because they were pursuing a similar goal or got attacked by the same enemy, or other such things.

Quertus
2019-06-08, 05:48 PM
Yes, to a degree. Because those points were in chronological order.

That is, before the game begins you should be flexible and not insist on a particular implementation of a concept. What the first principle warns against is pre-generating a character before discussing it with everyone and then refusing to modify that.

The rest speak to how you should go about implementing that broad concept into a specific character
* choose an implementation (including personality and motivations) that works with the campaign premise & party
* choose an implementation that works and is grounded in the particular world
* once you've adapted to those constraints, then begin writing a backstory that results in the chosen character.

That is, instead of writing a backstory and then creating a character, build a specific character and then write a backstory to justify those meta-inspired choices.

I don't want to sound dismissive, but that sounds like exactly the formula I've watched fail repeatedly. So maybe, having seen it work, you can listen to my stories, and tell me the step that's so obvious, that you didn't bother including it.

So (as I think we've discussed before), new characters are much more prone to sudden, erratic growth as the player is "trying them on" for the first time. They are unpredictable, and may unexpectedly become incompatible with each other, or the adventure.

Worse, when they have preexisting connections, there's this strange behavior I've observed, where, to my biased perception, it feels like the players are counting on the strength the connection to handle potential intra party conflict. "Of course your character should be fine with me killing the hostages - he's my brother."


I’ve always done it that the character comes first then the backstory. So the character and a rough iteration of their stats and abilities are created first, then the backstory second.

I have always felt the backstory first then the character method lends itself to generating incompatible parties and/or parties missing vital elements.
Also having the party roles defined first gives the players some idea as to the natural power/relationship links that will happen during play.

NB by ‘character’ I mean the mechanical stats and abilities to play the game, what goes on the “character sheet”.

The biggest problem I see with people arriving at session zero with a complete pre-generated character, however, is that it forces players who didn’t pre-generate a character to play a character that addresses the unfilled party needs. If I want to play a rogue but there are already 2 rogues in the party and no healers then I feel an obligation to play a cleric even if I don’t want to be a cleric.

OK, let's take a step back. I (and, say, everyone at my table) arrives with a portfolio of existing characters. We pick ones that go together, both mechanically and "socially". I'm not seeing where your stance would consider that a problem (which is good, because it works great).

So, suppose everyone cane to your table with a portfolio of backgrounds… ah, how would they link to one another? OK, fine, I come to the table with a portfolio of backgrounds like… one that's the master of one (potential) PC and trained with a second; a background that's the lover of one (potential) PC; a background that's the sibling of one (potential) PC, etc. And everyone else has been playing email / text tag, creating character background together in pairs (or more). Sounds odd to my ears, but if the players then play Tetris with these combinations to find a workable party, what's the problem?

Or, alternately, why can't I decide that I want to play your little brother, swept away by a storm & raised by wolves… and then, when we get to the table, pick what class(es) I learned between them and now, based on the needs of the party?


Is your list supposed to be comprehensive or are these the first examples that came to mind?
Either way, I find it a really odd list. Although I've had people play siblings once or twice, usually when people tie their characters' backgrounds together - in my experience - they go for friends, co-workers, disciples of the same master, people who got together through some event, acquaintances, people who met because they were pursuing a similar goal or got attacked by the same enemy, or other such things.

Not at all comprehensive. I avoided "friends" because of my party of the Paladin, the Assassin, the Undead Hunter, and his childhood friend, the Undead Master. And my character.

See, most of your list, existing characters could easily qualify for - they could meet and become friends before the adventure; they could attend the same cooking class; they could both get jobs at Destroido. They could have all seen the star of Bethlehem or been attacked by rabid flamingos. This is exactly what I encourage people to do when making existing characters work together.

My list was things that you can't just add to existing characters (outside a soap opera or something) without it getting horribly contrived. It was the unique "strength" of bonds one could choose in backstory that I had seen people use.

Faily
2019-06-08, 08:08 PM
I like it when everyone collaborates in creating everyone's stories. It tends to create parties with better cohesion and aligned goals.

Pretty much this for me.

I like it when the players are on the same page of what the group-dynamic might be like (to avoid the Paladin teaming up with the evil Rogue trope), and that the GM can keep in mind what the theme of the game will be so players can create characters with that in mind.

Pauly
2019-06-08, 09:38 PM
OK, let's take a step back. I (and, say, everyone at my table) arrives with a portfolio of existing characters. We pick ones that go together, both mechanically and "socially". I'm not seeing where your stance would consider that a problem (which is good, because it works great).

So, suppose everyone cane to your table with a portfolio of backgrounds… ah, how would they link to one another? OK, fine, I come to the table with a portfolio of backgrounds like… one that's the master of one (potential) PC and trained with a second; a background that's the lover of one (potential) PC; a background that's the sibling of one (potential) PC, etc. And everyone else has been playing email / text tag, creating character background together in pairs (or more). Sounds odd to my ears, but if the players then play Tetris with these combinations to find a workable party, what's the problem?

Or, alternately, why can't I decide that I want to play your little brother, swept away by a storm & raised by wolves… and then, when we get to the table, pick what class(es) I learned between them and now, based on the needs of the party?
.

Provided there’s a degree of flexibility and agreement between the players there’s no problems with Tetrising a party together.

The problems arise if players are selfish. For example:
- if you decide that your character is my character’s long lost younger brother, but I don’t want my character to have a family relationship with yours.
- if you decide that you are playing [X] class with [Y] features and refuse to change even though the party needs [Z] you are forcing another player to take [Z] even if they are actively dislike that.
The problem is when your choices adversely affect the fun of other players. There’s a reason why it’s a common trope for the last player to sit down at the table to be given the role of cleric, a lot of people have more fun playing other classes.

Great Dragon
2019-06-09, 01:20 AM
The "I have to play [Z] class" (but don't want to) is not something I enforce, especially as the DM.

"Play what you want" I tell them.

Does this mean that there might not be "the Cleric" (or "The Tank", etc) in the game: For the "Balanced Party"?

Yes.

1) It just means that the Players might need to be more cautious. Know when to retreat.
Decide if it's ok (or truly needed) to take a Short or Long Rest.

Things they decide.

2) It also means that I need to remember to put more Scrolls and Tiles (Potions) of various Healing (and other spells) in the Treasure Chest/s. These things are usually already there, but adding extra (usually) won't "break" my games.

While I don't really have to justify doing so, I kinda think that it makes perfect sense for all the various Humanoids (and even smart monsters) to stockpile on these things.

Means of (especially magical) recovery is another "survival" strategy, and those few Casters with Healing would rather sell/trade a Scroll or Tile then cast a spell.

Because, while the "Allied" Races (Human, Elf, Dwarf, Gnome, Halflings, Half-Elves, and Half-Orcs) do find enough (bulk) customers for Hireling Casters to make a profit (unless you're in a village in the boondocks); Other Races tend to not have large stacks of gold/gems conveniently on hand.

(I'll use Individual Treasure, sure.
But "Hordes" are more likely to be found with Dragons, Beholders, Giants, or guarded in the (Humanoid) Chief's Chambers.
Where the gold is used to buy needed items, both mundane and magical, for the "tribe")

So, Healing spellcasting is more of "if you make it back to Base, sure." kind of deal.

But, Scrolls and Tiles (and not just Healing) are "as needed" items and don't have a shelf life. As such, they actually have "more value to more people" then just gold.


*****
The classic "Orc guarding chest in a 10 x 10 room" where there was what?
3d6*10 copper, 2d4*10 silver and 1d10*10 gold and some random mundane items in it?

Never really did make much sense to me.
Which might be part of "the Joke".


*****
I also have "Houserules" for most Magical Items, especially Armor and Weapons.
Interested? Just ask.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-06-09, 06:58 AM
The "I have to play [Z] class" (but don't want to) is not something I enforce, especially as the DM.

"Play what you want" I tell them.

Does this mean that there might not be "the Cleric" (or "The Tank", etc) in the game: For the "Balanced Party"?



I'm very much less worried about not having a <Role> than about two people coming with inflexible ideas that
a) conflict (the classic klepto rogue and the uptight paladin comes to mind)
b) overlap (e.g. two "utility but no combat" wizards with proficiencies in the same things)
c) unilaterally make demands on each others backstories

As far as how the party is connected and why they trust one another, I have a simple, blanket solution (for my games, it won't work for all). All PCs have just spent about 6 months at a training facility run by the Adventurers Guild[1], during which time they learned basic tactics, adventuring information and skills, political and social information, etc. They worked in teams (ie the party) and have gotten used to working together.

[1] The name is a bit of a historical carry-over--it's more like an international special-forces/first-in scout organization chartered by the setting's equivalent of the UN and backed up by total control over a portal network that gives them superior logistics and a whole lot of clout. Plus the fact that the founders are ruthlessly dedicated to keeping it going while not letting it turn into a de facto government...

Great Dragon
2019-06-09, 07:59 AM
I'm very much less worried about not having a <Role> than about two people coming with inflexible ideas that
a) conflict (the classic klepto rogue and the uptight paladin comes to mind)
b) overlap (e.g. two "utility but no combat" wizards with proficiencies in the same things)
c) unilaterally make demands on each others backstory.

Note: not everything I use works for other tables.

A) While "bickering" and "competetive rivalry" between some of the Players is allowed (think Legolas and Gimli, and not just Elf vs Dwarf) I don't allow outright combative PvP.

B) Now, here I Agree. Overlapping can cause at least one Player to "feel useless". Although some skills might overlap (ie: Arcana), I'm also less concerned about <Role> and more concerned with duplicated Subclasses.

Using your "Wizards" example:
There are 10 "subclasses":
Eight Schools, War Magic, and Bladesinger.
(Not counting Homebrew)

But, if 4 Players really want to play Fighter: Samurai. Ok: I'll focus on what makes each different.

C) But, yes, inflexiblilty here causes entirely too many problems, usually leading to OoC conflict and IC PvP.
While I might not like to have to ask this Player to depart the Game, if they absolutely refuse to change, I'll do so.

Edit:
Now, I don't require Backstories.
But, I love helping those that do them with me. This can make the game lots more interesting - even for me.


I have a Group of (mostly) New Players, and a couple of Teens.

A) Made a Dwarf Barbarian.
They weren't sure what subclass to go for.
While the classic Bear would have let them "Tank" almost everything; after a few questions, I suggested Ancestors.
They still need practice, with that, but seem happy so far.

B) Made a Necromancer.
I allowed this: After a few sessions of watching them play, I asked what it was they wanted to acomplish with this School: they liked the minions aspect. So, after some "moral" discussion, I recommended Shepard's Druid.

(Note: the suggested change was mostly because they were both a Teen and New to the game. An experienced Player would have been allowed to continue playing the Necromancer, so long as they understood the "typical reaction" of Good NPCs.)
Worst reputations:
1: Necromancers.
2: Assassins.
3: Fiend Warlocks.

Guizonde
2019-06-09, 08:37 AM
when i dm, i tell my players the barest minimum and in return, i ensure that the story focuses not on their backstories (ie: "haha, your sister was kidnapped by the bbeg!") but on how the character grows during the campaign. so far, this style has pleased my players. on occasion, i'll use the pc's backstory for a momentary bonus (like a character who grew up in a mechanic's workshop to explain their proficiency and class will invariably also have access to said workshop to build things), but i'd rather see what the mechanic will do with all that knowledge to advance the story. sure, i redlight some things to keep it kosher with the universe, but fundamentally i don't care about the past, i worry about the future. it helps frag mary-suedom. you may be the best in the arena, but let's see if your character can prove it during the story.

the pathfinder game i keep quoting ("cayden caillean's finest crew") takes the opposite approach: the dm asked us for backstories that were rich and unsolved. the entire story boils down to "save the world from a god-killing bbeg". kinda boring, and the dm knows it and did it on purpose. our party is the main focus: each story arc exists to solve the pc's backstory: the cleric's relationships with dragons (a soul destined to safeguard dragons from evil worship), why did the monk not have a name (because he had to prove himself to his god), why was the bard exiled (because his siblings tried to take over absalom by pactising with demons), and why the hell did josé have such a weird and silent relationship with his parents? (because human-drow love stories are frowned upon by everyone and like josé actually wanted to save the world. the family sacrifices itself with the power of love to save the world and destroy the abyssal plane).

josé is now canonically dead. hell, i even wrote "KIA" in permanent marker on the sheet. you don't have too many options to ensure perma-death in pathfinder outside of actively planning it with the dm, and we worked on that for months. the dm told me the chances for josé to retire existed, but were slim, so there still was an element of surprise and choice when he finally decided to nuke the abyss. it wasn't the only option, but it fit with his tendency to emphasize collateral damage over subtlety.

my reroll is more fitting with my style of dm'ing, with a "complete" if laconic backstory. the dm did not want to add another story arc to an already long campaign, and we agree that it'll be more interesting to see what the new character will do having already been blessed by the gods. the character comes into play with the same ecl as the party, and with campaign bonuses in accordance with the ones given by those whose backstory is complete: (eva, had she not left the campaign would have had skyrim's dragonborn shouting ability and a 1/day draconic form for combat, kami has the soul of a great monk which functionally makes him a gestalt character, free is the owner of a very large commercial empire. josé was immune to possession and had a permanent aura of banishment and smite evil on all evil-aligned creatures and characters). the new character basically is a halfling cleric with a druid companion that works like a paladin's mount and 6 more feats than normal. how did she become so hardcore? because the dm and i built the backstory together to explain why the hell a nomadic halfling shepherd ended up level 10 on a quest to save the world (ok, and to make sure she was as broken as the rest of the team).

tl; dr: i like to focus on the story over character backstory. it works.
my dm likes to focus character backstory over the story. it works too.

jjordan
2019-06-09, 10:01 AM
I think that in an ideal situation everyone gets together in the same room with some food and drink and starts talking about what they want. This is brainstorming and it's the DM's job to ensure it gets treated as such. You can reinforce ideas, but not tear them down. This conversation should lead to some consensus on basic questions. If it doesn't, then maybe you need to shuffle the group/find a different game.

As a DM I prefer a more sandboxed approach. I will set up the world and populate it with groups and individuals that have agendas that will progress as the game goes on. If I can, I build this world after getting input from players on what they are looking for. If I get the input after building then I take the input and modify the world so that mechanics the players have put forward have their place in the world alongside the other agendas.

Now everyone has a world they can relate to in a less impersonal fashion. This provides a lot of opportunities. Most of which won't be used, but that's fine.

farothel
2019-06-09, 10:58 AM
Provided there’s a degree of flexibility and agreement between the players there’s no problems with Tetrising a party together.

The problems arise if players are selfish. For example:
- if you decide that your character is my character’s long lost younger brother, but I don’t want my character to have a family relationship with yours.
- if you decide that you are playing [X] class with [Y] features and refuse to change even though the party needs [Z] you are forcing another player to take [Z] even if they are actively dislike that.
The problem is when your choices adversely affect the fun of other players. There’s a reason why it’s a common trope for the last player to sit down at the table to be given the role of cleric, a lot of people have more fun playing other classes.

I'm probably privileged insofar that we play with a stable group for over 10 years, so we know each others strengths and weaknesses and we also know what each person likes to play (or not likes to play). And since we also almost Always have multiple campaigns running, we can often compromise (I play the fighter here then you can play the fighter in <other campaign>). So far we've Always managed to get a good party.

And yes, in pary bickering (like the aforementioned gimli-legolas thing) is something that happens quite often and has never been a problem. In fact, it's often quite amusing. I remember a party where one player was a bhudist monk type and the other an ex-spetsnaz commando. The philosophical discussions between those two were quite amusing.

GreatWyrmGold
2019-06-09, 11:22 AM
I'd love to play a game where something like that mattered...but as of late, I've only had time to run pregen adventures, and you can only do so much to work character backstories into those...especially when half of the adventure path is on the wrong plane, or when the players barely give you anything to work with.

That said...one thing I've wanted to do for a while is run a game where I ask for backstories first, then write a setting and plot that complements them. Kind of the opposite of what the OP's doing, but still.

Tanarii
2019-06-09, 12:13 PM
Or, alternately, why can't I decide that I want to play your little brother, swept away by a storm & raised by wolves… and then, when we get to the table, pick what class(es) I learned between them and now, based on the needs of the party?




c) unilaterally make demands on each others backstories

You guys must hate all the games where this is a requirement of making a character. Off the top of my head, several Powered by the Apocalypse games (Apocalpse world, dungeon world), and the free League games (Mutant Year Zero, Forbidden Lands), all require each player to choose their relationship to each other character in ways that define the other's history. Often in ways that are strongly suggestive as to that other character's associated personality & motivations.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-06-09, 12:22 PM
You guys must hate all the games where this is a requirement of making a character. Off the top of my head, several Powered by the Apocalypse games (Apocalpse world, dungeon world), and the free League games (Mutant Year Zero, Forbidden Lands), all require each player to choose their relationship to each other character in ways that define the other's history. Often in ways that are strongly suggestive as to that other character's associated personality & motivations.

Do those games let the affected player push back or reject proposed definitions? If so, not an issue. I don't like things like "I'm the lost prince of your country and you're my servants" unless the others agree without pressure.

And generally, I'm not fond of PbtA games--they don't do what I want and have very opinionated and inflexible styles of play (mainly the DM rules) that conflict with my style. But that's just me.

BWR
2019-06-09, 12:44 PM
Generally I prefer detailed settings I can sink my teeth into and build characters from existing cultures. I'm the opposite of Quertus in that 'not from around here' as an excuse to not know anything about the world is just even more of a headache for me as a player or as a GM. Then I have to figure out what sort of culture 'not from around here' is and how it interacts geographically and culturally with 'around here'.
Lack of setting detail means I am more concerned with mechanics, which means it takes even longer for a character's personality to gel.

A meaty world to get into and build characters out of, rather than making a character and placing it into the world is my preferred approach both as a player and as a GM. I prefer backstories for beginning level characters to be minimal and mostly uninteresting. I have made things work with 'runaway princess' but that was annoying.
The higher level (or other systems' equivalents) a character starts the more important a backstory can be.
Exceptions to this are if everyone is building around the same or interwoven backstory or if characters are in some way tied to elements previously introduced in game. In one of our games we have a troupe of PCs who are all descended from my first PC, so they have very specific and detailed, but also very strict, backstories.

Tanarii
2019-06-09, 12:59 PM
Do those games let the affected player push back or reject proposed definitions? If so, not an issue. I don't like things like "I'm the lost prince of your country and you're my servants" unless the others agree without pressure.the goal appears to be from your characters perspective, and thus suggesting roleplaying opportunities to the other player they might not have though of otherwise. But they often kinda sneak in facts along the way.

Here's some examples from Mutant Year Zero and Forbidden Lands suggested relationships:
... was still standing after one of your punches.
... fought by your side.
... left you to die.
... is wonderful. Some day he/she will be yours.
... scammed you out of some bullets. He’s going to pay for it.
... saved you from trouble. What does he want in return?
... is your way to the top. Stay close.
... is stupid and easy to manipulate.
... doesn’t understand her role in the world. You shall guide, but not teach.
... is drawn to dark arts and must be kept under close watch. If needed, it’s your duty to stop her.
... is a slender oak that could grow into something great, given the right care.


And generally, I'm not fond of PbtA games--they don't do what I want and have very opinionated and inflexible styles of play (mainly the DM rules) that conflict with my style. But that's just me.I think PbtA did something interesting and innovative, making is far more defined what it means to be the GM. Having rules for the DM is a groundbreaking concept, especially since they showed how to do it in a semi-flexible way.

Personally AW doesn't strike me as my cup of tea long term, but I'd still like try it some day. Especially since it seems designed to be a one-shot / short campaign anyway.

(Conversely I'm gearing up to do a trial run for Forbidden Lands. It's strongly OSR-reminiscent, but interestingly you get as much XP for your Pride or Dark Secret (narrative tools) as you do for looting a valuable treasure, defeating a monster, or enhancing your stronghold.)

PhoenixPhyre
2019-06-09, 01:21 PM
the goal appears to be from your characters perspective, and thus suggesting roleplaying opportunities to the other player they might not have though of otherwise. But they often kinda sneak in facts along the way.

Here's some examples from Mutant Year Zero and Forbidden Lands suggested relationships:
... was still standing after one of your punches.
... fought by your side.
... left you to die.
... is wonderful. Some day he/she will be yours.
... scammed you out of some bullets. He’s going to pay for it.
... saved you from trouble. What does he want in return?
... is your way to the top. Stay close.
... is stupid and easy to manipulate.
... doesn’t understand her role in the world. You shall guide, but not teach.
... is drawn to dark arts and must be kept under close watch. If needed, it’s your duty to stop her.
... is a slender oak that could grow into something great, given the right care.


These all come from a standpoint of facilitating inter-party drama. And I hate that in a cooperative game. Totally personal taste here, but games that try to push inter-player drama get a hard NOPE from me immediately. I don't PvP. For a fun game for me, the party must be the basic unit. Things that complicate the party's life are disfavored. Things that pit one player against another leave a horrible taste in my mouth.



I think PbtA did something interesting and innovative, making is far more defined what it means to be the GM. Having rules for the DM is a groundbreaking concept, especially since they showed how to do it in a semi-flexible way.

Personally AW doesn't strike me as my cup of tea long term, but I'd still like try it some day. Especially since it seems designed to be a one-shot / short campaign anyway.

(Conversely I'm gearing up to do a trial run for Forbidden Lands. It's strongly OSR-reminiscent, but interestingly you get as much XP for your Pride or Dark Secret (narrative tools) as you do for looting a valuable treasure, defeating a monster, or enhancing your stronghold.)

I strongly disagree that PbtA has anything like flexibility in its DM rules. They're hidebound. Not mechanically so, but everything I've read about the underlying philosophy screams "this is the only way to play and if you do it otherwise you're a bad DM". And it doesn't cabin those opinions to that game. So you get lots of people who think that the style is definitional and applies everywhere, when it doesn't. It's just as particular as a deeply crunchy game, but it just doesn't have the honesty to say what it is.

Trying to set rules for the DM is futile in anything but a totally player-driven game (which very few are). Because as long as the DM is also a content creator, no rule can constrain them. The constraints on the DM are entirely meta. Then again, my concept of what a TTRPG "rule" is is probably quite different than most, so...

Tanarii
2019-06-09, 01:32 PM
Trying to set rules for the DM is futile in anything but a totally player-driven game (which very few are). Because as long as the DM is also a content creator, no rule can constrain them. The constraints on the DM are entirely meta.
Breaking this mindset appears to have been exactly their goal. They have shown a way to make the GM side of things crunchy and have 'rules'. It proves the concept: that it is possible to construct 'rules' or 'crunch' about the narrative and meta, that the GM willingly constrains themself with going in, which steer the type of game that is played.

I'm sure they were aware that it wouldn't resonate as a play style with people who refuse to believe the concept of DM rules is even possible. :smalltongue:

Hypersmith
2019-06-09, 01:57 PM
I'm a huge fan of having a collabed backstory. Getting my fingers into it, weaving it into the plot, seeing characters grow and players excited at what they brought coming to life for everyone to interact with. One of my greatest joys when GMing.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-06-09, 02:01 PM
Off-topic response to @Tanarii



Breaking this mindset appears to have been exactly their goal. They have shown a way to make the GM side of things crunchy and have 'rules'. It proves the concept: that it is possible to construct 'rules' or 'crunch' about the narrative and meta, that the GM willingly constrains themself with going in, which steer the type of game that is played.

I'm sure they were aware that it wouldn't resonate as a play style with people who refuse to believe the concept of DM rules is even possible. :smalltongue:

It goes back to the basic nature of the game, and how those devs and I have very different ideas about what it should be. I come from the position that the default is free-form, and that rules are there to ease the burdens and to enable fair and simple resolution of uncertainty. The players each individually play characters in a broader world that is independent of them. In that model, a DM has a grab-bag of roles:
Content creator. The DM builds and populates the world. This can be outsourced to a 3rd party (a module writer, for example), but this is irreducibly the responsibility of the DM. He is the final arbiter of what appears in the world. Until he narrates it, it doesn't exist.
Rules arbiter. The DM usually is the one to resolve questions about application of uncertainty resolution mechanics. This can be completely delegated to the group, although it usually isn't.
Voice of the NPCs. The DM is responsible for role-playing the NPCs.
World-Player Interface. The DM is the sole conduit for information about the PCs and their environment.
Plot-Shepherd/pace-setter. In campaigns with external plots, the DM is responsible for moving things along at the appropriate pace. In more sandboxy ones, he's the one who moves the world through the appropriate time-steps as the campaign occurs.

The big one that is not conducive to fixed rules is the first. Being the sole content creator is incompatible with being constrained by rules about how that content exists. "Rule 0" isn't an external rule, it's a necessary artifact of the style of play. It's a recognition that constraining the one in charge of the rules and the content is rather futile.

AW and kin feel to me like someone trying to enforce their "one true style" on everyone else. To insist that the GM is merely the servant of the players, merely an adjunct book-keeper and that the world and everything in it are really the players to do with as they please (subject to mechanical pushback). It puts the players in the role of content creators, and demands that they fill the void. It caters to a specific subset of the hardcore "sandbox or die" crowd, but pretends to be generically useful (or at least its fanboys portray it that way). It also demands that the players produce most of the drama and conflict between themselves, something I find abhorrent in a cooperative game. That last part is pure taste on my part--I hate anything that even smells slightly like PvP.

Great Dragon
2019-06-09, 03:03 PM
@PhoenixPhyre
Nicely put.

@GreatWyrmGold
Completely understand.

I would totally not like a tRPG to "bind" me to a set of Rules that were unyielding. I have enough trouble with Rules Lawyers - without them pointing at the book, and quoiting the restrictions of what I can do.

I have tried, more times than I care to count, to build my own Campaign World, but then something happens:

The Players don't care enough to get engaged, which means that all I did was a complete waste of time. Or: they say: "We want _____ Campaign World!" Or: I lose everything by having to move.

As a result, I'm kinda burned out on doing True Homebrew World/s, anymore. And, I don't have a computer for Campaign Cartographer (or similar), with a printer. And being limited to my phone for online access, means that it's not worth the effort, at least right now.

So: I simply used the Forgotten Realms (making some personal changes) as the Foundation, and now just grab premade modules (from all Editions) most of the time. If I can, I'll update and/or rewrite them to either fit better into my World, or just be different. The thread "The Old Keep" was an example of my doing this.
(the help I did get really was greatly appreciated.)

Right now, I'm lucky enough to have Players (in two different games) that will work with me on their Backstory, to fit in with the game.

Quertus
2019-06-09, 05:21 PM
Generally I prefer detailed settings I can sink my teeth into and build characters from existing cultures. I'm the opposite of Quertus in that 'not from around here' as an excuse to not know anything about the world is just even more of a headache for me as a player or as a GM. Then I have to figure out what sort of culture 'not from around here' is and how it interacts geographically and culturally with 'around here'.
Lack of setting detail means I am more concerned with mechanics, which means it takes even longer for a character's personality to gel.

A meaty world to get into and build characters out of, rather than making a character and placing it into the world is my preferred approach both as a player and as a GM. I prefer backstories for beginning level characters to be minimal and mostly uninteresting. I have made things work with 'runaway princess' but that was annoying.
The higher level (or other systems' equivalents) a character starts the more important a backstory can be.
Exceptions to this are if everyone is building around the same or interwoven backstory or if characters are in some way tied to elements previously introduced in game. In one of our games we have a troupe of PCs who are all descended from my first PC, so they have very specific and detailed, but also very strict, backstories.

(Amused tone) excuse me? It's not an "excuse" to not know the setting, it's a tool to get to explore the unknown. :smallamused: Because, for me, that's the best part! :smallbiggrin:


You guys must hate all the games where this is a requirement of making a character. Off the top of my head, several Powered by the Apocalypse games (Apocalpse world, dungeon world), and the free League games (Mutant Year Zero, Forbidden Lands), all require each player to choose their relationship to each other character in ways that define the other's history. Often in ways that are strongly suggestive as to that other character's associated personality & motivations.

Fair to say that I hate it. The point of a character, for me, is to explore a particular facet of humanity. Forcing random detritus into my carefully crafted personality & backstory is like throwing dynamite at scientific experiments or bridge builders - it's counterproductive in the extreme.

I also agree with PhoenixPhyre that the particular implementations of dynamite you are describing is antithetical to my general cooperative gaming philosophy.


I'm a huge fan of having a collabed backstory. Getting my fingers into it, weaving it into the plot, seeing characters grow and players excited at what they brought coming to life for everyone to interact with. One of my greatest joys when GMing.

… I must be missing something here. Why can you not enjoy watching the "characters grow and players excited at what they brought coming to life for everyone to interact with", without being involved in the backstory?

Great Dragon
2019-06-09, 05:54 PM
*Start of Game*

"It was the day that four Mysterious Travelers drifted into town. None of them knew any of the others, their past deeds, or their Abilities. Only what was visible: clothes and gear, armor and weapons.

Everyone on the street wondered if there was even a sliver of hope that these would be the ones to save their beleaguered town..."

***
I .... suppose that might work out.

Hypersmith
2019-06-09, 06:08 PM
… I must be missing something here. Why can you not enjoy watching the "characters grow and players excited at what they brought coming to life for everyone to interact with", without being involved in the backstory?

My statement wasn't exclusionary. I can very much enjoy that, though I have a preference - but I should clarify what I mean by "what they brought to life". And that's a part of the world they crafted with the understanding I intended to use it later on to create plot hooks that relate directly to their character. These places, people, discoveries, and relationships are more often than not the player's original writing, and the collaboration is them reaching out to me to find a spot in the world to slot it in, and if there isn't a space like that, then to create one. It gives the character authenticity, a background, and reasons to do what they do. The holes they left, I fill in with secrets and a story they will hopefully enjoy. This isn't something I spring on them - I tell them it's my intention before they start making anything.

You mentioned earlier that you don't like the GM meddling with your story that way, that it should be a one author thing. But if that worked both ways, I don't think I'd have much fun at all. If all my characters were outsiders who had no connection to these lands or people. If GMs turned down my concepts completely because it doesn't fit the world. I think there's a give and take, from both player and GM. Player, consult and work alongside GM to build into a character that's yours, but has a place in the world. GM, don't make a world so rigid only the notions you've come up with so far work. Flexibility is core to D&D as a game. The ability to improvise, to create dialogue and sceneries and roll with the unexpected. I think that should be reflected in both world and character creation.

If a backstory is meant to stand apart from the world, be an outsider and discover things along with way - that's great too. But it's not the only path. And though exploring the humanity of something like that in a character is something I think I would enjoy, I also enjoy the struggles of family, of ghosts of the past haunting you, of pitting personal experiences and ties against the friends you've fought (and maybe died) alongside. I'd actually consider having a character standing completely outside the world also a collaboration with the GM. Where did they come from? Why don't they know anything?

If a player just refuses to engage with my setting, that I don't understand. Things don't happen in a vacuum. And as long as your character exists in the world, it is the GM's jurisdiction. You can't force a slot for them in, just like the GM can't force you to make a character they want.

Of course, this all comes with the stipulation that collaboration isn't a one way road. If the GM wants to have collaborative backstories integrated, talk to the player about what they intend. GM, you're not a mind reader, and the backstory integration is still for everyone, not just the character it affects directly. Make sure what you want to integrate aligns with the players vision of what's going on.

flond
2019-06-09, 06:55 PM
Off-topic response to @Tanarii




It goes back to the basic nature of the game, and how those devs and I have very different ideas about what it should be. I come from the position that the default is free-form, and that rules are there to ease the burdens and to enable fair and simple resolution of uncertainty. The players each individually play characters in a broader world that is independent of them. In that model, a DM has a grab-bag of roles:
Content creator. The DM builds and populates the world. This can be outsourced to a 3rd party (a module writer, for example), but this is irreducibly the responsibility of the DM. He is the final arbiter of what appears in the world. Until he narrates it, it doesn't exist.
Rules arbiter. The DM usually is the one to resolve questions about application of uncertainty resolution mechanics. This can be completely delegated to the group, although it usually isn't.
Voice of the NPCs. The DM is responsible for role-playing the NPCs.
World-Player Interface. The DM is the sole conduit for information about the PCs and their environment.
Plot-Shepherd/pace-setter. In campaigns with external plots, the DM is responsible for moving things along at the appropriate pace. In more sandboxy ones, he's the one who moves the world through the appropriate time-steps as the campaign occurs.

The big one that is not conducive to fixed rules is the first. Being the sole content creator is incompatible with being constrained by rules about how that content exists. "Rule 0" isn't an external rule, it's a necessary artifact of the style of play. It's a recognition that constraining the one in charge of the rules and the content is rather futile.

AW and kin feel to me like someone trying to enforce their "one true style" on everyone else. To insist that the GM is merely the servant of the players, merely an adjunct book-keeper and that the world and everything in it are really the players to do with as they please (subject to mechanical pushback). It puts the players in the role of content creators, and demands that they fill the void. It caters to a specific subset of the hardcore "sandbox or die" crowd, but pretends to be generically useful (or at least its fanboys portray it that way). It also demands that the players produce most of the drama and conflict between themselves, something I find abhorrent in a cooperative game. That last part is pure taste on my part--I hate anything that even smells slightly like PvP.


I'll throw into this off topic tangent.

I'm going to be honest. I think that this is pretty overdone.

Remember, when it comes to being the world, in AW the world is designed by The DM, except when either the rules demand otherwise (pretty rare) OR, the DM disclaims decision making to the PCs (less rare, but entirely at the DM's discretion) I actually consider it pretty mid range in terms of "How much it demands player authorship"

Now, does it have rules for the DM? Yes. But those rules are mostly to demand the DM arbitrates the world. Like, while the DM is strongly encouraged to ask the players things and set things up. If they want to set up a war wagon, guess what they can do that. In fact, most of the time, AW works best when the DM is working up the downsides, threats and scarcties, and the players are being asked questions like "What do you do to survive around here? How do you earn?" and other things their characters would know. In play. That's the part they generally develop.

Also, most importantly. It's very much about doing what the world demands. The DM rules are because frankly, the DM ends up having a lot of power as well. There's no generic skill checks. There's very few ways to "roll to get an idea". There are moves, and then there's what the DM says happens.

I'd say it works for a much wider swath then you're giving it credit for here. Not everyone, obviously. And probably not you. (Except maybe DW, which is pretty darn co-op) but this still felt off enough that I felt the need to talk about it.

Quertus
2019-06-10, 05:36 AM
*Start of Game*

"It was the day that four Mysterious Travelers drifted into town. None of them knew any of the others, their past deeds, or their Abilities. Only what was visible: clothes and gear, armor and weapons.

Everyone on the street wondered if there was even a sliver of hope that these would be the ones to save their beleaguered town..."

***
I .... suppose that might work out.

"It was the day that four mysterious coders drifted into the lab. None of them knew any of the others, their past deeds, or their Abilities. Only what was visible: clothes and gear, backpack and drink.

Everyone at the Pentagon wondered if there was even a sliver of hope that these would be the ones to write the missile guidance code."

(And the answer is no, those other three idiots shouldn't have been allowed anywhere near anything so complex as a toaster. :smallannoyed:)

Point is, when you go to do a job, what you describe is often the case.

In an RPG? It not only absolutely can work, but I'd much rather form bonds in game than start with artificial ones.

And, in some future game, if some of the players happen to run characters who already know one another from a previous job? Bonus!

Malphegor
2019-06-10, 05:56 AM
Hm. This thread has started me making little postcard sized summaries in jpeg format of potential future characters to send to my DM so he can think about fitting it into his world or reject my dumber ideas like Fantasy Illuminati Agent.

I tend to draw my characters anyway so it'd be cool to do arty things for the guy, he seems to appreciate that.

Quertus
2019-06-10, 05:57 AM
My statement wasn't exclusionary. I can very much enjoy that, though I have a preference - but I should clarify what I mean by "what they brought to life". And that's a part of the world they crafted with the understanding I intended to use it later on to create plot hooks that relate directly to their character. These places, people, discoveries, and relationships are more often than not the player's original writing, and the collaboration is them reaching out to me to find a spot in the world to slot it in, and if there isn't a space like that, then to create one. It gives the character authenticity, a background, and reasons to do what they do. The holes they left, I fill in with secrets and a story they will hopefully enjoy. This isn't something I spring on them - I tell them it's my intention before they start making anything.

You mentioned earlier that you don't like the GM meddling with your story that way, that it should be a one author thing. But if that worked both ways, I don't think I'd have much fun at all. If all my characters were outsiders who had no connection to these lands or people. If GMs turned down my concepts completely because it doesn't fit the world. I think there's a give and take, from both player and GM. Player, consult and work alongside GM to build into a character that's yours, but has a place in the world. GM, don't make a world so rigid only the notions you've come up with so far work. Flexibility is core to D&D as a game. The ability to improvise, to create dialogue and sceneries and roll with the unexpected. I think that should be reflected in both world and character creation.

If a backstory is meant to stand apart from the world, be an outsider and discover things along with way - that's great too. But it's not the only path. And though exploring the humanity of something like that in a character is something I think I would enjoy, I also enjoy the struggles of family, of ghosts of the past haunting you, of pitting personal experiences and ties against the friends you've fought (and maybe died) alongside. I'd actually consider having a character standing completely outside the world also a collaboration with the GM. Where did they come from? Why don't they know anything?

If a player just refuses to engage with my setting, that I don't understand. Things don't happen in a vacuum. And as long as your character exists in the world, it is the GM's jurisdiction. You can't force a slot for them in, just like the GM can't force you to make a character they want.

Of course, this all comes with the stipulation that collaboration isn't a one way road. If the GM wants to have collaborative backstories integrated, talk to the player about what they intend. GM, you're not a mind reader, and the backstory integration is still for everyone, not just the character it affects directly. Make sure what you want to integrate aligns with the players vision of what's going on.

Ah, you don't just enjoy watching the *character* come to life, you enjoy watching the *backstory* come to life. Or… do you enjoy watching another player's backstory come to life when you're a player, or do you only enjoy bringing a backstory to life as a GM? Either way, you meant something different from those words than what I read. So I understand your desire to have your fingers in the pie now.

Follow-up question: how many pies do you need to have your fingers in? Do you have experience with only having your fingers in some pies, but not others? Do you have experience with tables of diverse sizes; if so, does this change the equation?

-----

For myself, as a player, if the GM has created a world worth interacting with and exploring, I prefer to *start* as an outsider, with no(ish) connections to those lands or people, and to *form* those connections in play - just like to my fellow PCs. It's not about refusing to engage the setting - exactly the opposite, it's about *wanting* to engage the setting.

Hypersmith
2019-06-10, 08:38 AM
Ah, you don't just enjoy watching the *character* come to life, you enjoy watching the *backstory* come to life. Or… do you enjoy watching another player's backstory come to life when you're a player, or do you only enjoy bringing a backstory to life as a GM? Either way, you meant something different from those words than what I read. So I understand your desire to have your fingers in the pie now.
Not one without the other, no, or I would have said "I don't care for the actual character" I think the backstory completes the character. Gives them personality that makes sense. Even if it's just something simple or very straightforward, characters usually don't come into being only when the game starts. And honestly, if you're takeaway from my argument earlier, particularly

exploring the humanity of something like that in a character is something I think I would enjoy, I also enjoy the struggles of family, of ghosts of the past haunting you, of pitting personal experiences and ties against the friends you've fought (and maybe died) alongside.
Is that I don't like characters coming to life, you're being willfully blind. I very much meant what I said, not what you interpreted. I mentioned earlier building into characters. I didn't say the end product is the backstory. I like seeing a chacters backstory come to life, as both player and GM. It just holds an extra joy for me as GM.

Like, what's even the point of a backstory if your character is just a bunch of numbers on a sheet of paper?



Follow-up question: how many pies do you need to have your fingers in? Do you have experience with only having your fingers in some pies, but not others? Do you have experience with tables of diverse sizes; if so, does this change the equation?

-----

For myself, as a player, if the GM has created a world worth interacting with and exploring, I prefer to *start* as an outsider, with no(ish) connections to those lands or people, and to *form* those connections in play - just like to my fellow PCs. It's not about refusing to engage the setting - exactly the opposite, it's about *wanting* to engage the setting.

I've run and played in games that have a healthy range, where backstory didn't make a difference at all to backstory defined how your character interacted with others. Good range of sizes, from 3 to 8 people, not counting GM. And in my experience, more engaging and compelling characters emerged more consistently in games where players cared about where they came from. I don't feel the need to have my fingers in everything, but if I'm doing it, it's all or nothing. Everyone is on board and they all work with me to varying degrees. If it's not an even playing field in that sense, I'm avoiding it entirely, since I'm running for the enjoyment of the table, not just two or three people in it.

As for wanting to engage the setting that way... That just doesn't make sense to me. Because you're starting as a stranger to the other PCs anyway unless it's a collaborative backstory between players. There's no such thing as no, or even noish connections between the character and the world. You come from somewhere. I'm not asking that you make a novel out of where. Showing up as a stranger is normal. Forming connections will happen. It's not like having a backstory means all of a sudden that I expect PCs to know everyone in town or city. It's not like it removes the chance to engage in the world. What it does mean is that you have a place in the world you're engaging with.

Great Dragon
2019-06-10, 09:22 AM
Inflexibility on either side of the Screen, makes things a lot harder for the Group.

Now, I think I understand what some people are concerned with:

Personally, I really don't want any of the other Players deciding to portray my PC's Parents, or even Aunt/Uncle. These are usually viewed as "Authority Figures", and I'm playing a RPG to get away from that. Not to mention why someone almost twice the group's Age is still a 1st level Character?

Siblings, and even Cousins?
I'd prefer these being reserved for Trusted Friends. Known at least a year, both In and Out of Game.

Friends, Co-workers, military buddies, Guild acquaintances, etc - are all fine.

@Quertus:
I think that the question about your "outsider" was: do you still make at least a Basic Idea for them?
Beyond just Race, gender (?), Class (Subclass)
And visible items?

Where are they from?
Backgrounds can be used to tell a lot about this.

1) Another Region of the GM's Game World?
If so, do you work with the GM to figure out where that is, and what the customs are?

2) Another Plane/World?

A) Is it another (pre-existing) D&D Campaign Setting?

Are we in Greyhawk, but you want to bring in a Mage from Ravnica? Cool.
What Background, and Which of the 10 Guilds are they from?

Both you and the GM might also need sit down and figure out any conversions for how your "spells" work.
*****
But, trying to say that your Dragonborn is from Dragonlance, usually isn't going to work, because Draconians are vastly different, and figuring out how to change them into 5e PCs would most likely take too much time.

B) Or is it a Custom Made World?
(Including maybe your own)

Either of these can be used to show people cool stuff and ideas about that World.


****
Sure, the other Players don't know anything about your Character, and can have fun finding out about your PC, as well as showing their PCs to yours.

But, "hiding" everything about your PC from the GM, can be another problem.
I could go into personal experiences related to this, but that's not the point, here.


*****
I do sometimes wonder how, exactly, very different PCs get together to begin with:
(Class/Level isn't really important, for this)

Say the Human is from these parts, but the Dwarf and the Elf are each from their own Kingdoms, and the Tiefling is a drifter. And that's not counting personal Traits or Flaws.

Go one step further, and say that the Dwarf is actually a Duergar, and the Elf is an Eladrin.

My "Mysterious Travelers" intro really could apply, here.

Sure, everyone starting as a member of "The Adventurers Guild" can be used, but that's just another "you all start in a tavern"… and, kinda lazy.

Constructman
2019-06-10, 09:32 AM
Quertus, are you just flat-out opposed to PCs having a preexisting relationship with each other at Session 1?

Max_Killjoy
2019-06-10, 09:33 AM
Sure, everyone starting as a member of "The Adventurers Guild" can be used, but that's just another "you all start in a tavern"… and, kinda lazy.


Hmmm... I don't know if that's fair to GMs who are trying to get play going as quickly as possible -- like running at conventions, running on a tight schedule for an evening club, etc.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-06-10, 09:38 AM
Hmmm... I don't know if that's fair to GMs who are trying to get play going as quickly as possible -- like running at conventions, running on a tight schedule for an evening club, etc.

Yeah. I do it so we can pick up and play. Back stories can come later. Now for my more relaxed games I might ask for a longer character intro so I can find ways to weave it in or lean on it to give information the character would have. I don't expect the characters to be connected before hand, because that gets confining as to class/race choice due to regional restrictions on races.

Great Dragon
2019-06-10, 10:23 AM
Hmmm... I don't know if that's fair to GMs who are trying to get play going as quickly as possible -- like running at conventions, running on a tight schedule for an evening club, etc.

I tend to think those are actually separate.
Yes, time limited games are excluded.
Also games where there are Random Players each time the GM sets the game up, even if the GM goes to the same Location and day/time.

@PhoenixPhyre:
Right, since I don't always have my Gaming Materials with me, I've been known to do the "Tavern" or "Guild" starting points.

Heck, most times my Waterdeep/Undermountain games will start in the Yawning Portal; let the Players get to know (at least the basics) each other, and then decide where they want to go.

But, for games where things are more regular schedules (a Player missing a game once a month is ok), putting in more details really can make things a lot more interesting, for everyone.


****
Now, I don't expect what I do to work for everyone, and all my posts are just my habits and/or suggestions.

I tend to use Google Docs, and keep track of the things that Players do in the game.
(I use Docs, since I can access it on my phone, use my tablet when I have access for detailed updates, and at the library to print anything needed)

So, yes there are things in Undermountain that past PCs have changed, that new players will Encounter now. Other than being interesting to me, if any of those old PCs return - they can still see what they had changed.

I like reading what others here do, and I'll consider trying something new.

Max_Killjoy
2019-06-10, 11:18 AM
The short answer is, Yes, it's a good thing for the GM and the player to communicate regarding backstory/character history. Really, I don't see how the backstory can make much sense without some communication there.


What follows is my opinion / preference, but I'm not going write "IMO" and "I feel" and so on umpteen times, so be aware it may read more assertive of an absolute than it's meant to.

First, to get this part out of the way... other players don't get to tell me ANYTHING about my character's history or backstory or relationships. They do not get to add things or change things. Any system or campaign that regards other players retroactively imposing facts on my character as expected, or even acceptable, is a hard pass, an absolute no-go. I don't care that you think our characters met in somewhere in the past or have some relationship. I don't care if you think my character should have a missing sister. If you want to suggest, OOC, that these might be good ideas, and you're willing to accept a firm "no thank you", fine... but the instant you think you can impose them, well, the words I'm going to use in response are not postable on these forums.

As a GM, I expect some sort of backstory, even if it's just bullet points, notes for each background-related thing on the character sheet, etc. I need something to work with and some information to help me understand where the PC is coming from and how they fit into the world. I don't think it's asking that much to require something more than a tubula rasa. I'll answer any questions, help them with suggestions, add little details to the map if needed, whatever it takes to make the PC into a "person" rather than a collection of attributes and abilities on a sheet of paper. But every character is from somewhere, and did things before the campaign started, and I want to know what those are.

And no, I don't view every backstory element as a request to have that element come up in the campaign, any more than I regard Chekhov's Gun as more than a trite platitude. It's information to help me establish the character within the setting and in my mental space as the GM. If a player wants to specifically have something become an issue in the campaign, they need to note that specifically, or ask for side-sessions when the characters have downtime.

And as a GM, I avoid imposing backstory/history on a player's character as much as I possibly can, I always take it from their submitted backstory or ask them if they're OK with me adding something or ask them questions about their character's life before the campaign started if something isn't clear.

As a player, I expect the same level of courtesy from the GM. If you're my GM, do not ever just say, mid-session, "you receive a letter from your sibling, desperate for help" if I haven't included a sibling in the backstory and you haven't discussed it with me OOC. My response will be something like "I don't have a sibling, this is obviously a scam or a trap", or "my character is devastated by this revelation that their father was a cheating scoundrel".

Great Dragon
2019-06-10, 12:15 PM
And as a GM, I avoid imposing backstory/history on a player's character as much as I possibly can, I always take it from their submitted backstory or ask them if they're OK with me adding something or ask them questions about their character's life before the campaign started if something isn't clear.

As a player, I expect the same level of courtesy from the GM..
(And other Players)

Exactly this.

I'd also avoid games that required changes to my character by others.

Red Fel
2019-06-10, 12:30 PM
Agreed.

With regard to collaboration between players and GMs: I've said it before and I'll say it again, this is something that benefits everybody. When players and GMs collaborate on PC backstory, everybody wins. There will be no sudden discoveries that a PC doesn't fit the game or setting and must be remade. There will be no instances in which a PC tries to refer to backstory, only for the GM to stonewall for some reason. The GM can ensure that everything is on the up-and-up, the PC can have help fleshing out a character from some stats on paper to an organic part of a living setting.

Bonus, this improves player investment in the world. A smart GM won't just help the player flesh out the PC's backstory; she'll work concepts from the PC's backstory into the setting. PC's parents disappeared on an archaeological dig? Won't the PC be surprised to discover them as part of the brainwashed cult worshiping an ancient deity! PC's childhood best friend left town to join the priesthood? Guess who PC runs into in the capital! Interspersing these nuggets into the world - and making them plot-relevant - allows the player to feel like the PC is important, which is a great way to encourage players to want to know more about the setting.

With regard to collaboration between players and other players: So much yes. One of the best ways to ensure party cohesion at the start of the game is for the players to collaborate on backstories. I was a player in one campaign where basically everyone talked about their characters in Session Zero and created this weird, fun family dynamic, where this one adopted that one, these two were childhood friends, this one was saved by that one's sister, and so on. If collaboration between players and GMs ensures that the PC has a place in the world, collaboration between players ensures that the PC has a place in the party.

That said, I also agree with those who say that nobody, not other players or the GM, gets to control your character's backstory. As a general rule, I believe that's true - other players can ask if their PC can have a place in your PC's background, but they can't unilaterally make that call, nor can the GM arbitrarily tell you this stuff. At least three exceptions to that rule exist, however. First, a GM can certainly tell you if something in your backstory is not appropriate for the setting or for the game. If your GM is running a rags-to-riches campaign where all the PCs are trying to strike it big, he could certainly veto you coming from a wealthy family; likewise, if the campaign takes place in one part of the world, the GM is within rights to veto your character coming inexplicably from another region. Second, a GM can and should be able to control any aspect of backstory with a mechanical impact; if you have influential family members in your background that you can call on for plot-affecting impact, the GM is within rights to say that would upset game balance. And third, as has been mentioned, there may be situations - such as con-games or one-shots - where the GM should be allowed to simply slap something together and hand it to the players for use, rather than spend time letting the players craft their own backgrounds. Sometimes, the need for expedience trumps the need for personal expression and collaboration.

But generally, my backstory is like my alignment - you don't get to tell me what I can or can't do.

Max_Killjoy
2019-06-10, 12:44 PM
That said, I also agree with those who say that nobody, not other players or the GM, gets to control your character's backstory. As a general rule, I believe that's true - other players can ask if their PC can have a place in your PC's background, but they can't unilaterally make that call, nor can the GM arbitrarily tell you this stuff. At least three exceptions to that rule exist, however. First, a GM can certainly tell you if something in your backstory is not appropriate for the setting or for the game. If your GM is running a rags-to-riches campaign where all the PCs are trying to strike it big, he could certainly veto you coming from a wealthy family; likewise, if the campaign takes place in one part of the world, the GM is within rights to veto your character coming inexplicably from another region. Second, a GM can and should be able to control any aspect of backstory with a mechanical impact; if you have influential family members in your background that you can call on for plot-affecting impact, the GM is within rights to say that would upset game balance. And third, as has been mentioned, there may be situations - such as con-games or one-shots - where the GM should be allowed to simply slap something together and hand it to the players for use, rather than spend time letting the players craft their own backgrounds. Sometimes, the need for expedience trumps the need for personal expression and collaboration.

But generally, my backstory is like my alignment - you don't get to tell me what I can or can't do.


Agreed, the GM's veto power ("that doesn't fit this setting / that doesn't fit this campaign") is different from trying to impose/insert background by unilateral fiat.

Quertus
2019-06-10, 01:44 PM
EDIT: I see several people already expressed similar opinions. Hopefully, my response will make sense in the context of their posts.


Quertus, are you just flat-out opposed to PCs having a preexisting relationship with each other at Session 1?

Conceptually, no. I think it represents a missed opportunity for forming those bonds, but is otherwise fine. In fact, I love parties where some of the PCs have adventured together before!

However, the implementation? Whenever my tables, or any "adjacent" tables, have tried starting the game with PCs having preexisting relationships, it has been a recipe both for disaster, and, when I was a player in such games, for a dissatisfied me. The latter because the "form relationships" minigame that I enjoy has been replaced with this horrible, artificial *thing* - it's like expecting a fresh, juicy watermelon, and instead finding nasty artificially flavored paper. It's just not the same.

For the former… I'm not sure why. I suspect it's because people were lazy, and expected "preexisting relationships" to be a magic bullet to solve intra-party conflict.

That said, I am opposed to background connections as a means of cheap conflict between PCs - both because it's cheap, and because it's conflict. I prefer a cooperative, collaborative experience - or, if we are going to have conflict, let it be over something meaningful, like what to do with the goblin children, now that we've murdered their parents.

Lastly, I am vehemently opposed to systems which force aspects into a PC's background. I built this character's background very carefully for a purpose, stop having your kindergartner scribble all over the art museum.


Personally, I really don't want any of the other Players deciding to portray my PC's Parents, or even Aunt/Uncle. These are usually viewed as "Authority Figures", and I'm playing a RPG to get away from that. Not to mention why someone almost twice the group's Age is still a 1st level Character?

There is that. And I've certainly seen many a bad linear GM pull them out for just that purpose.

But even a good GM will fail at role-playing them. And that's my objection to their use. I don't want the GM to **** over all the hard work I've put into my character and their background - and for what? At least the railroading GM has a method to their madness, but why cheapen my experience by taking a **** on my backstory with your bad role-playing?

-----

I think those will most help people see my PoV. I'll reply more later, after people have had a chance to digest these tidbits.

Quertus
2019-06-10, 03:45 PM
With regard to collaboration between players and other players: So much yes. One of the best ways to ensure party cohesion at the start of the game is for the players to collaborate on backstories. I was a player in one campaign where basically everyone talked about their characters in Session Zero and created this weird, fun family dynamic, where this one adopted that one, these two were childhood friends, this one was saved by that one's sister, and so on. If collaboration between players and GMs ensures that the PC has a place in the world, collaboration between players ensures that the PC has a place in the party.

So, as I've been asking others: how do you make that work? Every time I've tried it, or seen it tried, it's resulted in catastrophic failure, in exactly the opposite direction from your predictions. The party was much less stable than the "random group of strangers" (which itself was much less stable than the characters who had actually adventured together before).

Any guesses what we/they did wrong, or how to do it right?

Great Dragon
2019-06-10, 04:28 PM
@Quertus: umm.
Not really something I can do, over a Forum, sorry.

Some groups mesh, hardly without any problems.

Others, even though they have known each other for years, never mesh as a cooperative group. You know, despite everyone trying?

Quertus
2019-06-10, 05:07 PM
@Quertus: umm.
Not really something I can do, over a Forum, sorry.

Some groups mesh, hardly without any problems.

Others, even though they have known each other for years, never mesh as a cooperative group. You know, despite everyone trying?

That's the thing, though: it's not just "some groups", it's every single group I've seen attempt connections through backstory - including ones that had never had such problems before.

MrSandman
2019-06-10, 06:15 PM
So, as I've been asking others: how do you make that work? Every time I've tried it, or seen it tried, it's resulted in catastrophic failure, in exactly the opposite direction from your predictions. The party was much less stable than the "random group of strangers" (which itself was much less stable than the characters who had actually adventured together before).

Any guesses what we/they did wrong, or how to do it right?

Step 1: Agree on the terms of the relationship; i.e. don't just say "our characters are going to be siblings." Talk about what that means. How do they like each other? Is one overprotective? How loyal are they to family? Etc. etc.

Step 2: Play the relationship in good faith. Don't trt to use it to turn the other character into a minion, don't try to blackmail the other player, don't play a relationship that hasn't been ageeed on...

Step 3: Don't find fault with the other player's portrayal of the relationship when it deviates ever so slightly from how you think they should portray it from their end. See it as an opportunity rather than a failure. Try to see the other player's actions in the best light possible.

Red Fel
2019-06-10, 08:50 PM
So, as I've been asking others: how do you make that work? Every time I've tried it, or seen it tried, it's resulted in catastrophic failure, in exactly the opposite direction from your predictions. The party was much less stable than the "random group of strangers" (which itself was much less stable than the characters who had actually adventured together before).

Any guesses what we/they did wrong, or how to do it right?


Some groups mesh, hardly without any problems.

Others, even though they have known each other for years, never mesh as a cooperative group. You know, despite everyone trying?


Step 1: Agree on the terms of the relationship; i.e. don't just say "our characters are going to be siblings." Talk about what that means. How do they like each other? Is one overprotective? How loyal are they to family? Etc. etc.

Step 2: Play the relationship in good faith. Don't trt to use it to turn the other character into a minion, don't try to blackmail the other player, don't play a relationship that hasn't been ageeed on...

Step 3: Don't find fault with the other player's portrayal of the relationship when it deviates ever so slightly from how you think they should portray it from their end. See it as an opportunity rather than a failure. Try to see the other player's actions in the best light possible.

These are both great answers.

In my group's case, it was that we used common backgrounds as a starting point and went from there. For example, my LE samurai-type character had been saved during a war by another character's (now-deceased) older sibling. Thus, my character owed a life debt, which the younger sibling - a PC - inherited. This colored the dynamic between the two characters - my character was regularly teaching the other character swordsmanship, because it would really inconvenience my character if this other character died before the debt was repaid. How that worked in practice, ironically, was that it shaped how my character interacted with the other characters in the group. Y'see, this other character's player was a bit of a rubbish RPer. So instead of regularly interacting with this character, my character interacted with the rest of the party based on his relationship with this character. So, starting as aloof and stuffy - because again, LE samurai-type - but eventually becoming protective of them, as an extension of being protective of this character. And the dynamic actually worked reasonably well as a result.

See, there's the lesson. It's like Step 3 that Sandman describes - don't assume the relationship will remain static or as you expected, but take any deviation as an opportunity. The fact is, whether the characters acted on or ignored their common backgrounds, it gave them a basis for interacting with all of the other characters. Which worked out pretty well, all things considered.

Think of it this way - you're not going to be in the same kind of relationship with your childhood best friend, right? You may stay friends, or drift apart, but the nature of the relationship will change. So, too, with shared PC backgrounds - the dynamic changes. And it impacts how you interact with other people. And that's fine. What it does is add a layer.

That said, it really does also depend upon your fellow players. If you have a rapport with one or more players, or they get really well into character, these dynamics can really shine. But if you don't have a particular dynamic with the person behind the character, or they tend to skimp on the backstory and jump into the plot proper, these details are likely to fall by the wayside. And if that happens, the person who insists on the characters' relationship is the one making the problem, not the one solving it - it's best to just let it drop.

Quertus
2019-06-10, 09:16 PM
@Quertus:
I think that the question about your "outsider" was: do you still make at least a Basic Idea for them?
Beyond just Race, gender (?), Class (Subclass)
And visible items?

Where are they from?
Backgrounds can be used to tell a lot about this.

1) Another Region of the GM's Game World?
If so, do you work with the GM to figure out where that is, and what the customs are?

2) Another Plane/World?

A) Is it another (pre-existing) D&D Campaign Setting?

Are we in Greyhawk, but you want to bring in a Mage from Ravnica? Cool.
What Background, and Which of the 10 Guilds are they from?

Both you and the GM might also need sit down and figure out any conversions for how your "spells" work.
*****
But, trying to say that your Dragonborn is from Dragonlance, usually isn't going to work, because Draconians are vastly different, and figuring out how to change them into 5e PCs would most likely take too much time.

B) Or is it a Custom Made World?
(Including maybe your own)

Either of these can be used to show people cool stuff and ideas about that World.

Few people care about backstory more than I do. It's the foundation that the character, every facet, including their personality, is built upon. And there is a rhyme and reason, discernable patterns - even if they aren't necessarily predictable, they aren't random.

The example I currently like to harp on is how a shopkeep asked the gaming group what it meant when a customer asked, "how much is this?". Even these simple actions come from a foundation, tell us something about the speaker. Makes me wonder just how much typing on the internet before I've revealed my True Name, bared my soul sufficiently for some future AI to retroactively comprehend my True Self, and successfully emulate me. I might not even be a brain in a jar - I might just be a simulation of someone long dead.

Anyway, point is, I aim for single author backstories. So I'm from as far away as I need to be to have authorship of all the elements of my characters background. If I can do that as a Minecraft style shut-in with a garden on his roof, I might even be from the starting town. But, usually, my characters hail from "off the map" at a minimum, and from another world as a preference (less work for me to use one of my existing worlds than to start from scratch building cultures, religions, myths fashion, art, etc).

So, uh, yeah, I make lots of background for my character, to help me roleplay them, and to enable me to explore various facets of humanity.

Quertus, my signature academia mage, for whom this account is named, originated as a tool for me to explore the inability of some players to ever "see the elephant", to ever get good at the games they'd been playing for years (or decades!).

-----

@Hypersmith - so, I feel like I thought I was trying to ask you what I thought was a simple question, where you might answer "red" or "blue". Instead, you've given an answer more like, "it could be a purple square, or a grey sphere, or a sonnet". So I'm all like, "****, there's a lot more dimensions to this than I bargained for!". This means that I'm having difficulty parsing your responses, in part because they are *bigger* than I was anticipating. So apologies if I misinterpret anything you say - it is certainly not intentional. It's just me struggling to catch up with the scope of your answer.


Not one without the other, no, or I would have said "I don't care for the actual character" I think the backstory completes the character. Gives them personality that makes sense. Even if it's just something simple or very straightforward, characters usually don't come into being only when the game starts. And honestly, if you're takeaway from my argument earlier, particularly

Is that I don't like characters coming to life, you're being willfully blind. I very much meant what I said, not what you interpreted. I mentioned earlier building into characters. I didn't say the end product is the backstory. I like seeing a chacters backstory come to life, as both player and GM. It just holds an extra joy for me as GM.

Like, what's even the point of a backstory if your character is just a bunch of numbers on a sheet of paper?

Hmmm… in a movie, book, anime, whatever, yes, one often sees where the character came from as part of "bringing the character to life". Without exploring those connections, without those flashback moments, many characters would be less approachable to the audience.

However, I think it would be unfair to claim that all approachable characters that have been "brought to life" have always had their backgrounds explored by the audience.

Thus my distinction between "bringing the character to life" and "bringing their background to life (too)".

I certainly don't fault you for your technique, I just initially didn't understand it from the phrase "bring the character to life".


I've run and played in games that have a healthy range, where backstory didn't make a difference at all to backstory defined how your character interacted with others. Good range of sizes, from 3 to 8 people, not counting GM. And in my experience, more engaging and compelling characters emerged more consistently in games where players cared about where they came from. I don't feel the need to have my fingers in everything, but if I'm doing it, it's all or nothing. Everyone is on board and they all work with me to varying degrees. If it's not an even playing field in that sense, I'm avoiding it entirely, since I'm running for the enjoyment of the table, not just two or three people in it.

I mean, I probably care more about where my character came from than most players, and I *absolutely* agree that, uh, "more compelling characters emerge" from better backgrounds - at least, for me. Other players' mileage may vary.

What I now don't understand is your insistence on "all or nothing". If Bob likes X, but John likes Y, why not give them each what they want?


As for wanting to engage the setting that way... That just doesn't make sense to me. Because you're starting as a stranger to the other PCs anyway unless it's a collaborative backstory between players. There's no such thing as no, or even noish connections between the character and the world. You come from somewhere. I'm not asking that you make a novel out of where. Showing up as a stranger is normal. Forming connections will happen. It's not like having a backstory means all of a sudden that I expect PCs to know everyone in town or city. It's not like it removes the chance to engage in the world. What it does mean is that you have a place in the world you're engaging with.

Hmmm… for various reasons, I generally want my character to be as new as possible to, as disconnected as possible from, and as ignorant as possible about, whatever area "the adventure" is taking place in.

So, for a game set in New York city, my character might be from Paris, or they might be the homeschooled son of a reclusive agoraphobic shut-in mother & a mute farther who did occasional odd jobs for the mob so that we could continue squatting in "abandoned" buildings. Both were illegal immigrants, and were deported just before the game starts.

In other words, in either case, there is no one "in the world" (New York city) that my character had ever interacted with before.

Hypersmith
2019-06-10, 09:31 PM
@Quertus
Don't have a lot of time to reply atm, so this will be brief. But I think I get your points a lot better now - thanks. I'm particularly cool with the clarification at the end. I think I understand it as you're not avoiding a backstory, you're avoiding the adventure area when you make it, so you can explore the adventure area in game. I get that.
As for all or nothing, that mainly goes for integrating backstories into the story. If one or two of the players aren't interested in doing that, it means they essentially have to sit through a chunk of game where nothing interesting is happening to them. Maybe all or nothing is an extreme way to word it, but it certainly means I'm toning down the amount to which I'll integrate and make use of the stories.

Great Dragon
2019-06-11, 12:53 PM
@Quertus: What follows are just my (rambling) thoughts, and meant to perhaps achieve a better understanding for everyone.
No offense is intended.


Hmmm… in a movie, book, anime, whatever, yes, one often sees where the character came from as part of "bringing the character to life". Without exploring those connections, without those flashback moments, many characters would be less approachable to the audience.

But, anime, and especially movies/TV shows, are all (entirely) "one author" formated. Even with multiple "writers/artists", there is always one person that decides what is allowed, and how.

The "Audience" is completely passive, and has no say on what happens.

Using any book, movie, anime, etc, as anything but the basic concept for a Character (either Abilities/Powers and/or Personality type) in a tRPG, will most likely only end in disappointment.

An example here might be the "Golden Age" Superman.
In the original 1930s comics (IiRC), this guy was nearly unstoppable. (And a complete mystery).
Superman was interesting enough to attract attention, but the company (especially DC) realized that they needed to "make him more Human" to really get true fandom for Superman. And not all the "changes" to Superman worked.


My favourite is that Kryponite is a thing because the radio show actor for Superman went on vacation, so they just temporarily gave Superman a reason to not be on the show.

I have no idea if that event was the reason why Kryponite even became a weakness for Superman - and other Kryptonians.

In the comics, "Red" Kryponite wasn't introduced until Superman #61, Nov 1969.
"Green" Kryponite in Action Comics #161, Aug 1951.

The "Original" Superman is absolutely impossible to actually duplicate in any Superhero RPG. He simply had too many Superpowers, and almost no real limits.

And that's not even going into the "moral" (social, or psychological) issues with Batman.

I'd try to give more examples, but really, I don't have access to any of those comics to "quote" from.


However, I think it would be unfair to claim that all approachable characters that have been "brought to life" have always had their backgrounds explored by the audience.

Well, yes. The "classic example" here is Wolverine.
When first introduced, he literally wasn't anything more than just "a mean savage with metal claws and fast healing". (They actually added that he had "Adamantine bones" later)
As time passes (both in the comics and IRL) more was revealed about Wolverine, and his past.
Like his "name" was Logan.
That he had been "friends" with Captain America in WW2.
How he got the Adamantine bones/claws.
And that he was the tenth attempt to be a "Mutant Hunter".
That he had History and connections in Japan, and having been "trained as a ninja" (very popular at the time)


I mean, I probably care more about where my character came from than most players, and I *absolutely* agree that, uh, "more compelling characters emerge" from better backgrounds - at least, for me. Other players' mileage may vary.

I agree. How best to describe?
A lot of the X-Men had at least decent Backstories.

But, the one that I really liked, was Nightcrawler. There was a lot of potential for Kurt to go down the Dark Path. Literally growing up looking like a demon, tends to not make things easy. Everyone knew, even from the first time we see Kurt, that he mostly grew up in the Circus.
But, what I never really saw explained, was his Deep Faith. Which really was a major point of Kurt's Personality: How he could calmly stand there while someone shouted "Freak!" or "Demon" in his face. That Kurt detested violence, but acknowledged that it was needed at times.


What I now don't understand is your insistence on "all or nothing". If Bob likes X, but John likes Y, why not give them each what they want?

Maybe because the GM is running the "A" game?
And, unless they can all work together to figure out that something like the "G" game is best for everyone, there may not even be a game at all?

Which means that there might need to be more "interconnection" between the PCs - and having connected Backgrounds would be the easiest way to accomplish this? Now, no one gets to decide things that directly change your Character's "traits".
For example, that they are directly connected to your Ideal/Bond. Or being a Parent/Aunt/Uncle/Mentor, that determined how your PC became the Class you chose.

Does this means that John and Bob can't get both? Not at all, but may need the GM to work harder to figure out how to get both. And both John and Bob being "flexible" about their Character's backstory and/or background is helpful.


Hmmm… for various reasons, I generally want my character to be as new as possible to, as disconnected as possible from, and as ignorant as possible about, whatever area "the adventure" is taking place in.

So, for a game set in New York city, my character might be from Paris, or they might be the homeschooled son of a reclusive agoraphobic shut-in mother & a mute farther who did occasional odd jobs for the mob so that we could continue squatting in "abandoned" buildings. Both were illegal immigrants, and were deported just before the game starts.

In other words, in either case, there is no one "in the world" (New York city) that my character had ever interacted with before.

And there's nothing wrong with that.

But, keep in mind that while the first Character you bring to the game has that "background", making every Character after him exactly the same (stranger/outsider) - is not as interesting.


****

Now, I'm very much aware that creating a "truly unique" Character really is nearly impossible.

40+ years of just D&D, every other tRPG and video game RPG and MMO, plus every comic, novel, movie/TV, cartoon, and anime.

Personally, I'm much more interested in a new concept than a "clone" of an existing Character.
Sure, maybe being like Wolverine was your desire, but as the GM, I'm going to ask "what makes your Character different?".
(I'd also most likely not allow Adamantine, but you could buy "unbreakable bones" as a power.)


****
Note: references to various known Characters are only meant to be examples.

I hope this helps.

RNightstalker
2019-06-11, 08:30 PM
I like collaboration. I had a DM tell me I couldn't have a player that used a crossbow because the Pope almost banned them hundreds of years ago. I also couldn't be an Elven Monk.


The ideal situation would be where a character brings background to the DM and DM works it in. The character doesn't try to be absurd and the DM doesn't try to have a power trip.

Quertus
2019-06-11, 09:09 PM
@Quertus
Don't have a lot of time to reply atm, so this will be brief. But I think I get your points a lot better now - thanks. I'm particularly cool with the clarification at the end. I think I understand it as you're not avoiding a backstory, you're avoiding the adventure area when you make it, so you can explore the adventure area in game. I get that.
As for all or nothing, that mainly goes for integrating backstories into the story. If one or two of the players aren't interested in doing that, it means they essentially have to sit through a chunk of game where nothing interesting is happening to them. Maybe all or nothing is an extreme way to word it, but it certainly means I'm toning down the amount to which I'll integrate and make use of the stories.

I guess, coming from a war gaming background, and playing with lots of war gamers, I just naturally find making a game about "multiple things" just makes sense. Because, if there wasn't more than just combat in an RPG, it wouldn't be an RPG, it would just be a (bad) war game. So, since I can share screen time, with combat for the dedicated way gaming junkie, "talkie bits" for the dedicated "roleplayers", things to investigate for the dedicated diggers, etc, I guess I believe packing a full deck, to share the spotlight between the hearts, diamonds, spades, and clubs.


Maybe because the GM is running the "A" game?
And, unless they can all work together to figure out that something like the "G" game is best for everyone, there may not even be a game at all?

Which means that there might need to be more "interconnection" between the PCs - and having connected Backgrounds would be the easiest way to accomplish this? Now, no one gets to decide things that directly change your Character's "traits".
For example, that they are directly connected to your Ideal/Bond. Or being a Parent/Aunt/Uncle/Mentor, that determined how your PC became the Class you chose.

Does this means that John and Bob can't get both? Not at all, but may need the GM to work harder to figure out how to get both. And both John and Bob being "flexible" about their Character's backstory and/or background is helpful.

I mean, I've played in games where some characters backstories were investigated. And, during that time, I've participated, or my character did other things, or it was simply someone else's turn in the spotlight. Just like I can enjoy playing "highschool romance drama" in a tactical basketball simulator game.

Perhaps, more relevantly, I cannot imagine a scenario where preexisting connections were required that wouldn't set of my contrived and/or railroading alarms.

If, IRL, I get hired on to a new job, and I find one coworker is my cousin, a second saved my life, a third is their lover, a fourth worked with my cousin previously… yeah, **** this, I'm running for the doors before the twilight theme song starts playing. Because that **** just ain't natural.


And there's nothing wrong with that.

But, keep in mind that while the first Character you bring to the game has that "background", making every Character after him exactly the same (stranger/outsider) - is not as interesting.

… If Quertus (who is not from around here) feels exactly the same as Amalak (who is not from around here), then I have not only epically failed at role-playing, but their stats were apparently irrelevant as well.

Which… might be a rather difficult scenario for me to acclimate to.

Max_Killjoy
2019-06-11, 09:20 PM
I mean, I've played in games where some characters backstories were investigated. And, during that time, I've participated, or my character did other things, or it was simply someone else's turn in the spotlight. Just like I can enjoy playing "highschool romance drama" in a tactical basketball simulator game.

Perhaps, more relevantly, I cannot imagine a scenario where preexisting connections were required that wouldn't set of my contrived and/or railroading alarms.

If, IRL, I get hired on to a new job, and I find one coworker is my cousin, a second saved my life, a third is their lover, a fourth worked with my cousin previously… yeah, **** this, I'm running for the doors before the twilight theme song starts playing. Because that **** just ain't natural.


Yeah, that's pretty much a textbook example of narrative contrivance.

(Unless you've spent your whole life in the same small town.)

Pauly
2019-06-11, 09:56 PM
Perhaps, more relevantly, I cannot imagine a scenario where preexisting connections were required that wouldn't set of my contrived and/or railroading alarms.

If, IRL, I get hired on to a new job, and I find one coworker is my cousin, a second saved my life, a third is their lover, a fourth worked with my cousin previously… yeah, **** this, I'm running for the doors before the twilight theme song starts playing. Because that **** just ain't natural.

That degree of overlapping interlocking is going too far and creates problems. In my current campaign the backstory relationships are

Player A: Seneca Indian, is blood brother to Player B.
Player B. Explorer/Soldier. Went to the colonies and is blood brother to player A. His best friend is player C who is in the same regiment.
Player C. Soldier/Don Juan. Best friend is player B. Is cousin to player D.
Player D. Spy. Cousin to player D. Is in love with player E who he has known since childhood, but the love is unrequited
Player E. Arcane researcher. Thinks of player D as a dear devoted friend, but she does not return his love. (The campaign is kind of 17th Century early X-files where magic may or may not be real).

So for most relationships in the party it’s friend-of-a-friend kind of level at the start. That gives the players lots of freedom to role play and not have a web of constricting and competing back story relationships. However it also means they start with a reason for this particular group of 5 to be together and to go on adventures together.

flond
2019-06-11, 10:19 PM
I mean, I've played in games where some characters backstories were investigated. And, during that time, I've participated, or my character did other things, or it was simply someone else's turn in the spotlight. Just like I can enjoy playing "highschool romance drama" in a tactical basketball simulator game.

Perhaps, more relevantly, I cannot imagine a scenario where preexisting connections were required that wouldn't set of my contrived and/or railroading alarms.

If, IRL, I get hired on to a new job, and I find one coworker is my cousin, a second saved my life, a third is their lover, a fourth worked with my cousin previously… yeah, **** this, I'm running for the doors before the twilight theme song starts playing. Because that **** just ain't natural.




Counterpoint: Setups where everyone needs to have strong ties to each other.

Pendragon (everyone plays knights under the same household at the start).

Likewise, anything else that's about a specific small town. (Glorantha is pretty good for this)

"Longtime idiot friends decide to go into crime together" the game.

Like, it might not be to your taste, but there are lots of games that basically demand premade connections, especially if you're playing premodern setups.

Satinavian
2019-06-12, 03:22 AM
If, IRL, I get hired on to a new job, and I find one coworker is my cousin, a second saved my life, a third is their lover, a fourth worked with my cousin previously… yeah, **** this, I'm running for the doors before the twilight theme song starts playing. Because that **** just ain't natural.
That is not how you do it.

Instead you get hired to bring a group and instead of asking some random strangers in the next tavern, you bring your cousin, his friend, your lover and a guy you own your life to. A group of people you know and somewhat trust.

Those bonds are meant to provide a reason why those particular PCs work together and stay together, even if they are presumable quite different in personality, skill and preferrence.

Instead of looking for some contrieved reasons why those five people should be interested in the adventure, a group from which probably at least 2 seem completely ill-fitted or uninterested for the stuff that is initially known, you can rely on oldfashioned nepotism to bring them along, even if they seemingly have the wrong skills. Or they can come as a favor to a friend.


And that is without going into special theme groups, which also work quite well but would require even more bonds, often even an explicite hierarchy.

farothel
2019-06-12, 10:49 AM
If, IRL, I get hired on to a new job, and I find one coworker is my cousin, a second saved my life, a third is their lover, a fourth worked with my cousin previously… yeah, **** this, I'm running for the doors before the twilight theme song starts playing. Because that **** just ain't natural.


We had to create connections between characters for an L5R party and what we came up with (together with the GM was the following):
-Player A's father had worked with player B's father on some trade venture.
-Player C's family had an obligation to player A's family and he was chosen to fulfill it by being yojimbo to player A
-Player C's uncle was married to player D's aunt (even that far, family is important in the system)
-Player D had been rescued by player B at one point.

There was only one direct family connection, but all players had a reason to work together with the others. How well this works depends on the system.

Another way to get them together is if the system allows they are part of a larger organisation (eg Star Trek). They are just ordered by a superior to work together, at least until bonds form inside the party. A bit heavy handed in certain systems, but some work quite well that way.

Red Fel
2019-06-12, 11:00 AM
So for most relationships in the party it’s friend-of-a-friend kind of level at the start. That gives the players lots of freedom to role play and not have a web of constricting and competing back story relationships. However it also means they start with a reason for this particular group of 5 to be together and to go on adventures together.


Counterpoint: Setups where everyone needs to have strong ties to each other.


Instead you get hired to bring a group and instead of asking some random strangers in the next tavern, you bring your cousin, his friend, your lover and a guy you own your life to. A group of people you know and somewhat trust.

Those bonds are meant to provide a reason why those particular PCs work together and stay together, even if they are presumable quite different in personality, skill and preferrence.


There was only one direct family connection, but all players had a reason to work together with the others. How well this works depends on the system.

This, this, all of this.

Look, in my example, having everyone overlap with everyone else to that degree worked. It doesn't always. But there has to be some basic connection. There has to be some reason these people are engaging in (what is generally, in RPGs) a life-threatening undertaking with the promise of glory and riches at the end, together. Some reason that your character trusts these other people to (1) not let him die, and (2) not steal everything. A common background - even a tenuous one, like somebody you knew in your school days - has the foundational elements to create that basic level of trust and cooperation. "I met these goons in a tavern," does not equate to "and therefore I will trust my life and wealth to them and their insane quest." By contrast, even something like, "I haven't heard from Tim in over a decade," can include "But we knew each other back in school, he's good people," and therefore, "And he says he needs my help finding this book. Sure, I can help an old friend." Bam, connection made, party justified.

Great Dragon
2019-06-12, 11:24 AM
… If Quertus (who is not from around here) feels exactly the same as Amalak (who is not from around here), then I have not only epically failed at role-playing, but their stats were apparently irrelevant as well.

Which… might be a rather difficult scenario for me to acclimate to.

Part of the problem is, a lot of (especially new) Players seem to connect Stats and Level/s to "Roleplaying".

But, unless there's a specific reason for that, it's simply not true.
Both Abilities and Level are just mechanics to "show a limit" to what a PC might be able to do. Once determined, both should "fade away" into the background for RP.


These did a great job of ignoring stats, and instead used descriptions to show how they affected a Character.

Tanis, beyond being a Half-Elf, really could have been the "average guy" that happened to be likable enough to be most anyone's friend.

Flint was (at first) a really grumpy guy, that happened to be a Dwarf. (Note that he was also "already friends" with Tanis)

Size was what was used to show Caramon's strength.

Raistlin looked puny, and almost always was coughing, but his words could cut as much as any knife.

Tasselhoff was slight of build, quick with his hands, and nimble on his feet.

Tika was just "the girl next door" that was sucked into becoming an Adventurer.

Both Riverwind and Goldmoon:
Their behavior was more important than their appearance.

Heck, from my understanding, Wies and Hickman were both reluctant to actually put the information (Ability Scores, etc) of any of the main Characters into the Modules. They wanted people to use Dragonlance to make new characters and tell their own stories.

But, unless there are immediately noticeable differences, others might not get the point of either "outsider" Character; or really tell them apart, when asked to describe them.

Like looking at 4 people in a line and the only difference is some are wearing Half Plate and the rest are in Full Plate. One is a Paladin, one is a Fighter/Wizard, one is a Cleric, and the last is a Valor Bard.
But, without there being some visible difference between each, to maybe show Class/es, the only way to find out is seeing them in action.


****
Right now, I have no idea on Quertus - your Character. No clue on what kind of Mage, their Race*, Height, Weight/body type, Hair or Eye Color; and nothing on what is being worn: Armor, Weapons, Equipment, or color of any clothes.
(*Sure, maybe I guess that he's a Human guy, but that's not guaranteed to be correct)

Sure, it's ok to "not be from around here" (NYC), but your also not really putting much description into where they are from.
PC1 is from Paris, France and not only speaks French, but also dresses in the latest Frence fashion with a Sabre strapped on a belt on their waist (you were implying that they were French, but spoke and dressed in the local manner);
and PC2 is from, say - Ming Dynasty China and only wears silk clothes and sandals, but carries a Katana. This would make anyone in the modern world wonder "How the heck did they get here"?


*****
Now, a lot of the others are supporting the "Be Local" approach.

The DM chooses the Campaign World, and selects the Region the Game starts in. The DM provides the information on who and what is in said Area to the Players.

A starting Point is chosen, say everyone agrees on a town.

Back to the DM, who tells what Races are both in the town, and which are nearby.

(For this example,
say the town (Barterville) is run by Gnomes and Halflings.

There's a Dwarven (Don't ask!) Mine in the hills to the North.

Moon Elves are from the Secret Forest to the West.

The Human City (Getbent!) is three weeks on foot to the East.

The Unexplored Region is to the South.)

Now, this tells the Players what Races are most likely to be found in Barterville.

So they make integrated Backstories.
Like most everyone grew up in the town.

Player1 is a Gnome Illusionist.
Player2 is a Halfling Arcane Trickster.
Player4 is an Elven Ancients Paladin, with relatives in Secret Forest.
Player5 is a Dwarven War Cleric from those Mines, making sure trade relationships with Barterville are maintained.

Now, say Player3 wants to be a Half-Orc Berserker Barbarian.
Ok. The DM asks some questions.
Where are they from? (Getbent!)
How did they get to the town? (Walking)
What are their goals? (Save town from X)

How are they going to immediately mesh with the rest of the party? (So that time isn't wasted RP-ing all that)
* Here is where "friend to Player1" might work.
Player1 and Player3 work with the DM to figure out something like "Gnome met Half-Orc in Getbent while on a trip with parents. Shinagines happened."

Notice that no mention of Backgrounds were present. Each Player is free to choose what they feel applies to their Character.


****
Without a lot of work from the DM, bringing in a "True Outsider" (even from another part of the same world) can be disruptive to the group.
Mostly because it's now required to do RP introductions with this Character.

Pelle
2019-06-12, 03:25 PM
This… I mean, it's bloody great advice in general. So I decided to keep your very short quote. But… would that help with the GM who assumed things based on stated relationships? Would it help when characters suddenly feud over politics, undead, slavery, murdering prisoners? I think… maybe? But what do you think?

MrSandman in his list of steps already said a lot of what I was thinking about regarding playing in good faith.

Making mistakes and failing is ok. There's no harm done when you know the other players are playing in good faith. If the GM assumed wrong about the relationship, that's ok. You just correct it together, or let it inspire you to do something different than what you first envisioned. If the characters feud over some issue, at least the players try to uphold to their established relationship as well. Since everyone is playing in good faith, that is... If someone claims the other characters has to be ok with their actions because they are siblings, it doesn't sound like they are playing in good faith. That's up to the other players themselves to decide and chose to cut some slack for it, which they might if they have an in-character reason for it.




But even a good GM will fail at role-playing them. And that's my objection to their use. I don't want the GM to **** over all the hard work I've put into my character and their background - and for what? At least the railroading GM has a method to their madness, but why cheapen my experience by taking a **** on my backstory with your bad role-playing?


If you only can have fun when you have complete control over all the npcs in your character background, then I don't think it is going to work to allow others to portray them. If only perfect roleplay of them is acceptable to you, you are bound to be disappointed so don't bother. To make it work you would have to change your attitude or expectations for the game. When letting another player affect your character through their relationship, you need to be open to their creative contribution in the first place.

It can be easier to make that work if you don't have a predetermined detailed view of the npc. Leave room for how that sibling or relation could be, and entrust another player/GM to portray that character, and use their creative efforts to build off yourself. Celebrate what the other person at the table bring to the game, and let it inspire you on how you play your character.

Quertus
2019-06-12, 05:49 PM
So, for the most part, from what I'm hearing, it would sound like a definitions issue. The way others are defining "background connections" is what I encourage, and call giving the PCs a reason to work together / to be on this mission together. Whereas what I (and the tables I've seen) mean when we say "background connections", y'all are saying might be taking things too far.

With one interesting exception: nepotism.

I think having a game where you clearly have the wrong people for the job, but want to keep them anyway, because they're family (etc) would make for a brilliant setup for an enjoyable game.

Now I just need to find a group that agrees, and could pull it off.

Quertus
2019-06-12, 08:02 PM
Part of the problem is, a lot of (especially new) Players seem to connect Stats and Level/s to "Roleplaying".

But, unless there's a specific reason for that, it's simply not true.
Both Abilities and Level are just mechanics to "show a limit" to what a PC might be able to do. Once determined, both should "fade away" into the background for RP.


These did a great job of ignoring stats, and instead used descriptions to show how they affected a Character.

Tanis, beyond being a Half-Elf, really could have been the "average guy" that happened to be likable enough to be most anyone's friend.

Flint was (at first) a really grumpy guy, that happened to be a Dwarf. (Note that he was also "already friends" with Tanis)

Size was what was used to show Caramon's strength.

Raistlin looked puny, and almost always was coughing, but his words could cut as much as any knife.

Tasselhoff was slight of build, quick with his hands, and nimble on his feet.

Tika was just "the girl next door" that was sucked into becoming an Adventurer.

Both Riverwind and Goldmoon:
Their behavior was more important than their appearance.

Heck, from my understanding, Wies and Hickman were both reluctant to actually put the information (Ability Scores, etc) of any of the main Characters into the Modules. They wanted people to use Dragonlance to make new characters and tell their own stories.

But, unless there are immediately noticeable differences, others might not get the point of either "outsider" Character; or really tell them apart, when asked to describe them.

Like looking at 4 people in a line and the only difference is some are wearing Half Plate and the rest are in Full Plate. One is a Paladin, one is a Fighter/Wizard, one is a Cleric, and the last is a Valor Bard.
But, without there being some visible difference between each, to maybe show Class/es, the only way to find out is seeing them in action.


****
Right now, I have no idea on Quertus - your Character. No clue on what kind of Mage, their Race*, Height, Weight/body type, Hair or Eye Color; and nothing on what is being worn: Armor, Weapons, Equipment, or color of any clothes.
(*Sure, maybe I guess that he's a Human guy, but that's not guaranteed to be correct)

Sure, it's ok to "not be from around here" (NYC), but your also not really putting much description into where they are from.
PC1 is from Paris, France and not only speaks French, but also dresses in the latest Frence fashion with a Sabre strapped on a belt on their waist (you were implying that they were French, but spoke and dressed in the local manner);
and PC2 is from, say - Ming Dynasty China and only wears silk clothes and sandals, but carries a Katana. This would make anyone in the modern world wonder "How the heck did they get here"?


*****
Now, a lot of the others are supporting the "Be Local" approach.

The DM chooses the Campaign World, and selects the Region the Game starts in. The DM provides the information on who and what is in said Area to the Players.

A starting Point is chosen, say everyone agrees on a town.

Back to the DM, who tells what Races are both in the town, and which are nearby.

(For this example,
say the town (Barterville) is run by Gnomes and Halflings.

There's a Dwarven (Don't ask!) Mine in the hills to the North.

Moon Elves are from the Secret Forest to the West.

The Human City (Getbent!) is three weeks on foot to the East.

The Unexplored Region is to the South.)

Now, this tells the Players what Races are most likely to be found in Barterville.

So they make integrated Backstories.
Like most everyone grew up in the town.

Player1 is a Gnome Illusionist.
Player2 is a Halfling Arcane Trickster.
Player4 is an Elven Ancients Paladin, with relatives in Secret Forest.
Player5 is a Dwarven War Cleric from those Mines, making sure trade relationships with Barterville are maintained.

Now, say Player3 wants to be a Half-Orc Berserker Barbarian.
Ok. The DM asks some questions.
Where are they from? (Getbent!)
How did they get to the town? (Walking)
What are their goals? (Save town from X)

How are they going to immediately mesh with the rest of the party? (So that time isn't wasted RP-ing all that)
* Here is where "friend to Player1" might work.
Player1 and Player3 work with the DM to figure out something like "Gnome met Half-Orc in Getbent while on a trip with parents. Shinagines happened."

Notice that no mention of Backgrounds were present. Each Player is free to choose what they feel applies to their Character.


****
Without a lot of work from the DM, bringing in a "True Outsider" (even from another part of the same world) can be disruptive to the group.
Mostly because it's now required to do RP introductions with this Character.

You know, I think that this is the first time I've ever heard anyone accuse the Dragonlance writers of wanting people to tell their own stories. :smallamused:

Quertus is a cowardly academic with a large vocabulary who has little interest beyond "magic" although he will entertain children, when no one is looking. He wears bright red robes, and maintains a somewhat illusory pristine appearance, as he believes is befitting his station.

Quertus is a 5'6" human with a long ageless face, short black hair (no facial hair), and pale skin. He wears bright red, gold trimmed robes and a bit of jewelry, especially gold-rimmed ruby-tinted glasses, but also notably including a prism - somehow containing 4 bouncing red spheres - suspended by a leather cord around his neck. He carries an iron staff which looks nothing so much as a miniature copy of Sauron's tower, if the eye were made of lightning instead of fire. Small wisps of almost imperceivable magical energy seem to spontaneously form around him.

He has numerous monogrammed pouches, in similar red-and-gold, and several other cloth objects suspended from his belt. On one hip rests a golden hourglass with red sand; the other sports a mahogany wand case with 4 wands.

And then there's less obvious / hidden / illusory details, as well.

Amalak is a Warrior-Priest of Death, trained since birth (not really, it just sounds good) to accept pain, not fear Death, and to hunt down undead abominations that mock Death whatever they may be found. As I retired him nearly a quarter of a century ago, I'm a bit rusty on the… finer points

As both are D&D characters, both would be *really* out of place in New York city. Quertus, having been to New York before, would be doing his Flying Invisible Incorporeal Teleporting best not to interact with any of us "savages", whereas Amalak would initially be a gaping tourist.

But, even if they were put in a scenario where their unfamiliarity / stylistic nonconformity wouldn't take center stage (say, trying to "blend in" at a park), I would be quite remiss in my role-playing if they did not come off as distinct individuals.

So, I continue to believe that both differences in personality, and differences in the underlying playing piece, should be more than adequate to set apart two characters who happen to both be "not from around here".

As to "not putting much focus on where they are from", well, that's because I generally want the focus to be where they are? Just like how backstory is important IMO, but it's important not because of who they *were*, but because of how it informs who they *are*.

I don't know which part of your closing concerns I find more curious. On the one hand, you consider role-playing "disruptive" and "wasting time", which I find odd, given that, to me, it's what makes RPGs better than war games. On the other hand, you specifically call out as disruptive the tool that, in the context of this thread, has served best IME to prevent catastrophic disruptions of the game.


If you only can have fun when you have complete control over all the npcs in your character background, then I don't think it is going to work to allow others to portray them. If only perfect roleplay of them is acceptable to you, you are bound to be disappointed so don't bother. To make it work you would have to change your attitude or expectations for the game. When letting another player affect your character through their relationship, you need to be open to their creative contribution in the first place.

It can be easier to make that work if you don't have a predetermined detailed view of the npc. Leave room for how that sibling or relation could be, and entrust another player/GM to portray that character, and use their creative efforts to build off yourself. Celebrate what the other person at the table bring to the game, and let it inspire you on how you play your character.

Well, maybe not *perfect*, as I didn't even roleplay myself *perfectly*, but… I've yet to have a GM come anywhere close to meeting my standards.

"Leaving wiggle room" in the NPCs personalities kinda defeats the point - I don't see myself being who I am today had my patents / siblings / friends had that level of "wiggle room" in their personalities.

To me, it would make more sense to leave some wiggle room in what class I'm playing, so that if I decide to bind vestiges or invoke utterances, I can let it inspire me to retcon those classes in.

Great Dragon
2019-06-13, 01:43 AM
TL;DR
Maybe there was too much "noise to signal" in what I was saying - Like the fact that 5 people being able to sit down and crank out the entire party in, say, a half an hour IRL, while possible - might not be believable.

* Sometimes, Instead of bringing your premade Outsider to "explore the DM's world", try working with the DM in creating a PC that is already "a part of that world" and if the other Players are friendly, work with them to create (pre-existing) a party connections. *

I do agree that Backstory should only explain who the are *now*, and maybe why.

@Quertus:
Well, thanks for at least an Idea on your Character.


*****
To me: Dragonlance was an interesting "world" to read about up until they got into the "Preludes 2" series, which was "information overload" to me.

DL-RPG (AD&D 2e and 3e) was very much a disappointment to me. While it did "keep the Lore", there are some things that I was not really fond of (I really prefer Halflings over Kender - don't think Gully Dwarves are funny or should be PCs - and I didn't like how Mages Worked) but that's a personal preference thing.

The modules were meant to be a "quick way to share the Story, only with new PCs" but ended up being nothing more than "reliving the novels".
*******
Like a lot of the other "Popular Worlds", the intentions of their creator/s got lost in the translation. This happens quite a bit when going from doing a Hobby, to being part of a business.


*****
I guess that I got too carried away in my Ramblings, there.

Point 1: Abilities and Levels shouldn't have much impact on Roleplaying. Sure, keep track of things that make a difference, like maybe how much "the puny mage" can pick up and easily carry, based on their Strength. But, if the mage doesn't try to do that IC during the RP, don't bring it up.

Point 2: Everyone "adapting" to the Group.

In my Example, the main Point was that the Players were making "interconnections" between all the PCs. So that anything that might not have specifically been mentioned during Character Creation (Session Zero) by any of the Players, could quickly described to one player while everyone else listened (and then "knew that info" IC) and then the Group moves on.

Now, say that we replaced Player3 and brought in an "Outsider" PC that is completely unknown, and has no connection to any of the other PCs.

I wasn't saying that RP wasn't desired, but that instead of simply the Example Group crying the D&D equivalent of "Avengers Assemble!" and jumping directly to the Action, everyone had to stop and take the time (possibly hours IRL) to "get to know" this new PC, before the "actual game" started. (Something they were trying to avoid)

Now, that Example was meant only for that group.
Maybe with the next Group, all the Players agree that they don't know anything about any of the other Characters, and the DM only has the "basic info" on them.

Glorthindel
2019-06-13, 03:32 AM
I can see quite a few posters are going to have issues with my views, but its good to have a contrary opinion once in a while.

I have a firm rule that player character backgrounds are only (and can only be) written from the viewpoint of the character themselves. That means that while they can write definitively the events that occurred in their life up to that point, with regards to the motives and explanations behind those events, the characters opinions are exactly that, only opinions, and not definitive facts. These opinions might very well be correct, but at the same time, they might be mistakes, misunderstandings, or straight out lies.

In my opinion, the players ownership ends at their character. While they can certainly give me their characters opinions of the NPCs in their past, and describe the actions they have taken in the characters presence, those NPCs are entirely mine to do with as i wish, and their inner thoughts and motives are my domain, not the players. Yes, even down to the level of family members. And yes, I make sure my players are aware of this.

Now, having said that, that doesn't mean every player characters history is going to be torn apart and made my plaything. In all honesty I have very rarely done so, and have yet to have a player protest about the treatment of a backstory NPC. But I wholeheartedly reserve the right to use and utilise them as I see fit to best serve the story we are telling.

jintoya
2019-06-13, 10:21 AM
Usually I'm on the "leave it to the player unless they ask for help" team

Right now I'm starting an Adventure in Wonderland for the first time and I'm finding that is nearly impossible if I'm going to make a fun experience that isn't just "lol so random"
The result is me working to help with backstory and asking questions about characters, it's been interesting so far. Kinda fun

Max_Killjoy
2019-06-13, 11:59 AM
I can see quite a few posters are going to have issues with my views, but its good to have a contrary opinion once in a while.

I have a firm rule that player character backgrounds are only (and can only be) written from the viewpoint of the character themselves. That means that while they can write definitively the events that occurred in their life up to that point, with regards to the motives and explanations behind those events, the characters opinions are exactly that, only opinions, and not definitive facts. These opinions might very well be correct, but at the same time, they might be mistakes, misunderstandings, or straight out lies.

In my opinion, the players ownership ends at their character. While they can certainly give me their characters opinions of the NPCs in their past, and describe the actions they have taken in the characters presence, those NPCs are entirely mine to do with as i wish, and their inner thoughts and motives are my domain, not the players. Yes, even down to the level of family members. And yes, I make sure my players are aware of this.

Now, having said that, that doesn't mean every player characters history is going to be torn apart and made my plaything. In all honesty I have very rarely done so, and have yet to have a player protest about the treatment of a backstory NPC. But I wholeheartedly reserve the right to use and utilise them as I see fit to best serve the story we are telling.


Under that division, do you consider the existence of NPCs from the PC's background part of the character, or part of the world?

That is, if a player said they had no siblings... or their parents were dead... or that their village was destroyed and that's why they're out adventuring... or in some way signaled or openly stated that they weren't interested in their PC's past becoming part of "the story"... would you accept that?

If a player said their PC had a big family, and that they were a constant source of both lighthearted and heavy drama as the PC grew up, would you accept that?


There's a danger of "forcing it" when it comes to NPCs -- family, old friends, retired mentors, etc -- as a source of drama and vulnerability for the PC, and often bad experiences with that sort of thing are the root cause of "I'm an orphan, from a village that burned down years ago killing everyone while I was away, and I've only ever had one-night-stands" syndrome.

Quertus
2019-06-13, 12:57 PM
I can see quite a few posters are going to have issues with my views, but its good to have a contrary opinion once in a while.

I have a firm rule that player character backgrounds are only (and can only be) written from the viewpoint of the character themselves. That means that while they can write definitively the events that occurred in their life up to that point, with regards to the motives and explanations behind those events, the characters opinions are exactly that, only opinions, and not definitive facts. These opinions might very well be correct, but at the same time, they might be mistakes, misunderstandings, or straight out lies.

In my opinion, the players ownership ends at their character. While they can certainly give me their characters opinions of the NPCs in their past, and describe the actions they have taken in the characters presence, those NPCs are entirely mine to do with as i wish, and their inner thoughts and motives are my domain, not the players. Yes, even down to the level of family members. And yes, I make sure my players are aware of this.

Now, having said that, that doesn't mean every player characters history is going to be torn apart and made my plaything. In all honesty I have very rarely done so, and have yet to have a player protest about the treatment of a backstory NPC. But I wholeheartedly reserve the right to use and utilise them as I see fit to best serve the story we are telling.

I mean, I could be a brain in a jar, or a programmatic simulation of someone long dead. Shrug. But if you make my mom 8 feet tall, or make her personality incompatible with my "backstory", I'm no longer me.

So, I am opposed to the GM running my NPCs not just on account of ownership, but also because, if they mess up the NPC, they mess up my character. Corollary: I've never had a GM not mess up my NPCs.



TL;DR
Maybe there was too much "noise to signal" in what I was saying - Like the fact that 5 people being able to sit down and crank out the entire party in, say, a half an hour IRL, while possible - might not be believable.

I mean, I probably could singlehandedly crank out 5 playing pieces in half an hour in many systems, but I couldn't make even a single character without significantly more time.


* Sometimes, Instead of bringing your premade Outsider to "explore the DM's world", try working with the DM in creating a PC that is already "a part of that world" and if the other Players are friendly, work with them to create (pre-existing) a party connections. *

Been there, done that, no fun for anyone involved any time I've tried. My character didn't feel anywhere near as connected to the world, I didn't get to enjoy exploring the world, and the GM constantly felt like my character didn't feel like they came from the world. In the GM's eyes, I was an even worse alien, who was a mockery of the GM's world. "A person from New York wouldn't have the background to have those beliefs". :smallyuk:


I do agree that Backstory should only explain who the are *now*, and maybe why.

Oh, *definitely* why - thanks for catching that oversight in explanation!


Point 1: Abilities and Levels shouldn't have much impact on Roleplaying. Sure, keep track of things that make a difference, like maybe how much "the puny mage" can pick up and easily carry, based on their Strength. But, if the mage doesn't try to do that IC during the RP, don't bring it up.

… not direct impact, no. But they do tend to impact what their background looks like, which itself impacts personality. When you've gone punch for punch with a god (and lost, mind you), it has a definite impact on a person.

But my point had nothing to do with attributes and levels affecting personality. My point was simply that differences in the playing piece can make characters distinct. Yes, Annie says "come play with me" in her girlish tones, but she is also different from other LoL characters by virtue of both her physical appearance, and her statistical characteristics.

So, if we were playing "Wreck it Ralph, the RPG", I would expect Annie to feel distinct from Heimerdinger (let alone from Gauntlet's Blue Wizard, or Unreal Tournament's Howard (an AI we made up)) both in terms of their statistics and their personality, even though both are "not from around here".


Point 2: Everyone "adapting" to the Group.

In my Example, the main Point was that the Players were making "interconnections" between all the PCs. So that anything that might not have specifically been mentioned during Character Creation (Session Zero) by any of the Players, could quickly described to one player while everyone else listened (and then "knew that info" IC) and then the Group moves on.

Now, say that we replaced Player3 and brought in an "Outsider" PC that is completely unknown, and has no connection to any of the other PCs.

I wasn't saying that RP wasn't desired, but that instead of simply the Example Group crying the D&D equivalent of "Avengers Assemble!" and jumping directly to the Action, everyone had to stop and take the time (possibly hours IRL) to "get to know" this new PC, before the "actual game" started. (Something they were trying to avoid)

Now, that Example was meant only for that group.
Maybe with the next Group, all the Players agree that they don't know anything about any of the other Characters, and the DM only has the "basic info" on them.

I mean, your example feeds well into my PoV, in that Avengers worked so well because they roleplayed out the characters individually meeting each other

Granted, Stark had heard of Cap, who was the indirect cause of Hulk, and Barton saved Natasha, who had "worked for" Stark, so there actually were some connections… but those were irrelevant to how the party got together (that was all Fury), and were more used as world-building, and to highlight the dysfunctional nature of the group ("This is who my father wouldn't _____ up about?", Stark's mistrust of Natasha).

The "Fury picked all of you, who may as well have no other connections" was all it took to have the party, and have them form connections. Heck, Thor, the epitome of "not from around here", had no connection to the party, only to the NPC quest giver's followers, and to the quest itself.


Under that division, do you consider the existence of NPCs from the PC's background part of the character, or part of the world?

That is, if a player said they had no siblings... or their parents were dead... or that their village was destroyed and that's why they're out adventuring... or in some way signaled or openly stated that they weren't interested in their PC's past becoming part of "the story"... would you accept that?

If a player said their PC had a big family, and that they were a constant source of both lighthearted and heavy drama as the PC grew up, would you accept that?


There's a danger of "forcing it" when it comes to NPCs -- family, old friends, retired mentors, etc -- as a source of drama and vulnerability for the PC, and often bad experiences with that sort of thing are the root cause of "I'm an orphan, from a village that burned down years ago killing everyone while I was away, and I've only ever had one-night-stands" syndrome.

Myself, I find that doing things "for the story" tends to make for a worse story.

Max_Killjoy
2019-06-13, 01:07 PM
Myself, I find that doing things "for the story" tends to make for a worse story.


You and me both, but I was setting that aside to ask a different question -- about how much GMs feel they need to or are free to impose connections and resulting complications on a PC, even if the player isn't interested.

Satinavian
2019-06-14, 01:57 AM
Been there, done that, no fun for anyone involved any time I've tried. My character didn't feel anywhere near as connected to the world, I didn't get to enjoy exploring the world, and the GM constantly felt like my character didn't feel like they came from the world. In the GM's eyes, I was an even worse alien, who was a mockery of the GM's world. "A person from New York wouldn't have the background to have those beliefs". :smallyuk:Sure, if you have a character who is from the world but play him as if he was not, it won't ever work.

But that is your fault alone.

Glorthindel
2019-06-14, 03:54 AM
Under that division, do you consider the existence of NPCs from the PC's background part of the character, or part of the world?

That is, if a player said they had no siblings... or their parents were dead... or that their village was destroyed and that's why they're out adventuring... or in some way signaled or openly stated that they weren't interested in their PC's past becoming part of "the story"... would you accept that?

If a player said their PC had a big family, and that they were a constant source of both lighthearted and heavy drama as the PC grew up, would you accept that?


There's a danger of "forcing it" when it comes to NPCs -- family, old friends, retired mentors, etc -- as a source of drama and vulnerability for the PC, and often bad experiences with that sort of thing are the root cause of "I'm an orphan, from a village that burned down years ago killing everyone while I was away, and I've only ever had one-night-stands" syndrome.

The existence (or not) is definitely the players right to establish (assuming the character them self knows for sure), and as I say, I don't exercise this particular right frivolously and just for kicks, but if a situation develops where a hole in the characters knowledge could serve an interesting hook, then I will consider doing so, and wont ask permission first.

To take your example: "or their parents were dead... or that their village was destroyed and that's why they're out adventuring", if their parents are dead, and they've seen (and buried) the body, then that is unobjective fact, and I'm not going to spring "you actually saw a dead doppleganger" or "but they weren't actually your real parents", but if the player had said his parents are dead, but he actually never seen a body, then there is an opening there for me to potentially use (though I wouldn't definitely do so, its just an option). Likewise, if their village is destroyed, and they've seen the rubble, then its absolutely, definitely destroyed. But why it was destroyed, unless it was a direct result of the characters actions themself, would be my domain to decide (did the character see it happen, or is he relying on potentially unreliable accounts?), and how comprehensive would again depend on what he has definitively seen (was he the only one to get away, or are there other survivors, be them running free or prisoners).

As for what I would do if my player categorically said he wasn't interested in his backstory being used in the plot, that would be entirely fine with me. I always have more than enough material available in any given campaign, if a player would prefer to just play through the events, without any tie back to his character and past, he is most welcome.

Morgaln
2019-06-14, 04:35 AM
Under that division, do you consider the existence of NPCs from the PC's background part of the character, or part of the world?

That is, if a player said they had no siblings... or their parents were dead... or that their village was destroyed and that's why they're out adventuring... or in some way signaled or openly stated that they weren't interested in their PC's past becoming part of "the story"... would you accept that?

If a player said their PC had a big family, and that they were a constant source of both lighthearted and heavy drama as the PC grew up, would you accept that?


There's a danger of "forcing it" when it comes to NPCs -- family, old friends, retired mentors, etc -- as a source of drama and vulnerability for the PC, and often bad experiences with that sort of thing are the root cause of "I'm an orphan, from a village that burned down years ago killing everyone while I was away, and I've only ever had one-night-stands" syndrome.

I do consider the existence of NPC's in a PC's background part of the world. I mean, the PC is part of the world, so everything in their background is canon by definition. However, that doesn't automatically give me the right to use anything from that background. For someone I haven't played with before, I will usually refrain from having their background come up in a game, or ask if I may use it beforehand. Even then, killing off or otherwise harming background NPC's permanently is not something I do lightly (I can't remember a single instance where I did at all, to be honest).

That said, I prefer if players give me a background to their PC that I can incorporate into the game. It helps to tie the characters into the world and it makes it easier to create additional content meant specifically for that character. I consider my games similar to a good TV show; there is an overarching plot that ties everything together, but each character also has their own things going on that concerns them specifically and that may or may not include any of the other PCs (at their discretion, not mine). Backstories help a lot with that. Luckily, I'm blessed with players who want and enjoy exactly that; all of them deliberately create plot hooks in their backstories that I can use for this particular purpose, and they are delighted when I use them. In fact, for some of their characters, the backstory is so much part of them that I couldn't do the character justice if I didn't include it.

Pelle
2019-06-14, 05:50 AM
"Leaving wiggle room" in the NPCs personalities kinda defeats the point - I don't see myself being who I am today had my patents / siblings / friends had that level of "wiggle room" in their personalities.


See, you don't accept the premise. No wonder it hasn't worked in practise for you. It might not be a playstyle you prefer or enjoy, and that's fine, no one can take away your preferences from you. But there are different types of games, and when choosing to play a specific game, to make it work you need to accept what it's about. Not saying yes to play it while trying to play a different game.

Leaving wiggle room in the npc personality just means that you as a player don't know what it is yet. You still assume that there is complete personality there and that your character is affected by it somehow, but you are waiting for the other player to show it to you. Kind of like when rolling for random encounters; it doesn't mean that a band of orcs suddenly spawn out of nowhere, you assume they had a purpose and reason for being there all along. You just didn't know about it before the dice informed you.

Glorthindel
2019-06-14, 06:51 AM
Leaving wiggle room in the npc personality just means that you as a player don't know what it is yet. You still assume that there is complete personality there and that your character is affected by it somehow, but you are waiting for the other player to show it to you. Kind of like when rolling for random encounters; it doesn't mean that a band of orcs suddenly spawn out of nowhere, you assume they had a purpose and reason for being there all along. You just didn't know about it before the dice informed you.

Also, my take on it is that my right as DM to change a background NPC, is not that I am changing the NPC in any way that it would change how the NPC informed the characters genesis. Just that the player can not ascribe the motive for the NPC's actions.

Lets take an example:

Say a player writes in his backstory that his character has an older brother, and that this older brother was highly successful (more so than the player character, so he always looked up to him), discovered an aptitude for magic, went away to study, and although he has seen him since, it has been sporadic and he has always been cold, aloof, and distant. These to me are facts, and I would not in any way consider changing them.

However, why was the brother cold and distant? Sure, the player is free to describe what his character believes is the reason, but as that NPC's brain is mine, he may very well be wrong. Maybe he just didn't like his younger sibling. Maybe he was wracked with insecurities, and feared that if he let his younger brother get to know him, it would burst the bubble of admiration. Maybe his success was actually a fraud (perhaps his aptitude for magic came more from a Warlock than Wizard direction), and his distance was fear of being discovered, and being a shame (or a danger) to the family he dearly loves.

The player deciding that his character believes one of these versions, and me deciding that actually another version is the truth, does not in any way diminish or alter who the player character is, because the character is a result of his own experiences and beliefs, and a potential discovery that one of those beliefs was a mistake, does not change who the character was (just what he does once he has this new knowledge).

Great Dragon
2019-06-14, 09:42 AM
Now, like I mentioned, I don't require a Player to make a Backstory.
But, if they want, I'll do my best to help.



Oh, *definitely* why - thanks for catching that oversight in explanation!
The difference was whether or not the other PCs knew anything about that why, before the start of the game.


I mean, your example feeds well into my PoV, in that Avengers worked so well because they roleplayed out the characters individually meeting each other.

Well, I suppose that if you want every game to be a TV Drama/Action gig with up to 4 "main Characters", where even figuring out when the actual game started is a challenge.
No wonder you can't find a group to really play with.

I mean, I can't really recall anything that did that.

Even the X-Men (where no one really cared about your background/history when they met you) had a core group of people with "connections" between them (including the main Villain), that all of the new mutants dealt with.

All the others were "Solo Heroes", but even here, they usually (but not always*) knew something about the other people (Hero and Villain) they met.

* You're wanting your PC to always be this.


The "Fury picked all of you, who may as well have no other connections" was all it took to have the party, and have them form connections. Heck, Thor, the epitome of "not from around here", had no connection to the party, only to the NPC quest giver's followers, and to the quest itself.

So, I suppose that if I had used the (original) Fantastic Four instead, you'd just say that Reed was the excuse for them being together on the rocket, in order to become that team?

While I would be talking about how it was really only their prior background "connections" that was the main reason they stayed together to form the F4, at all.


Myself, I find that doing things "for the story" tends to make for a worse story.

That's because you seem to be getting (or maybe just seeing) a DM (or Group) that is trying to "have the Players act out the story in their head" instead of actually doing an RPG.

Quertus
2019-06-14, 10:09 AM
See, you don't accept the premise. No wonder it hasn't worked in practise for you. It might not be a playstyle you prefer or enjoy, and that's fine, no one can take away your preferences from you. But there are different types of games, and when choosing to play a specific game, to make it work you need to accept what it's about. Not saying yes to play it while trying to play a different game.

Leaving wiggle room in the npc personality just means that you as a player don't know what it is yet. You still assume that there is complete personality there and that your character is affected by it somehow, but you are waiting for the other player to show it to you. Kind of like when rolling for random encounters; it doesn't mean that a band of orcs suddenly spawn out of nowhere, you assume they had a purpose and reason for being there all along. You just didn't know about it before the dice informed you.

Two problems with this premise.

One, the group is unlikely to be willing to call it a day, then wait several weeks while I explore how the existence of this NPC would have impacted my character's development.

Two, 50 sessions in, when the characters personality has been pretty well established, and the GM runs an NPC whose presence in the PCs life poses contradictions to the established personality?

It still feels to me like kindergartens scribbling in the art museum.

So, care to explain the PoV from which this makes sense, and is playable?

PhoenixPhyre
2019-06-14, 11:19 AM
Two problems with this premise.

One, the group is unlikely to be willing to call it a day, then wait several weeks while I explore how the existence of this NPC would have impacted my character's development.

Two, 50 sessions in, when the characters personality has been pretty well established, and the GM runs an NPC whose presence in the PCs life poses contradictions to the established personality?

It still feels to me like kindergartens scribbling in the art museum.

So, care to explain the PoV from which this makes sense, and is playable?

That's why you collaborate with the DM before the game starts on your background, so you're on the same page. Which is the whole point of the thread. Everyone making characters in isolation without talking to the DM leads to
* games where no one has any reason to be together other than fiat
* disjointed games with parties that don't work together
* trampling on backstories
* backstories that don't fit the setting at all
* etc.

And it's why you don't get so up tight about your background. Honestly, 99% of people have limited to no effect on the individual. And there's lots of flex there--not everything is tightly woven, and your character can perceive them to be one way while they really are another. And it's your character's perceptions that matter for their character, not the reality.

Morgaln
2019-06-14, 11:35 AM
That's why you collaborate with the DM before the game starts on your background, so you're on the same page. Which is the whole point of the thread. Everyone making characters in isolation without talking to the DM leads to
* games where no one has any reason to be together other than fiat
* disjointed games with parties that don't work together
* trampling on backstories
* backstories that don't fit the setting at all
* etc.

And it's why you don't get so up tight about your background. Honestly, 99% of people have limited to no effect on the individual. And there's lots of flex there--not everything is tightly woven, and your character can perceive them to be one way while they really are another. And it's your character's perceptions that matter for their character, not the reality.

From what I understand, Quertus doesn't build new characters for specific games. He pulls one out of a folder of ready-made and previously-used characters and plays that one. Therefore, it would be more difficult for him to just adapt the background for that particular game, as the character already has a history.

What I am curious about, and this is a question for Quertus: do your characters ever change? Meaning, will things that happen in a particular game change that character's behavior for this and future games? Or are they "frozen" in their personality and will never have character development? If they change, will you ask for several weeks of hold to decide what your character's changed personality will be like? Or can you adapt to that more quickly?

jjordan
2019-06-14, 12:52 PM
One, the group is unlikely to be willing to call it a day, then wait several weeks while I explore how the existence of this NPC would have impacted my character's development. Legitimate issue that ought to be dealt with in session zero. There are a lot of ways this could go (party investigates this new opportunity as a group, individual character does a quick one off with the DM and brings new stuff to the larger game, everyone ignores the NPC/story hook and gets on with the main arc, etc...)


Two, 50 sessions in, when the characters personality has been pretty well established, and the GM runs an NPC whose presence in the PCs life poses contradictions to the established personality?In the spirit in which you are presenting this that's a huge mistake by the GM. S/he's violating a 'rule' of cooperative game play: once something is established you can't change it. That's not a problem with the concept, it's a problem with the way the GM is playing.

And, to be clear, weaving character backstory into the game is something of an advanced, optional rule which isn't appropriate for all times and places. When it is appropriate and the group is willing to support it then it's a really awesome tool to aid in immersion and player investment in the game. As a DM I like it because the sense the players have of building/creating in the world can counter-act a lot of murder-hobo tendencies and because I like to see people helping to create the game.

Great Dragon
2019-06-14, 01:34 PM
Adding to what both PhoenixPhyre and Morgaln said:

Very few DMs will allow a premade PC.

For New DMs, they don't really know how to handle premade PCs.

For Old DMs, too many cases of
"Yeah, I totally got ____ ! …"
(+X Energy Weapon, +Y Super Armor, and/or "Awesome" Item - With no way to confirm that.)
"....From (DM's Homebrew) campaign, a few months/years ago!"

As a DM - I've also seen Character Sheets where Skills (and sometimes magic items) were left blank, and then filled in for whatever was needed. (Not yet for 5e)


****
Better to just 'retire' that PC, and make a new one.

There's a reason why I don't bring my AD&D 1e Human Mage into another DM's game.
Even though I am very fond of playing him, as well as being greatly familiar with him.

(1) He was about 12th level when I stopped playing 1e, played him again in 2e until around the 18th level.

(2) He was made into a NPC for my 3x games.
Where I very deliberately made what Level of Wizard he was a mystery.

(3) Converting him to 5e would actually cause him to lose a lot of what he could do.

(4) Plus, I'm Experienced enough to get at least decent, if not maximum, effect from Spells; which a new DM might not be able to deal with.

Now, if an Old DM asked me to bring him, ok.


****
@Quertus: am I suggesting that you're "cheating"?
No.

I am saying that you might need to build a totally new PC and decide whether or not to have the same "persona".

Even for a "totally new PC": Don't want the Players being too closely "related", or the DM messing around with your Background/Backstory?

Tell the Group this before even starting to make the PC.

MrSandman
2019-06-14, 01:36 PM
One, the group is unlikely to be willing to call it a day, then wait several weeks while I explore how the existence of this NPC would have impacted my character's development.


Well, I wouldn't be happy about waiting several weeks (months? years? depending on how many NPCs are in your background) for you to explore how the existence of all your background NPCs would have impacted your character's development while you create your character so that we can start a game. So the problem here isn't in the system but in your approach to the system.

I wouldn't be happy about you pulling an already made character out of a file that may or may not befit the game we are going to play either, by the way.

PhoenixPhyre
2019-06-14, 01:46 PM
I wouldn't be happy about you pulling an already made character out of a file that may or may not befit the game we are going to play either, by the way.

Especially when that pre-made character had decades of adventuring experience.

Lord Raziere
2019-06-14, 02:17 PM
Honestly?

I coordinate with GMs to make sure my backstory is good, but I don't recall any time where I successfully collaborated with a player on one. my characters often are meeting the others for the first time and have backstories that are separate from the others, yet I get along with them well anyways.

this is probably because I make an effort to introduce my character well and make them distinctive enough that interaction with other characters isn't boring or jerkish. making your character a little odd but not a jerk is often enough to establish a good relationship right out of the gate. often I create a character specifically for the campaign whole cloth, though I do have characters from games that ended early floating around in my head and computer that I wish I could figure out how to use, perhaps for making books somehow. I mean I'll sometimes try to use them in other games but only if I think they will really fit them.

I guess my tendency to make special snowflakes doesn't really make me good at backstory collaboration. so *shrug* somehow I make it work.

Quertus
2019-06-14, 05:50 PM
Sure, if you have a character who is from the world but play him as if he was not, it won't ever work.

But that is your fault alone.

If everyone were immortal, infinitely patient, and the GM cared to explain his world / his view of New York city adequately for me to seem "from around here", I might be inclined to agree.

As that is not the case, I feel no shame laying the blame, at least in part, upon those in too much of a hurry to be willing to wait for me to get a degree in "GM's world".


The difference was whether or not the other PCs knew anything about that why, before the start of the game.

Oh, well, that's less interesting than what I thought you were saying.

I much prefer settings and characters where there's actually substance beneath the surface, where there exists the opportunity for the joy of someone digging truly blind for the "why".

Players / PCs already knowing the why? May as well read the module first, IMO.

That said, I absolutely love scenarios where part of the party has adventured together before, and understands the *why*, and gets to watch new players puzzle through it.


Well, I suppose that if you want every game to be a TV Drama/Action gig with up to 4 "main Characters", where even figuring out when the actual game started is a challenge.

I think that both the Avengers, and my preference, involves more than 4 "main characters".

Generally, the game starts when the characters meet / when the job/scenario starts or is detailed. Although there is value in role-playing some stuff before the party gets together,



No wonder you can't find a group to really play with.

Now, that seems a very odd thing to say. I set it as my goal to learn as much about RPGs as possible, playing every system with every group I could.

Eventually, role-playing grew popular enough that I realized 6 games a week was just too much, and I've cut back.

I have difficulty finding a *perfect* group, as, given standard human failings, it would probably have to be played with completely inhuman participants. But that doesn't mean that, amongst all the horrible GMs, I haven't found some good groups, too.


I mean, I can't really recall anything that did that.

Even the X-Men (where no one really cared about your background/history when they met you) had a core group of people with "connections" between them (including the main Villain), that all of the new mutants dealt with.

All the others were "Solo Heroes", but even here, they usually (but not always*) knew something about the other people (Hero and Villain) they met.

* You're wanting your PC to always be this.



So, I suppose that if I had used the (original) Fantastic Four instead, you'd just say that Reed was the excuse for them being together on the rocket, in order to become that team?

While I would be talking about how it was really only their prior background "connections" that was the main reason they stayed together to form the F4, at all.

The FF is a great example, for several reasons - not the least of which is that it exemplifies exactly the types of connections I've found disastrous in the past.

Yes, those connections (plus some combination of nepotism and jarring coincidences) explains why they *started* together; however, I don't know the comics well enough to even hazard a guess if it explains why they *stayed* together.

In an RPG, I would much rather Reed have found a great pilot who didn't happen to be his wife's brother - at least, based on the people I've seen attempt such connections.

The X-Men… is trickier. On the one hand, it's a great setup for "you could be anyone at the start, with as much or as little connection to anyone as you desire, so long as you're willing to live with a bald telepath creeper at his home / 'school', filled with 'special' kids". In that regard, most of the X-Men start the game with no connections to one another. However, if you're a guy, all your children are mutants; and, unless you were a spontaneous mutation, or born in a lab, all your siblings, and your dad, are mutants, too. So the background itself involves a lot of potential to be connected to some of the "movers and shakers" of the world (beyond just the Professor). As such, it might make for a decent rotating GM game, where each GM plays out the actions of their "clan".

-----

There's a difference between "knowing something about" someone and "knowing" someone. I'm rather surprised you've confused the two. For clarification, I don't want my character and the other PCs knowing each other before session 0, unless they do. That is, I want them meeting each other to be something roleplayed out; I want the connections to her genuinely formed. If two+ of these PCs have adventured together before in a previous game, great!

But knowing *about* each other? That's… a matter for "game physics" - knowledge checks, reputation checks, Sherlock Holmes deductions, whatever. Or for the players to just Fiat decide together. I don't care much here either way beyond "not ridiculously unreasonable". If the political junkie doesn't recognize the president his own country, or anyone recognizes Avalon (the epitome of "not from around here", and the campaign ended in the destruction the world, so… also the epitome of "absolutely *everyone* who knew me is dead"), I'll call shenanigans.


That's because you seem to be getting (or maybe just seeing) a DM (or Group) that is trying to "have the Players act out the story in their head" instead of actually doing an RPG.

I mean, there is that. I'd say that's certainly at least part of it.

antiochcow
2019-06-14, 07:18 PM
Do other DM's enjoy this??

Not really. The less and more broad strokes it is, the better.

I don't want to deal with trying to plan and integrate multiple lengthy backstories into the game (I don't even like planning lengthy campaigns: I prefer to plan as needed). Takes longer to get the game going (especially if things need to be revised), much of the time a lot of it doesn't matter anyway, and if the game ends up folding, a character dies, or a player wants to switch then so much effort can be wasted.

As a player I just want to play and see what the GM has in store. We can work out backstory stuff later if they want.

Tanarii
2019-06-14, 09:29 PM
Leaving wiggle room in the npc personality just means that you as a player don't know what it is yet. You still assume that there is complete personality there and that your character is affected by it somehow, but you are waiting for the other player to show it to you.
That sounds the same as a well designed PC. It's best to leave wiggle room in the personality of a new PC, preferably a fair amount, so it can be developed further at the table.

If you use them, that should extend to PC Backstories too. Lots of wiggle room everywhere. Including in NPC personalities.

Quertus
2019-06-14, 10:32 PM
That's why you collaborate with the DM before the game starts on your background, so you're on the same page. Which is the whole point of the thread. Everyone making characters in isolation without talking to the DM leads to
* games where no one has any reason to be together other than fiat
* disjointed games with parties that don't work together
* trampling on backstories
* backstories that don't fit the setting at all
* etc.

And it's why you don't get so up tight about your background. Honestly, 99% of people have limited to no effect on the individual. And there's lots of flex there--not everything is tightly woven, and your character can perceive them to be one way while they really are another. And it's your character's perceptions that matter for their character, not the reality.

So, maybe I haven't been clear: games where the players interlocked their backstories alla the Fantastic Four have, IME, invariably led to "disjointed games with parties that don't work together". GMs running backstory NPCs has, IME, invariably led to "trampling on backstories".

Games are always "games where no one has any reason to be together other than fiat", in that we are choosing to play the 3-14 PCs who responded to a particular ad / were onboard when the Titanic started sinking / whatever, rather than 3-14 individuals chosen completely at random out of the ~8 billion on Earth currently, or the unknown number from Earth's past & future, or even the NI from all gaming realities. However, IMO, a good group will engineer the characters to be able to work together to the extent that the group cares about that. So, if we've played one-shots together, gotten to know one another's characters, we can make informed decisions regarding *which* 3-14 characters will be boarding the Titanic.

So, IME, "Everyone making characters in isolation without talking to the DM leads to"… none of your points - if you play the game right.

Sure, you could do it wrong, but… don't do that?

Just like any group I'd ever seen did background connections "wrong". But we couldn't "not do that", because we didn't know how. Thus my persistent asking people, "I believe you, but… how?"


From what I understand, Quertus doesn't build new characters for specific games. He pulls one out of a folder of ready-made and previously-used characters and plays that one. Therefore, it would be more difficult for him to just adapt the background for that particular game, as the character already has a history.

Mostly true.

I mean, at some point, any given character is "new". That's not a point at which I'm going to really enjoy playing the character, though - or know them well enough to determine if they'll fit a given game.

Their "maiden voyage" - and, perhaps, several voyages after that - is just rehearsal.

And, yes, if I can play a character quickly (ie, within a short time after hearing the pitch), it is because I've already made character, background, personality, etc, long before I'd heard of the game - regardless of whether I've played them before. Thus, yes, I cannot simply retool their background, any more than one could "retool" a Ferrari into a Porsche.

I built Quertus (my signature academia mage, for whom this account is named) for a very specific purpose. See, I was playing (RPGs, war games, board games, etc) with lots of people, several of whom seemed constitutionally incapable of gaining skill. No matter how many years (or decades!) they played, they never "saw the elephant", never got better than "mediocre" at best, "horrible" at worst. I really couldn't understand how that was possible. So, contrary to my own "Kai Zen" nature, I built a character as resistant to learning tactics as possible.


What I am curious about, and this is a question for Quertus: do your characters ever change? Meaning, will things that happen in a particular game change that character's behavior for this and future games? Or are they "frozen" in their personality and will never have character development? If they change, will you ask for several weeks of hold to decide what your character's changed personality will be like? Or can you adapt to that more quickly?

I'm so glad you asked!

Absolutely, my characters change. Admittedly, they are more prone to change early on, which is one of several reasons why new characters are inappropriate for use when answering, "would this character be appropriate for (insert lengthy quest here)?". But, yes, they can and do change. And, because dealing with the present (as opposed to the GM "introducing" an NPC from the character's past) I don't have to retcon 10-200 years of the character's past, such transformations are approximately as easy as any other instance of role-playing the character in the present.

Because I explicitly don't tell the GM about their backgrounds, the GM cannot custom tailor events to encourage change, so they come by their transformative moments honest.

Quertus (my signature academia mage, for whom this account is named) eventually started keeping count of all the worlds that owed their existence to him. That was a transformative period for him.

He eventually noticed that "Bob's Forgotten Realms" looked like, but was distinct from, "Joe's Forgotten Realms"… and "Charlie's Forgotten Realms", and etc etc. This definitely changed his perspective on reality.

Long before that, he noticed that the underlying rules of Magic would change when he went from one world to another, and that set the tone for his vast array of sights, and his analysis of… well, everything. He was always intended as an "academia mage", but this observation of the mutability of the underlying rules of Magic is really the catalyst that determined exactly what those words meant, exactly how Quertus' nature would play out.

When he first encountered a 3.0 world, this was huge. He now "understood" the purpose of mass-producing copies of Toril (or, rather, this change, which spread like a plague through most of the "known worlds" was one of Quertus' predictions, and he treated the existence of 3e worlds as proof of his theories).

He also encountered especially competent muggles from said 3.0 world, and this… hmmm… has made him even "lazier" than he formally had been. Instead of actively running from a fight, he'll passively read a book, while asking, "you got this?".

Quertus was abandoned by one of his closest companions, an NPC Naga whose life he had saved. Now, all he has are Simulacra of a Naga saved by one of his Clones (long story). This has given Quertus… trust abandonment issues, I suppose (I've never put it into words before), making him believe more in and rely more on his Clones and Simulacra (and now Golems) than his pre-abandonment self, who viewed such things more as "useful tools for experimentation", rather than as "the backbone of his power base".

(EDIT: as a corollary to the above, the above is what led Quertus to investigate Golems more seriously, which in turn led him to becoming my only character to ever realize the horrible truth of the enslavement of elemental spirits in the creation of Golems. This has, in turn, given Quertus a unique perspective on slavery.)

Quertus… doesn't have a particularly strong moral compass. The reason many Playgrounders have misidentified him as "good" (he's actually neutral, dangerously close to good) is that the parties he's adventured with happen to have been fairly "good", and push(ed) him in that direction.

That's just a few of the transformations that just one of my characters has undergone during play.

But, through all that, he had thankfully remained a verbose, tactically inept academia mage.

-----

Armus? Armus fit like a glove almost from the moment that I started playing him. Even so, becoming party diplomat, party leader, lay priest high priest of his religion… and dealing with infighting & betrayal in the party, a war, and the all but destruction of the world? Oh, and meeting (one of) his parents, receiving a vision, and encountering his own dead body? These events have certainly made their mark on the young elf.


Legitimate issue that ought to be dealt with in session zero. There are a lot of ways this could go (party investigates this new opportunity as a group, individual character does a quick one off with the DM and brings new stuff to the larger game, everyone ignores the NPC/story hook and gets on with the main arc, etc...)

In the spirit in which you are presenting this that's a huge mistake by the GM. S/he's violating a 'rule' of cooperative game play: once something is established you can't change it. That's not a problem with the concept, it's a problem with the way the GM is playing.

And, to be clear, weaving character backstory into the game is something of an advanced, optional rule which isn't appropriate for all times and places. When it is appropriate and the group is willing to support it then it's a really awesome tool to aid in immersion and player investment in the game. As a DM I like it because the sense the players have of building/creating in the world can counter-act a lot of murder-hobo tendencies and because I like to see people helping to create the game.

I… really don't have a reply better than "that makes a lot of sense".

Although it is only tangentially related to your reply, I suppose I'll add that I prefer to adventure in a world worth forming connections to.

Quertus
2019-06-14, 11:47 PM
Very few DMs will allow a premade PC.

That is one of the problems of the modern gaming environment.


For New DMs, they don't really know how to handle premade PCs.

Have GMs gotten dumber? I mean, there's even an established concept of WBL and balance now, so it ought to be *easier* than it used to be.


For Old DMs, too many cases of
"Yeah, I totally got ____ ! …"
(+X Energy Weapon, +Y Super Armor, and/or "Awesome" Item - With no way to confirm that.)
"....From (DM's Homebrew) campaign, a few months/years ago!"

This is also completely independent from whether I built the character today in response to the adventure, or built them 20 years ago as "something I'd like to play some day".

So, do you not understand my points, or are you intentionally bringing in extra baggage? :smallconfused: Knowing which is the problem will help me determine how to move forward.


As a DM - I've also seen Character Sheets where Skills (and sometimes magic items) were left blank, and then filled in for whatever was needed. (Not yet for 5e)

Morons and cheaters are likewise irrelevant to my point. Sorry for your bad luck, though.





****
Better to just 'retire' that PC, and make a new one.

"Better"? No. I've never had a single-GM PC be anywhere near as… cool, as satisfying, as robust, as… useful to me, as one run under multiple GMs.

Look, everyone has their strengths and weaknesses. One of my weaknesses is terrain - I never think to include "difficult terrain" in 3e. To get the full 3e experience, you cannot do it playing the character under just me. And it's the same thing with any given GM / set of aspects.

So, it's "best", for what I want out of the game, to run a character under multiple GMs.




(4) Plus, I'm Experienced enough to get at least decent, if not maximum, effect from Spells; which a new DM might not be able to deal with.

Now, if an Old DM asked me to bring him, ok.

You keep equating GMs who are "new to me" with GMs who are "new to the game".

An existing character, I'm better able to judge how well they'll meet the table's balance range.

So, for a "new to the game" GM, that's one more reason to choose an existing character, to make things easier on them.


I am saying that you might need to build a totally new PC and decide whether or not to have the same "persona".

A new character… with the same persona… as an old character I've never played. The point being?

A new character… with the same "persona" as an old character… but (presumably) without the history that caused that persona? The point being?


Even for a "totally new PC": Don't want the Players being too closely "related", or the DM messing around with your Background/Backstory?

100% correct (assuming you meant "characters" rather than players. I'd happily game with my brother. :smallwink:)


Tell the Group this before even starting to make the PC.

Again, made the PC long ago (always true, even if I start now, it'll be a while before they're ready).


Well, I wouldn't be happy about waiting several weeks (months? years? depending on how many NPCs are in your background) for you to explore how the existence of all your background NPCs would have impacted your character's development while you create your character so that we can start a game.

Good, we're on the same page.


I wouldn't be happy about you pulling an already made character out of a file that may or may not befit the game we are going to play either, by the way.

So, you also wouldn't be happy about me (or anyone else) making a *new* character that "may not befit the game we are going to play either", right?


Especially when that pre-made character had decades of adventuring experience.

"I want you to play a 25th level character with no experience advertising" seems pretty daft.

I have numerous existing characters, with a diverse range of experience and capabilities. Matching both the playing piece and the personality to the adventure & the party is… kinda standard fare, regardless of whether it's an existing or new character.

Or do you do things differently, and bring whatever be playing piece or personality you feel like, regardless of the game / party?

Satinavian
2019-06-15, 12:16 AM
That is one of the problems of the modern gaming environment.I do allow premade PCs from other tables and use them myself.

But only if they would fit the new group/adventure and come from exactly the same (official) setting. So they are not "not from around here" any more than the other PCs.



I would probably not allow premade characters that don't come from the campaign world. Because they introduce baggage from other world i don't know about and don't want to care about into the setting of the campaign.

Quertus
2019-06-15, 01:27 AM
I do allow premade PCs from other tables and use them myself.

But only if they would fit the new group/adventure and come from exactly the same (official) setting. So they are not "not from around here" any more than the other PCs.



I would probably not allow premade characters that don't come from the campaign world. Because they introduce baggage from other world i don't know about and don't want to care about into the setting of the campaign.

What about official settings that, by canon, are connected to other worlds?

"World" is a strange place to draw the line for many settings, including D&D, Star Trek, and Rifts.

Personally, I find moving from "Bob's Forgotten Realms" to "Charlie's Forgotten Realms" much more problematic, as either a) they are the same world, and you have to import the changes, or b) they are different (very similar) worlds - and boy, does that open a can of worms that isn't likely to stay in the background when the characters notice the differences.

Great Dragon
2019-06-15, 01:38 AM
@Quertus: So, to you - there is no difference between making a PC now, and one that you made 20 years ago - but never played?

Well, ok.
*******
Actually, the point there was that I don't bring my "Old" (Experienced) PC/s to any DM's table. (Unless that's what's being asked for.)

While I might ask to use a premade PC concept; I have no problem making a new (rolling new stats, etc) PC for each game.


****
Hummm. Seems that once again, using metaphors mixed the message.

Note A: Keep in mind that what I'm doing is: trying to "see" all sides, here. I'll make comments on what I understand of a given View, based on what is posted; in the hopes of not just expanding my knowledge, but helping others come to "neutral ground". My Knowledge, Understanding, and Opinions about things can be changed.

Note B: The "complaint" was about premade PCs.
I've already listed reasons I know about for why.

Personally, when I GM - I don't mind people bringing their own premade PC/s, so long as I'm allowed to read them over; mostly to make sure that they are within the Game Rules, and are appropriate to the Tier.

Once done, I'll ask if they want me to use any Background/Backstory during the game.

If I get "No." Fine by me.
I'll allow anything from a source I know about, that gives a benefit.
This Player is fully responsible for keeping track of those benefits for their Character.

But, as this Player, don't expect to get something like 5e D&D's Inspiration very often.
(Mostly because I am not going to remember what their T/I/B/F are to know when to grant Inspiration, but I will try to recall not to ask that Player about them.)

(If you're an "Outside PC", but still want Inspiration, tell me things that your Character does that can be applied for that.)


If everyone were immortal, infinitely patient, and the GM cared to explain his world / his view of New York city adequately for me to seem "from around here", I might be inclined to agree.

Part of the reason someone says: "New York City" (1); is that this is somewhere that (almost) everyone has (at least) heard about.
And getting maps and at least public information on NYC is easy from already seeing about it on TV and from movies, as well as over the Net.

(1) This can also apply for:
Paris, France; Tokyo, Japan; Hong Kong, China; London, England; Los Angeles, Calafornia, and Sidney, Australia.


****
Ok, let's say that the Group has decided to play Superheroes in New York City.

As such, there is no problem with PCs being from
Manhattan Island, The Bronx, Queens, Long Island, Harlem, and Hell's Kitchen.
(I don't think the GM is expected to know all the "other areas" within 20 miles of NYC limits)

Say I am selected to be the GM, but IRL - I have not ever been to NYC (1), and I'm not likely to ever go there.

There are (at least) two ways to go, here.

A) The most common path is, the GM goes with the Cliche: "NYC (1) is an Everything City." Which means that the GM takes the map, and only puts in what they think is absolutely needed, and will add details as they become important.

B) The GM has the time to not only get the basic maps and information of NYC (1), but has also put in things that are either "borrowed from something else" or actually created themselves. Including the entire Historical Timeline for their version of that City. And said GM absolutely loves boring to tears anyone willing to listen, and only unavoidable RL limits interrupt their Monologue.

"B" is what you seem to be expecting.


As that is not the case, I feel no shame laying the blame, at least in part, upon those in too much of a hurry to be willing to wait for me to get a degree in "GM's world".

Yeah well, when everyone is mostly using Basic Math, they might be ok with learning Algebra, but your going for a PHD in Trig (or especially Quantum Physics) seems a bit much.


I much prefer settings and characters where there's actually substance beneath the surface, where there exists the opportunity for the joy of someone digging truly blind for the "why".

Players / PCs already knowing the why? May as well read the module first, IMO.

That said, I absolutely love scenarios where part of the party has adventured together before, and understands the *why*, and gets to watch new players puzzle through it.

This seems to be contradictory.
You want people to "solve the mystery" of your PC.
But you also want a few people to already know about that "mystery" - to have an inside joke on other "new" players playing the "mystery game" with your PC.


Generally, the game starts when the characters meet / when the job/scenario starts or is detailed.
Um, most stories start out that way.


Although there is value in role-playing some stuff before the party gets together,
Sometimes just a brief "we are already friends, because of X" is enough, to get started.


Great Dragon: No wonder you can't find a group to really play with.


Now, that seems a very odd thing to say. I set it as my goal to learn as much about RPGs as possible, playing every system with every group I could.
Why was that odd? When you've said that your preference was to "be the stranger/outsider" in most games. There are fewer ways to "quickly" get to know you (the player) through your PC, which makes clicking with the group take longer.


Eventually, role-playing grew popular enough that I realized 6 games a week was just too much, and I've cut back.

Yeah, I can only really do four times a week, even being retired.


I have difficulty finding a *perfect* group, as, given standard human failings, it would probably have to be played with completely inhuman participants. But that doesn't mean that, amongst all the horrible GMs, I haven't found some good groups, too.

I fully expect to never really find a "perfect" group.


New Topic
Comics, like movies and other media, are a mixed bag to deal with when used as examples.


The FF is a great example, for several reasons - not the least of which is that it exemplifies exactly the types of connections I've found disastrous in the past.

Yes, those connections (plus some combination of nepotism and jarring coincidences) explains why they *started* together; however, I don't know the comics well enough to even hazard a guess if it explains why they *stayed* together.

In an RPG, I would much rather Reed have found a great pilot who didn't happen to be his wife's brother - at least, based on the people I've seen attempt such connections.

First, I'm not an expert on Comics (etc), I don't have a lot of access to any of them anymore, and my memory is not "perfect".

Looking it up on the Net, I found the following on the F4:
Origin 1961: Susan and Reed were "a couple", not even engaged yet. They were married Oct 1965, so really not as long a wait for that as I thought.
(Unlike Clark Kent and Lois Lane, finally in 2015.)

nepotism: Johnny was the Kid Brother brought along by Susan. (I think he got at least basic astronaut training, but am not sure)

Ben was only Reed's friend - that happened to be a pilot.

As for why they "stayed as a group", that's kinda Deus Ex Machina. (Something most of us avoid in RPGs) While in the comics it was danced around ("because we're really friends"), the real reason was because everyone, from the Producer to Writers/Artists, was being paid to keep the Team together. Which is kinda true for most "media" teams.


The X-Men… is trickier. On the one hand, it's a great setup for "you could be anyone at the start, with as much or as little connection to anyone as you desire, so long as you're willing to live with a bald telepath creeper at his home / 'school', filled with 'special' kids". In that regard, most of the X-Men start the game with no connections to one another. However, if you're a guy, all your children are mutants; and, unless you were a spontaneous mutation, or born in a lab, all your siblings, and your dad, are mutants, too. So the background itself involves a lot of potential to be connected to some of the "movers and shakers" of the world (beyond just the Professor).[QUOTE]

I will say that I mostly agree.
While I like the X-Men, I usually don't get too deep when talking about them, since they tend to involve themselves in a lot of "political issues".

[QUOTE]As such, it might make for a decent rotating GM game, where each GM plays out the actions of their "clan".

I've tried this several times: and I've seen great play, and I've had nuclear Dumpster fires!


There's a difference between "knowing something about" someone and "knowing" someone. I'm rather surprised you've confused the two.

Not really, I was aiming for the former.

I tend to keep "knowing someone" to staying out of the game.


For clarification, I don't want my character and the other PCs knowing each other before session 0, unless they do. That is, I want them meeting each other to be something roleplayed out; I want the connections to her genuinely formed. If two+ of these PCs have adventured together before in a previous game, great!

But knowing *about* each other? That's… a matter for "game physics" - knowledge checks, reputation checks, Sherlock Holmes deductions, whatever. Or for the players to just Fiat decide together. I don't care much here either way beyond "not ridiculously unreasonable".
Ah. See above.


If the political junkie doesn't recognize the president his own country, or anyone recognizes Avalon (the epitome of "not from around here", and the campaign ended in the destruction the world, so… also the epitome of "absolutely *everyone* who knew me is dead"), I'll call shenanigans.

Understandable.

Not sure if I'm making progress, but as long as people respond to me, I'll keep trying.

MrSandman
2019-06-15, 02:19 AM
Good, we're on the same page.
How do you make characters, then? Do you forgo background? Do you not put any background NPCs? Do you not explore their influence over your character?



So, you also wouldn't be happy about me (or anyone else) making a *new* character that "may not befit the game we are going to play either", right?
Not particularly, no. I've we're going to play special agents I wouldn't want someone to come up with a superhero. If we're playing a queen who's lost her throne and the remnant of her faithful ones trying to regain said throne, I wouldn't want someone whose whole known background is that he is not from here. If we're playing heroic knight tales, I wouldn't want someone who has no reason or means to hang out with knights. So on and so forth.

Satinavian
2019-06-15, 02:47 AM
What about official settings that, by canon, are connected to other worlds?

"World" is a strange place to draw the line for many settings, including D&D, Star Trek, and Rifts.Case by case.

But if those other worlds are not supposed to be an important part of the game, you would need quite convincing arguments to get to play such a character and the whole group has to agree.

But it is kinda unlikely that your already established Star Trek character you want to bring, did come from a Star Trek Mirror Universe campaign. He would most likely be from the prime timeline or what some people call Kelvin-timeline. And that is also most likely what a new Star Trek group would play. So the preexisting character probably does not come from another worls, even in a setting that has such canon connections.


Personally, I find moving from "Bob's Forgotten Realms" to "Charlie's Forgotten Realms" much more problematic, as either a) they are the same world, and you have to import the changes, or b) they are different (very similar) worlds - and boy, does that open a can of worms that isn't likely to stay in the background when the characters notice the differences.It is a). I won't have all the stupidity alternative versions of the world that nonetheless can interact somehow would produce if followed to their logical conclusions.

But any changes Bob did are simply not relevant in Charlies version. Those parts of your backstory must be stuff your character has misremembered. Or you just don't bring it up. It is basically retconned away.
If that doesn't work for your character because Bobs changes were to important for your background and would also be noticable in Charlies game, well, then you can't bring the character.

Great Dragon
2019-06-15, 07:47 AM
Most of the time, the different versions of an official Campaign are treated as B) but with the understanding that they are each treated as A).

So, that while multiple "timelines" of, say FR, exist (the one in the Books being the "Prime") - they never interact/overlap.

Tanarii
2019-06-15, 09:23 AM
Is bringing characters from on DM's game to another's game even still a thing? I though that went out of style in the 70s?

(Outside of RPGA/Living Greyhawk/LFR/AL 'official' play, which is intentionally designed for it.)

PhoenixPhyre
2019-06-15, 09:41 AM
Is bringing characters from on DM's game to another's game even still a thing? I though that went out of style in the 70s?

(Outside of RPGA/Living Greyhawk/LFR/AL 'official' play, which is intentionally designed for it.)

It seems like a total mess waiting to happen, especially once you venture outside of the carefully "canon-compliant" settings (ie running FR as much by the books as possible, and even then...)

Quertus
2019-06-15, 10:19 AM
These look easy to respond to…


Most of the time, the different versions of an official Campaign are treated as B) but with the understanding that they are each treated as A).

So, that while multiple "timelines" of, say FR, exist (the one in the Books being the "Prime") - they never interact/overlap.

Quertus opened a spell component shop in Waterdeep, staffed by some peasants he saved. Said store also "serves as a front" for Q&A's Adventurers' Guild (people can buy Quertus' books there).

As I doubt this store exists in any but one GM's version of the Forgotten Realms, it speaks to how, in reality, it's "B" at every table. Because the scope of a character's impact is limited to just their table.


Is bringing characters from on DM's game to another's game even still a thing? I though that went out of style in the 70s?

(Outside of RPGA/Living Greyhawk/LFR/AL 'official' play, which is intentionally designed for it.)

Near the end of the 90's / early 2000 was the first time I encountered any resistance to the idea.

I find the timing remarkably dumb - 3e D&D comes with WBL guidelines, (theoretically) taking the guesswork out of eyeballing whether or not the "playing piece" portion of a character would be appropriate for a given table or not.

I fear 3e devs ****ing up balance so much (or, more accurately, claiming balance so hard despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary) was a leading cause of my current difficulty in finding meaningful games.


It seems like a total mess waiting to happen, especially once you venture outside of the carefully "canon-compliant" settings (ie running FR as much by the books as possible, and even then...)

Actually, it's staying inside canon settings that leads to issues.

Think about it: you can travel to New York, or Greenland, or (theoretically) Pluto. And that's simply changing your geographic location, no biggie. But if you start traveling to (nearly) identical copies of places you've visited, but without the impact of certain events you know to have happened? It can get to be quite a mess, with the character never being quite certain *which* New York they're in.

Of course, based on all the gaming horror stories, just "playing an RPG" is "a total mess waiting to happen", so I suppose you are technically correct…

Jay R
2019-06-15, 10:35 AM
We don't all enjoy the same things, and that's fine -- even if it means that some people can't play in the same game.

What a DM-hopping character loses is any complication, plot element, or other incident that takes longer to develop, as well as any detail that the player has not yet learned.

Somebody once told me that he had taken a character from my game to another one. When I heard that he had done that, I realized that:

the curse on his sword that would only activate when he faced a dragon had just disappeared
the potion of delusion he thought was a potion of flight had just become a potion of flight
the wish he had and didn't know about yet was gone forever.


Similarly, there can't be a long-term rival, a plot-sensitive detail returning a long time later, or any other continuing plot element that isn't completely under the player's control. That player has taken over control of the world in one important respect.


D'Artagnan was threatened by Milady's son twenty years after he defeated her.
"Luke, I am your father."
Khan returns for revenge over Captain Kirk.
Howard Stark, Peggy Carter, and many other characters from previous movies returned in Avengers: Endgame.
Gollum, after losing his ring to Bilbo Baggins, returns decades later to try to get it back from Frodo.
Superman's mother's name ends the battle between him and Batman, because of an incident in Batman's youth.

Even in stories where the authors change, like long-running comic book stories or long-term movie franchises, the new authors are expected to know the entire background of what came before.

These kinds of incidents can't occur, and you can't even believe that they might occur, if your current DM doesn't know about your earlier adventures. So it reduces to a string of unconnected adventures with no long-term consequence.

There's nothing inherently wrong with people wanting to leave all continuing plot elements and long-term consequences behind. But I have no interest in playing in or running such a game. I won't port a character to another game, and no character from another DM's game will ever play in my game.

Pelle
2019-06-15, 01:53 PM
Two problems with this premise.

One, the group is unlikely to be willing to call it a day, then wait several weeks while I explore how the existence of this NPC would have impacted my character's development.


Make a quick decision as best as you can. Acknowledge that it could possibly be even better, and move on.



Two, 50 sessions in, when the characters personality has been pretty well established, and the GM runs an NPC whose presence in the PCs life poses contradictions to the established personality?


Acknowledge that it could be more consistent, and move on. Maybe correct the GM or try to make it work anyways by discovering something new about your character that can keep it more consistent.



It still feels to me like kindergartens scribbling in the art museum.

So, care to explain the PoV from which this makes sense, and is playable?

Sure, I'll try. If hypothetically my kids work hard in kindergarten to make me a drawing, I can appreciate their effort and scribblings even though it wont be a Mona Lisa. Taking an occasional visit to the Louvre can be great, though. If my fellow players try to roleplay well, I can appreciate their effort even though they are not going to be Quertus level consistent. What I care about is the creative process. That the result of that process is sometimes a miss doesn't really matter as long as people agree to the premise of the game and are playing in good faith.

Not trying to be rude, correct me if I'm wrong, but from my observations here I think I would term your playstyle 'power roleplaying'. Let me try explaining what I mean. There's a quote attributed to famous board game designer Reiner Knizia that goes "When playing a game, the goal is to win, but it is the goal that is important, not the winning". To me, 'power gaming' is when the winning becomes important instead of the just the goal. Correspondingly, 'power roleplaying' would be when perfect roleplaying becomes more important to you than simply having the goal of roleplaying well.

You keep lamenting that you have tried, but never seen it work. To make it work I think you need to change your attitude and become open to input from other players. No, you probably wont enjoy that playstyle as much, however.

Quertus
2019-06-15, 05:46 PM
We don't all enjoy the same things, and that's fine -- even if it means that some people can't play in the same game.

Agreed. That said, I consider it a mark of a GM's / group's skill as to how many aesthetics / how divergent of desires that they can accommodate simultaneously. Just my opinion, though, not a universal truth or anything.


What a DM-hopping character loses is any complication, plot element, or other incident that takes longer to develop, as well as any detail that the player has not yet learned.

OK, let's back up a minute here, and step through this nice & slow. A *new* character has none of those things, either. But an *existing* character has lots of things that a new character does not, including better role-playing, and better ability to predict whether the character will be suited to a given adventure / party / group. So, first time under a GM, one could bring a new character, or an existing character run previously under a different GM.

Whichever character the player brings, they will gain "any complication, plot element, or other incident that takes longer to develop", if the GM's game runs long enough and is type to develop such things; if it doesn't, they won't.

That game is over. Then, another GM's game opens up. This character can either be mothballed, perhaps never having had "any complication, plot element, or other incident that takes longer to develop", or they can be reused, perhaps giving them the opportunity to gain some "complication, plot element, or other incident that takes longer to develop".

I'm not seeing where "any complication, plot element, or other incident that takes longer to develop" is actually relevant to "running a character under multiple GMs", except that doing so gives the character more chance to develop such things, not less.

Which… is a great parallel for why I want my characters to be run under multiple GMs. Not all GMs - and not even ask games under a given GM - are going to give "any complication, plot element, or other incident that takes longer to develop". Not all GMs (or all games under a given GM) are going to include combat against tactically adept opponents. Etc etc etc. I want my characters to get, well, some "complication, plot element, or other incident that takes longer to develop", some good combats against tactically adept foes, etc etc etc. I want it all. And I cannot get it - or, at least, cannot get it done well - under just a single GM, let alone out of a single campaign from a single GM.

(It's actually even bigger and more complicated than that, but hopefully this is a close enough simplification for conversation purposes)


Somebody once told me that he had taken a character from my game to another one. When I heard that he had done that, I realized that:

the curse on his sword that would only activate when he faced a dragon had just disappeared
the potion of delusion he thought was a potion of flight had just become a potion of flight
the wish he had and didn't know about yet was gone forever.


Well, there was certainly a problem in the handoff there. If you hate existing characters, and thus will never let him be used again, you should probably reveal the secrets once you're done with him.


Similarly, there can't be a long-term rival, a plot-sensitive detail returning a long time later, or any other continuing plot element that isn't completely under the player's control. That player has taken over control of the world in one important respect.

I mean, there absolutely *can*, both while they are running them under you, and if they return later.



D'Artagnan was threatened by Milady's son twenty years after he defeated her.
"Luke, I am your father."
Khan returns for revenge over Captain Kirk.
Howard Stark, Peggy Carter, and many other characters from previous movies returned in Avengers: Endgame.
Gollum, after losing his ring to Bilbo Baggins, returns decades later to try to get it back from Frodo.
Superman's mother's name ends the battle between him and Batman, because of an incident in Batman's youth.

Yup, all possible in my style of play.


Even in stories where the authors change, like long-running comic book stories or long-term movie franchises, the new authors are expected to know the entire background of what came before.

Then it should be incumbent upon GMs to transfer any relevant information, should it not?


These kinds of incidents can't occur, and you can't even believe that they might occur, if your current DM doesn't know about your earlier adventures. So it reduces to a string of unconnected adventures with no long-term consequence.

Absolutely can occur, with a proper handoff, or a return to a previous GM. Which, IME, makes for a much less boring, much less predictable history - will the villain introduced in chapter 1 figure into the hero's future? Nobody knows - and that's awesome!

The long-term consequence (well, longer than the game) is the PC. And that's awesome!

Now, I would love if we used "A", where everybody's Forgotten Realms was actually the same, and every Waterdeep had a rundown spell component shop serving as a front to sell Quertus' books. I would love if actions had consequences cross-GM.

But, given how difficult that would be, I'll stick with "there can be long-term consequence at the table, but the character is the consequence that transcends tables".


There's nothing inherently wrong with people wanting to leave all continuing plot elements and long-term consequences behind. But I have no interest in playing in or running such a game. I won't port a character to another game, and no character from another DM's game will ever play in my game.

The game is over, your character is dead to you, fine. But what do you have against supporting those who do not share your definition of fun? That detail seems missing from your otherwise fairly thought-out explanation. Unless it's just because you believe hidden information is an unsolvable issue - but not all characters even *have* hidden information, so I'm suspecting that there must be something more.

Quertus
2019-06-15, 11:26 PM
Make a quick decision as best as you can. Acknowledge that it could possibly be even better, and move on.



Acknowledge that it could be more consistent, and move on. Maybe correct the GM or try to make it work anyways by discovering something new about your character that can keep it more consistent.



Sure, I'll try. If hypothetically my kids work hard in kindergarten to make me a drawing, I can appreciate their effort and scribblings even though it wont be a Mona Lisa. Taking an occasional visit to the Louvre can be great, though. If my fellow players try to roleplay well, I can appreciate their effort even though they are not going to be Quertus level consistent. What I care about is the creative process. That the result of that process is sometimes a miss doesn't really matter as long as people agree to the premise of the game and are playing in good faith.

Not trying to be rude, correct me if I'm wrong, but from my observations here I think I would term your playstyle 'power roleplaying'. Let me try explaining what I mean. There's a quote attributed to famous board game designer Reiner Knizia that goes "When playing a game, the goal is to win, but it is the goal that is important, not the winning". To me, 'power gaming' is when the winning becomes important instead of the just the goal. Correspondingly, 'power roleplaying' would be when perfect roleplaying becomes more important to you than simply having the goal of roleplaying well.

You keep lamenting that you have tried, but never seen it work. To make it work I think you need to change your attitude and become open to input from other players. No, you probably wont enjoy that playstyle as much, however.

So, in MtG, I've won more than my fair share of tournaments. But, after winning one week, I'll walk in with a horrible deck the next. Because I play for fun, even in a tournament setting.

Spike (as portrayed by my brother) is very focused on winning. His decks are optimized for that purpose, and, when I use one of his decks, I try not to give him an aneurism changing things "for fun".

In that sense, I am a Spike of role-playing. My characters are very carefully constructed for a specific purpose. Quertus (my signature academia mage, for whom this account is named) was built to help me understand how people could play the same game for years (or even decades!) and still never really get the game, for example.

So, no, I wouldn't enjoy people shoving Muck Dweller, Mud Hole, Mana Clash, and Mountains in my Orzhov deck just because they think it's funny. Or the role-playing equivalent, of shoveling new, disjointed background details in.

I think that's part of the disconnect, that the cards are being shoved into the deck, that the kindergartners are scribbling inside the Louvre, without respect for the tone or integrity of what they're impacting. Because, sure, I've gamed predominately with war gamers - I really don't require particularly high (or any) standards of role-playing from my fellow players. But anyone adding random detritus isn't going to produce what I want.

Could I play with such a suboptimal deck? Not really. If I'm not getting the character studies I'm after out of an RPG, and the GM insists on making a mockery of my efforts by adding their kindergartner scribbles to my drawings, then there are better uses of my time.

But I guess, at least, I can see how some people, who take (that part of) the game less seriously, could like it. Just like I like Cosmic Larva.

-----

That said, if, beforehand, we've agreed to all play "theme" decks (for whatever definition of "theme"), I've done that before. When everyone had their decks ready - or whenever the deadline arrived - those who wanted to and were able to played. Similar for decks that were designed to work together in certain ways.

But trying to build RPG characters together? I've never seen that turn out well - regardless of whether I was even a player in the game. So this problem, at least, cannot be pinned on my role-playing standards / "power role-playing" / whatever.

Arguably, it could be pinned on other players' *low* standards, of just assuming that said background connection was a magic bullet, and all that was needed to guarantee party cohesion. But that's just my senile best guess.

So, for the question of collaborative backgrounds, if I'm right, one would expect that my extra effort would actually be advantageous.

Satinavian
2019-06-15, 11:53 PM
A
Now, I would love if we used "A", where everybody's Forgotten Realms was actually the same, and every Waterdeep had a rundown spell component shop serving as a front to sell Quertus' books. I would love if actions had consequences cross-GM.

But, given how difficult that would be, I'll stick with "there can be long-term consequence at the table, but the character is the consequence that transcends tables".

If i would allow to import a character i would also allow to import a shop or other minor things. That is not much more trouble than what i might have to adjust for a backstory of a regular new character. Backstories always had the power to suddenly introduce families, rivals homes etc. If the newly created fighter comes from a minor hoble house then there suddenly is a new minor noble house in the campaign world. Why shoulc i treat your shop any different only because it comes from another table and belongs to an existing character instead of a new one ?

Only major differences can't be importet. But then instead of making a new B) version of the campaign world, i would just not allow the character. Same as i would not allow a new character with a backstory that changes the campaign world too much.

Great Dragon
2019-06-16, 01:00 AM
@Quertus:
I don't play MtG, so please forgive any misrepresentation.

Think of the "connected" D&D group like 4 MtG players, that all buy enough packs to create a deck. Then they sit down, open the packs, and take out Lands, then make all the Cards available to everyone, and then take turns picking one card at a time, until everyone has a complete deck, when adding needed Lands again.

Now, everyone "knows" what the others chose.
And the "fun" is seeing how well you can do with what you got, against each of the other players.

Then (new Player) walks up and wants to join with a premade deck. Which defeats the "goal" of this game.

(Captain Obvious:
I'd say that most tRPG are the reverse.
Instead of fighting each other, they work together to overcome Challenges)


****
As Satinavian said, minor things can be added without trouble.

Like a shop, which can be a source of (minor) income.

But, I predict that you could have problems when the DM does a Downtime "Complications" check for each week that passes in Game, applied to that shop. Especially if this has any negative effects.

A major change could be:
If the DM hasn't "unlocked" Magic Items in their Game yet, you might not be able to "bring" your PC's favorite Wand/Weapon/Armor/etc into that game.


****
For me, it really depends on how much time you're willing to spend outside of the Game telling me about Quertus (your PC) and his History.

Letting me know if there are any Traits/Ideals/Bonds*/Flaws that I can use, both for inspiration and "Plot Hooks" within my World.

Now, I'm never just going to "spring" anything on you (the Player), heck most times I won't use NPCs with direct connections (Parents, siblings, etc).

I might make indirect connections, like maybe something your "father" did to (just created) "Villain's" father a decade ago, and "Villain" wants to get "Revenge" by annoying your PC instead of your father. (hey, I never said I was super original, here!)

*Note: not absolutely needed. Making new Bonds during the game is just fine.


*****
Now, (IiRC) I've noticed that you've had a bit too many "Bad GM and Group" Encounters to feel that your not going to be "burned" again.
As such, you don't like giving out you're PC's information, except during actual game play.

This is where the "conflict" between styles can happen, where it really is easier to either make a (truly) new PC; or decide to just not join that game/group.


****
As for choosing between *new* and *old* PCs, I suppose that the only thing might be, the rest of the Players feeling like your getting more "benefits" than them, with the old PC.

But, so long as it's ok with everyone: jump on in, and (at least try) have Fun!

flond
2019-06-16, 01:37 AM
-----

That said, if, beforehand, we've agreed to all play "theme" decks (for whatever definition of "theme"), I've done that before. When everyone had their decks ready - or whenever the deadline arrived - those who wanted to and were able to played. Similar for decks that were designed to work together in certain ways.

But trying to build RPG characters together? I've never seen that turn out well - regardless of whether I was even a player in the game. So this problem, at least, cannot be pinned on my role-playing standards / "power role-playing" / whatever.

Arguably, it could be pinned on other players' *low* standards, of just assuming that said background connection was a magic bullet, and all that was needed to guarantee party cohesion. But that's just my senile best guess.

So, for the question of collaborative backgrounds, if I'm right, one would expect that my extra effort would actually be advantageous.

So. I'm going to respond, mostly to the last bit of this. And no, too much extra effort is not advantageous. The purpose of collaborative backstory is that ideally, everyone works together.


You're showing up to the jam session insisting on playing Twinkle Twinkle little star. You're coming into the new Fantasy Series, with your 50 novel everything's old hat Tasslehoff. The purpose of high collab games, especially one where players' backstories come into play, or are fiddled with, is to run high stakes things. To have fully enveloped characters. People react so strongly to your reuse, because well, you're playing people for which everything is old hat. You're insisting that they're part of an AU story of some more popular universe.


(Which, is to say, that a shared universe game is wrong. I've got a few games I'd allow Quertus in. Just not...most of them)

Quertus
2019-06-16, 08:40 AM
So. I'm going to respond, mostly to the last bit of this. And no, too much extra effort is not advantageous. The purpose of collaborative backstory is that ideally, everyone works together.


You're showing up to the jam session insisting on playing Twinkle Twinkle little star. You're coming into the new Fantasy Series, with your 50 novel everything's old hat Tasslehoff. The purpose of high collab games, especially one where players' backstories come into play, or are fiddled with, is to run high stakes things. To have fully enveloped characters. People react so strongly to your reuse, because well, you're playing people for which everything is old hat. You're insisting that they're part of an AU story of some more popular universe.


(Which, is to say, that a shared universe game is wrong. I've got a few games I'd allow Quertus in. Just not...most of them)

There's a bit of cross-communication here - let me try to untangle this.

When I was foolish enough to try to build with my groups, I put lots of effort into trying to understand the other (connected to me) PCs, their personalities, their impact on my character beyond "my brother" or "saved my life".

So, no, most of what you said isn't actually relevant to this particular line of thought.

I find your closing paragraph rather intriguing, though. Care to explain the difference?


@Quertus:
I don't play MtG, so please forgive any misrepresentation.

Think of the "connected" D&D group like 4 MtG players, that all buy enough packs to create a deck. Then they sit down, open the packs, and take out Lands, then make all the Cards available to everyone, and then take turns picking one card at a time, until everyone has a complete deck, when adding needed Lands again.

Now, everyone "knows" what the others chose.
And the "fun" is seeing how well you can do with what you got, against each of the other players.

Then (new Player) walks up and wants to join with a premade deck. Which defeats the "goal" of this game.

Interesting analogy.

Hmmm… the Fantastic Four could be created to explore what happens to existing bonds when super powers get added to the mix. But does that prevent the Silver Surfer from sitting at the same table? Depends on the group, I suppose.

Personally, I not only prefer groups that can play complex, multi-layer tunes rather than just one-layer melodies, I consider such talent an indicator of their overall skill.

So, my take is, no, it doesn't invalidate their game's goal, it adds additional, compatible goals.


As Satinavian said, minor things can be added without trouble.

Like a shop, which can be a source of (minor) income.

But, I predict that you could have problems when the DM does a Downtime "Complications" check for each week that passes in Game, applied to that shop. Especially if this has any negative effects.

Actually, Quertus is just so good at business, his shop (like his other business ventures) are a source of debt. Think about it - most spell components are so cheap, Quertus spends more on his employees than he makes selling spell components. And, as a matter of principle, Quertus always sells his books "at cost". In the end, Quertus adventures to fund his businesses. :smallbiggrin: :smallredface:

Really, you've got the wrong impression of me - very much so, in fact - if you think I'm adverse to "negative effects". I'm adverse to "illogical effects" ("congratulations, because you've run the dumbest shop in Waterdeep, we're declaring you King") and "inconsiderate GMs" ("I know you've put a lot of work into your backstory; watch me take a **** on it"). But "negative effects"? Nah, you've got me pegged wrong.

Now, when those negative effects feel like "narrative contrivances" instead of proper Simulationist logic? Yeah, I'll be opposed. But I'll be opposed on the grounds of them being "narrative contrivances", not because they are "negative effects".

(EDIT: unless you mean "negative effects to me, or to the group's fun", like giving us lead poisoning, taking a dump on my backstory, or railroading the plot through a self-insert über GMPC, in which case, yes, I'm opposed to "negative effects")


A major change could be:
If the DM hasn't "unlocked" Magic Items in their Game yet, you might not be able to "bring" your PC's favorite Wand/Weapon/Armor/etc into that game.

… there are very few scenarios (in 3e, at least) where that scenario wouldn't trigger alarm bells that this GM is too dumb to run a game. Conventional wisdom says that muggles are UP to begin with, but become even more unplayable when denied WBL.

Setting aside how bad that particular example is, there are two possibilities - and I've encountered both. One possibility is exactly as you'd expect, and I'll choose to bring a different character - one where the playing piece matches the table.

In the second scenario, however, my character gets to be the one to introduce X. Which, if you think about it, is a really nice way to tie my character into the campaign, and to help balance out all the "narrative connections / momentum" that the existing party (who also have the advantage of being "from around here") has.

-----

Actually, honestly, me choosing to be "not from around here", and not having those connections to draw on, you'd think you'd have noticed that I regularly give myself disadvantages, and that I'm therefore not averse to "negative effects".

However, in session 0, I find it best to discuss… hmmm… the minimal set of narrative contrivances necessary to make the game enjoyable. Is there a ban on Martial Arts in this town, where Brother Smudge would be arrested on sight if he showed up in his normal attire? Does the party want to deal with that? If not, what can he encounter on the way into town to make his narrative positioning enjoyable to the group?


For me, it really depends on how much time you're willing to spend outside of the Game telling me about Quertus (your PC) and his History.

Letting me know if there are any Traits/Ideals/Bonds*/Flaws that I can use, both for inspiration and "Plot Hooks" within my World.


Now, I'm never just going to "spring" anything on you (the Player), heck most times I won't use NPCs with direct connections (Parents, siblings, etc).

I might make indirect connections, like maybe something your "father" did to (just created) "Villain's" father a decade ago, and "Villain" wants to get "Revenge" by annoying your PC instead of your father. (hey, I never said I was super original, here!)

*Note: not absolutely needed. Making new Bonds during the game is just fine.

Maybe it's just because I'm not familiar with 5e, but this feels like a clunky way of taking about this.

So, grabbing two modules off the shelf… ugh, these are horrific examples: in one, the party has to jump through hoops just to get hired (in a roundabout way) to help some people; in the other, there's strong rails and obvious "adventure this way" signs… that the party could realistically ignore, and just walk right past the adventure. So, bad examples.

So, freehand it is.

Used to be, being big into role-playing,
I was also big into "fog of war", limiting player knowledge to what the character could know. Then I met several GMs who ran games where, 15 minutes in, everyone could see that some of the PCs were completely inappropriate for the adventure. No, the Paladin will not assassinate the rightful king, who is good and just, for money. :smallannoyed:

So, yeah, much like my Brother Smudge example, I'm all about setting the party up to "win" at having fun. And this includes two-way communication, collaboratively discussing how a PC will be tied into the adventure, what hooks will work.

Note that that's not "me describing hooks". Especially if my PC hasn't been chosen yet, that's primarily the GM describing "what everyone will know about the adventure 15 minutes in" and "the hooks they already have planned / see as reasonable". Then I take that (which, building from the last thing you said… I'll say the adventure is "hired by the Fantastic Four to explore new universes"), and say, "Oh, what about Winx? He's connected enough, he might have heard of this 'Fantastic Four', and he'd love to test himself against some fellow transformed beings. Maybe they'd recognize that his strength would be an asset?".

GM: "eh, no, the FF would peg you as an opponent, and doesn't have a history of including former opponents in their friends circle."

Me: "OK, what about Quertus? He has extensive experience exploring other worlds - would the FF accept his resume?"

GM: "actually, Reed is a man of science, and wouldn't put stock in Quertus' 'magic', or his unscientific methods."

Me: "actually, Quertus' methods are pretty acceptable to 'comic book science' standards. Hmmm… actually, Reed's magic blindness might be an advantage here. What if Quertus (got some help and) has built a ship which operates just fine on just scientific principles, without magic - but also operates just fine on just magic, in universes where science and technology (as Reed understands it) stops working. Could Quertus have already been exploring these new universes, and rescued one of Reed's other teams when their tech failed?"

GM: "actually, Reed has experience with enforcing his universe's physics on his craft. Could Reed or one of his teams have rescued Quertus from a similar ship failure scenario?"

Me: "not really - Quertus would just disappear (stop projecting) if things went south."

GM: "but would Quertus take his stuff with him? What if Reed came across the remains of Quertus' first attempt, and collected Quertus' samples / notes? Or even the whole ship, if it was small enough? Would Quertus return to get his stuff, and sign on with Reed (who, by dent of the ship & his notes, could view Quertus as a fellow scientist / explorer)?"

Me: "… that could work…”

Oh, and yes, I'm all about making Bonds in game.


Now, (IiRC) I've noticed that you've had a bit too many "Bad GM and Group" Encounters to feel that your not going to be "burned" again.
As such, you don't like giving out you're PC's information, except during actual game play.

This feels… wrong… but I'm not sure how/why.

This feels like "you've taken falling damage so many times, you're not willing to jump out of an airplane without a parachute"

Yes, I've had lots of bad experiences. From them, and from the good experiences, I've learned the hard way what interface to the character is reasonable for a good GM to want, and what interface to the character is the equivalent of sending my bank account information as proof of my identity.

You need to know how to tie my character into the adventure? That's reasonable. Let's discuss the parts of my character and the parts of the adventure necessary to make that happen. No, I don't want to read the module, and no, you shouldn't want to read my backstory.

Maybe it's just because interfaces, information hiding, public vs private procedures, etc, are all a part of software development, but this just makes sense to me, and I'm a step below baffled when others don't get it.


This is where the "conflict" between styles can happen, where it really is easier to either make a (truly) new PC; or decide to just not join that game/group.

So, "new PC" is not some magic bullet to change "not giving out PC information". In fact, I'd hold information about a new PC much closer to the chest than that of an existing character.


As for choosing between *new* and *old* PCs, I suppose that the only thing might be, the rest of the Players feeling like your getting more "benefits" than them, with the old PC.

But, so long as it's ok with everyone: jump on in, and (at least try) have Fun!

Time spent playing the character is, IME, richer than backstory, so, in that regard, they'd be correct. Time spent in the current game, and connections to that world, are worth more than being "Ali, Prince of Ababwa" (or was that supposed to be his family name?), so in that regard, they'd be very wrong-minded.

Perception issues can usually be fixed with liberal application of a clue-by-four.

Great Dragon
2019-06-16, 12:50 PM
Interesting analogy.
Thanks.


Hmmm… the Fantastic Four could be created to explore what happens to existing bonds when super powers get added to the mix. But does that prevent the Silver Surfer from sitting at the same table? Depends on the group, I suppose.
Right: Surfer may have to wait until the "Second Movie" to join, but if you had (or created) a Spiderman-variant; that could be more immediately accepted by the group.


Personally, I not only prefer groups that can play complex, multi-layer tunes rather than just one-layer melodies, I consider such talent an indicator of their overall skill.

Well, I like to think that I'm at least a decent DM, but I'm not sure how well I'd be able to have the Mariachi Band sound like the Philharmonic Symphony…..


Actually, Quertus is just so good at business, his shop (like his other business ventures) are a source of debt. In the end, Quertus adventures to fund his businesses. :smallbiggrin: :smallredface:

Aha. I see. LoL.


Really, you've got the wrong impression of me - very much so, in fact - if you think I'm adverse to "negative effects".
I'm adverse to "illogical effects" ("congratulations, because you've run the dumbest shop in Waterdeep, we're declaring you King")
Nah, you've got me pegged wrong.

My apologies.
Was my "Villain" within the Bounds of Acceptance for you?

Illogical effects do "break verisimilitude" for me, as well.


and "inconsiderate GMs" ("I know you've put a lot of work into your backstory; watch me take a **** on it"). Now, when those negative effects feel like "narrative contrivances" instead of proper Simulationist logic? Yeah, I'll be opposed. But I'll be opposed on the grounds of them being "narrative contrivances", not because they are "negative effects".

"Incurably" Inconsiderate GMs find an empty seat at their table.



(EDIT: unless you mean "negative effects to me, or to the group's fun", like giving us lead poisoning, taking a dump on my backstory, or railroading the plot through a self-insert über GMPC, in which case, yes, I'm opposed to "negative effects")

Actually, so am I. Powerful "important" leadership Characters are expected. The GM trying to put their Dream PC into the group? No, thanks!


… there are very few scenarios (in 3e, at least) where that scenario wouldn't trigger alarm bells that this GM is too dumb to run a game. Conventional wisdom says that muggles are UP to begin with, but become even more unplayable when denied WBL.
To me WBL was a two edged sword.
Sure, it can make creating a higher level PC faster and easier.

But, it was also used to "justify" automatically getting anything that was wanted for the PC, because (magic) items were "within the price range" that WBL gave.

Added to the "Magic Shop" that (like Starbucks) seemed to be in every town, and always had every magic item in stock - regardless of where the PC/s went ("I'm a #20th level# knight from >Fantasy London< magically Teleported and lost somewhere in >Post Apocalyptic Outer Mongolia<, but when I walk into the town of Sueveryone, I conveniently find the Old Magic Shop and buy myself a (3x D&D 15-20 crit range, where my Improved Critical feat dropped that to 12-20 crit) +5 Keen Vorpal* Scimitar."
*Exaggerating, but only a little*)
- meant that a lot of DMs felt that magic items were reduced to being mundane.

Kinda like how someone from the 1800 would find a 1950s car a "fantastic piece of machinery", where someone from the 2000s would most likely consider it an "impractical relic".

5e got rid of the "you never get less than Xx gold" that WBL represented, and made magic items a lot harder to obtain, assuming the DM uses/allows them at all.

At least, that's how I currently understand what the 5e Devs intended.


Setting aside how bad that particular example is, there are two possibilities - and I've encountered both. One possibility is exactly as you'd expect, and I'll choose to bring a different character - one where the playing piece matches the table.

I did like seeing that you're willing to change Characters, to meet the group.


Actually, honestly, me choosing to be "not from around here", and not having those connections to draw on, you'd think you'd have noticed that I regularly give myself Disadvantage to my characters[QUOTE]

(Sorry if misquoted, using my phone is a pain)

Was not noticeable to me, at first.

[QUOTE]So, grabbing two modules off the shelf… ugh, these are horrific examples: in one, the party has to jump through hoops just to get hired (in a roundabout way) to help some people; in the other, there's strong rails and obvious "adventure this way" signs… that the party could realistically ignore, and just walk right past the adventure. So, bad examples.

I suppose I might be a little more "the opposite".
Before 2012 (when I retired) I simply didn't have the time to do Homemade Campaign World Building.

As such, I was always just grabbing a module. Now, I'd read what the "Plot" was, and then I'd see if there was a way to use "hooks" from the PC/s Background/Backstory to get the Players interested in becoming involved in the Plot.

I have been known to pick a random Village to start the game in, and place the "Starting" Clues to at least three "Modules" there. Then just sit back and let the Players decide which to investigate, or choosing something new, like exploring the wilderness around (formally Nameless Village) instead.



So, freehand it is.

Used to be, being big into role-playing,
I was also big into "fog of war", limiting player knowledge to what the character could know.
To me there is a difference between "fog of war" and "incompatible PC"

Like the Knight PC knows most everything about the city the game starts in, but might not know anything about the Areas around there.

Like Barterville: everyone from there knows that the Dwarven Mines are North, the Elven Forest is West, and Getbent City is East, but no details about any of those places is really known.

No-one should be surprised when the Knight tells the Assassin that he's not going to be involved in killing "the good and just king" for money.
(Although it should be obvious from Session 1 that having both the Knight and Assassin in the same party could be a problem)


Oh, and yes, I'm all about making Bonds in game.
Always fun.


Yes, I've had lots of bad experiences. From them, and from the good experiences, I've learned the hard way what interface to the character is reasonable for a good GM to want, and what interface to the character is the equivalent of sending my bank account information as proof of my identity.

I guess that I've never had to give "proof of identity" for any of my PCs.


You need to know how to tie my character into the adventure? That's reasonable. Let's discuss the parts of my character and the parts of the adventure necessary to make that happen.


No, I don't want to read the module, and no, you shouldn't want to read my backstory.

For myself, I prefer at least some mystery to the game.


So, "new PC" is not some magic bullet to change "not giving out PC information". In fact, I'd hold information about a new PC much closer to the chest than that of an existing character.
Why? When all the other Players are creating "teens with connections" where they all grew up in the same town and "have known each other all their lives" - are you going to create someone that isn't from the town and that no one knows, just to "be the outsider"?

Note: some Classes tend to encourage this.
Barbarian, Druid, and Ranger tend to be "natural outsiders" to all the "civilized" Classes.

And yet, it's amazing how often you meet the mysterious cloaked figure (Strider) in the town bar.


Time spent playing the character is, IME, richer than backstory, so, in that regard, they'd be correct. Time spent in the current game, and connections to that world, are worth more than being "Ali, Prince of Ababwa" (or was that supposed to be his family name?), so in that regard, they'd be very wrong-minded.

Heh.
Aladdin makes a poor Team player example.

Abu as a Familiar is neat.

Genie is too much Deus Ex Machina.

Carpet was - what? Other than transportation, that occasional helped during a fight.

Jasmine was the Plot Goal, with Jafar being an obstacle to that. (Mostly as a side project to getting power)

The Seven Dwarves (without Snow White) at least come close to being teammates.
(If you don't mind playing zero level Characters)


Perception issues can usually be fixed with liberal application of a clue-by-four.

Showing the clue = great.

Being beaten upside the head with it?
Not no much.

Jay R
2019-06-16, 06:27 PM
Agreed. That said, I consider it a mark of a GM's / group's skill as to how many aesthetics / how divergent of desires that they can accommodate simultaneously. Just my opinion, though, not a universal truth or anything.

OK, feel free to consider it a mark against my skill that I run games that all my players enjoy, and that I enjoy running, rather than the game you want me to run.


OK, let's back up a minute here, and step through this nice & slow. A *new* character has none of those things, either.

You are describing one way of creating characters as if it's a universal truth. It isn't. In the last game I ran (2e), I gave a several-page document describing the village they grew up together in -- how small and isolated the village is, how little they know about the outside world, and how the old folks would talk about how much better things were back when there was a king.

The players reached fourth level before they learned that the great king was named Arthur, and that they are living in the barbaric times after the fall of the Round Table.

In the game before that (original D&D), the PCs all started as acolytes, squires or apprentices to very powerful traveling adventurers who had artifacts -- the Staves of the Wanderers. By the end of the second session, these adventurers had sacrificed themselves, leaving the Staves in the hands of the 1st level PCs to complete a quest. They were over 2,000 miles from home, so they were all "not from around here". But they still were connected to the world, with complications, plot elements, and meaningful backstory.

In the second-to-last game I played in, after I gave the DM some ideas about the Ranger I wanted to create, he told me that my Ranger would be from the North, and that his prince had asked him to escort some southerners through the Great Blue Forest. I built Gustav with that background and reason for joining the party.

In my current game, I created a gnome with an ancestral relic. The DM built a legend around it (much of which I don't know). So I started playing him as Gwystyl, a gnome with a hooked hammer that has secrets and a quest. He's trying to find out what the quest is. This led to the following conversation between PCs:

Gwystyl: Yes, I'm on a quest.
Mycroft: To do what?
Gwystyl: I don't know.
Mycroft: Well who gave you the quest?
Gwystyl: I couldn't tell you.
Mycroft: Well, where are you supposed to go?
Gwystyl: No idea.
Mycroft: Well, then why don't you drop it?
Gwystyl: How? Until I know where the quest is supposed to take me, how can I turn off that path?

It is simply not true that new characters have no complication, plot element, or other incident that takes longer to develop.


I'm not seeing where "any complication, plot element, or other incident that takes longer to develop" is actually relevant to "running a character under multiple GMs", except that doing so gives the character more chance to develop such things, not less.

Well, of course you don't. Until you accept that it's all right for the games I like to be different from the games you like, you will keep trying to show me that I'm wrong to want characters tied to the world they inhabit.


I want my characters to get, well, some "complication, plot element, or other incident that takes longer to develop", some good combats against tactically adept foes, etc etc etc. I want it all. And I cannot get it - or, at least, cannot get it done well - under just a single GM, let alone out of a single campaign from a single GM.

Great! Have fun with that. I'm not trying to convince you that your way is wrong -- just that it's not for me.

As a player, I want a character tied to the world, with things going on that the DM knows and I don't. As a DM, I want characters tied to my world, and with some things in their history that I know and they don't.

If you don't want this, fine. I hope you have the games you want to have. But you and I should play in different games, for the same reason that a footballer and a basketball player should play in different games.


Well, there was certainly a problem in the handoff there. If you hate existing characters, and thus will never let him be used again, you should probably reveal the secrets once you're done with him.

I did not use the word "hate". Please withdraw this accusation, and do not accuse me of it again


Then it should be incumbent upon GMs to transfer any relevant information, should it not?

No problem. Here is the relevant information:

"There is no way for a PC, NPC, creature, or god to travel from my worlds to worlds I did not create. There is no way for a PC, NPC, creature, or god to travel from worlds I did not create to my worlds."


The game is over, your character is dead to you, fine.

Insult received. This is an unfair, and untrue guess made up about me.

I have finished reading "The Lord of the Rings". Frodo is not "dead to me", even though he will have no more adventures.

I have finished reading Hamlet. Hamlet will have no more adventures. But that character is not "dead to me".

And for the same reasons, my PCs Darkstar, Endora, Robin Banks, Eiddileg, Nabonidas, Morgan, David, Julius, Christopher, Leprechaun, Ragnar Rabbit, Jean-Louis, Thomas Redhawk, Cal Young, Hyperion, Pinball, Dr. MacAbre, Paragon, Professor Power, Shadowmonk, Gwydion, Ornrandir, Pteppic, Hannibal Smith, and Jed Travis aren't "dead to me", even though their stories are finished.

Finishing one story and starting another is not declaring those characters "dead to me". I don't believe that level of rhetoric helps us to communicate in any useful way.


But what do you have against supporting those who do not share your definition of fun?

There is a long, long distance between not doing something I don't want to do, and being "against supporting" them.

When people are looking for somebody to run a basketball game. I am not "against supporting" them just because I have no interest in basketball and won't referee their game. I am not "against supporting" people who want to play superheroes when I'm running a fantasy game, or wizards in my Flashing Blades game. It's not true that every game must be perfect for every player. My players enjoy my games, and that's all I'm trying to achieve.

So I would tell them "No, that's not something I would be willing to do. I hope you find the game you want and enjoy it. Meanwhile, I have players enjoying the game I am willing to run, and I need to focus on them."

This is "against supporting" other people only in the same sense that feeding the poor in New York is "against supporting" hungry people in Boston.


That detail seems missing from your otherwise fairly thought-out explanation.

That statement is simply false. That detail was at both the start and the end of my post. I repeat:

"We don't all enjoy the same things, and that's fine -- even if it means that some people can't play in the same game."

"There's nothing inherently wrong with people wanting to leave all continuing plot elements and long-term consequences behind. But I have no interest in playing in, or running, such a game. I won't port a character to another game, and no character from another DM's game will ever play in my game"


Unless it's just because you believe hidden information is an unsolvable issue - but not all characters even *have* hidden information, so I'm suspecting that there must be something more.

There is indeed. A game in which characters are part of, and tied to, the world they live in is very different from a game in which they are not. You clearly know that they are different, because you prefer one of these to the other.

It is perfectly acceptable for you to prefer games in which the PCs are not part of, and tied to, the world they live in. I have said that more than once.

But is is also perfectly acceptable for me to prefer games in which the PCs are part of, and tied to, the world they live in. You have not agreed to that.

That is our only point of difference. I agree that your preference is OK, even though I do not share it. You are arguing against the idea that my preference is also OK, even though you do not share it.

Quertus
2019-06-16, 08:42 PM
Right: Surfer may have to wait until the "Second Movie" to join, but if you had (or created) a Spiderman-variant; that could be more immediately accepted by the group.

Well, I like to think that I'm at least a decent DM, but I'm not sure how well I'd be able to have the Mariachi Band sound like the Philharmonic Symphony…..

It's a measure of the whole group, not just the GM, how well they can share the spotlight, and blend highschool romance drama, tactical basketball simulator, and (supernatural?) murder mystery into one enjoyable game.


Was my "Villain" within the Bounds of Acceptance for you?

I didn't respond to this bit right away, because I've been debating that.

So, suppose I told you - not your character, but you - that I was angry with you because your father killed my brother.


Actually, so am I. Powerful "important" leadership Characters are expected. The GM trying to put their Dream PC into the group? No, thanks!

Hmmm… I suppose, personally, I can tolerate either piece individually, just not together.


To me WBL was a two edged sword.
Sure, it can make creating a higher level PC faster and easier.

That, IMO, misses the beauty (and the failing) of WBL.

WBL is integrated with CR. It says that a character of this level should be "this big", able to handle something of this CR, with this level of challenge, thanks in part to this level of WBL (purchased with this level of availability).

Never mind that that's not true (player > build > class, which themselves aren't equal), but, even if it were? Change even one of those variables, and you're in uncharted territory. It's a tricky fragile system, and it puts the *focus* on game balance - "power balancing", if you will - instead of on "fun".


But, it was also used to "justify" automatically getting anything that was wanted for the PC, because (magic) items were "within the price range" that WBL gave.

Added to the "Magic Shop" that (like Starbucks) seemed to be in every town, and always had every magic item in stock - regardless of where the PC/s went ("I'm a #20th level# knight from >Fantasy London< magically Teleported and lost somewhere in >Post Apocalyptic Outer Mongolia<, but when I walk into the town of Sueveryone, I conveniently find the Old Magic Shop and buy myself a (3x D&D 15-20 crit range, where my Improved Critical feat dropped that to 12-20 crit) +5 Keen Vorpal* Scimitar."
*Exaggerating, but only a little*)
- meant that a lot of DMs felt that magic items were reduced to being mundane.

Personally, I hate magic item shop mentality. Note that that includes automatic spell acquisition. I love that, if you looked at 10 of my 2e Wizards, or 10 of my 2e Fighters (if I had 10), you'd see 10 distinct playing pieces.

3e, for worse or for worse, was not built that way. It was built giving players a certain, clearly specified amount of agency in the development of their character.


I did like seeing that you're willing to change Characters, to meet the group.

I mean, if the character legitimately won't work, why bring them? That seemed so obvious, I rarely bother to explicitly mention it.

That said, a lot of GMs are dumb, in the "too quick to declare something unworkable" direction. Heck, I started constantly referring to my characters by name because I got tired of describing something, people telling me it was "impossible", and then having to say, ”no, it isn't - I've *done it*".


(Sorry if misquoted, using my phone is a pain)

It sure is.


As such, I was always just grabbing a module. Now, I'd read what the "Plot" was, and then I'd see if there was a way to use "hooks" from the PC/s Background/Backstory to get the Players interested in becoming involved in the Plot.

I have been known to pick a random Village to start the game in, and place the "Starting" Clues to at least three "Modules" there. Then just sit back and let the Players decide which to investigate, or choosing something new, like exploring the wilderness around (formally Nameless Village) instead.

Ah. I was discussing hooks due to the GM wanting to run a particular adventure, or for joining a campaign in progress. So, yes, things are a bit different in a more sandboxy scenario. There, you focus more on the part I all but completely ignored - making sure that you mesh with the party.

Actually… I think there must be some communication snafu here, because the notions of "hooks" and "sandbox" are mutually exclusive, the way I define the terms.


No-one should be surprised when the Knight tells the Assassin that he's not going to be involved in killing "the good and just king" for money.
(Although it should be obvious from Session 1 that having both the Knight and Assassin in the same party could be a problem)

Well, no-one *should*, but…


Why? When all the other Players are creating "teens with connections" where they all grew up in the same town and "have known each other all their lives" - are you going to create someone that isn't from the town and that no one knows, just to "be the outsider"?

Note: some Classes tend to encourage this.
Barbarian, Druid, and Ranger tend to be "natural outsiders" to all the "civilized" Classes.

And yet, it's amazing how often you meet the mysterious cloaked figure (Strider) in the town bar.

Why? So that I don't have to worry about the bad things I've been discussing?

Since I cannot believe that is actually your question, what are you really trying to ask?


Showing the clue = great.

Being beaten upside the head with it?
Not no much.

IME, for some people, it is required.

Great Dragon
2019-06-17, 09:05 AM
It's a measure of the whole group, not just the GM, how well they can share the spotlight, and blend highschool romance drama, tactical basketball simulator, and (supernatural?) murder mystery into one enjoyable game.

Humm, I'm not sure if I could do all those at the same time.

Even doing one of those things at a time, throughout the game: There are still at least two possibilities:

(1) Silly: "The Scooby-Doo" Drama game.

(2) Serious: "Teen Sherlock Holmes/Nancy Drew" Game: where it's just as important to "Get a Date for the Prom" as actually Solving the Mystery.


Villain
Basically, I'm led to believe that there simply cannot be any kind of connection to your Character/s from the DMs side. All connection/s must be thought of by you.


I didn't respond to this bit right away, because I've been debating that.

So, suppose I told you - not your character, but you - that I was angry with you because your father killed my brother.

That would just make me ask more questions.
(Both IRL, or as my PC)

(1) How my father knew your (family)?

(2) How was your brother killed, exactly?

(3) Could your brother's death have been an accident?

(3a) If not, What evidence to prove those actions do you have?

(3b) What was my father's goal and motive/s for doing that?

(3c) How do you know those goals/motives?

(4) What are you wanting to do with me?

(4a) Are you seeking "revenge" and are out to hurt/kill me?

(4b) Are you wanting me to join you in bringing my father to Justice?
**********
Ummmm...
More importantly, this causes me to wonder:
"Are you (the RL person) unable/unwilling to keep IC and RL separate?" (Like: it's not what "your Character thinks/feels" when something affects your PC - but how you, IRL, think/feel about those things, and then applying that to your PC)*

Because I'm not able/willing to go down the "Psychological Rabbit Hole" over a Forum.

* Note: I am not saying that you are doing this. Just pointing out that it can be interpreted that way.[B]


That, IMO, misses the beauty (and the failing) of WBL.

WBL is integrated with CR. It says that a character of this level should be "this big", able to handle something of this CR, with this level of challenge, thanks in part to this level of WBL (purchased with this level of availability).

Never mind that that's not true (player > build > class, which themselves aren't equal), but, even if it were? Change even one of those variables, and you're in uncharted territory. It's a tricky fragile system, and it puts the *focus* on game balance - "power balancing", if you will - instead of on "fun".

Personally, I hate magic item shop mentality. Note that that includes automatic spell acquisition.

3e, for worse or for worse, was not built that way. It was built giving players a certain, clearly specified amount of agency in the development of their character.

To me, there is a difference between asking the DM for getting certain Magical Item/s at High Level Character Creation (regardless of the Edition) and simply expecting to automatically just have that item because WBL says so.

The Magic Shops were deliberately removed from 5e (actually 4e, if I understand correctly)

5e D&D is designed to be used without Magic Armor and Weapons. (As long as the Party has a Caster with the Magic Weapon spell)

The rest of the Magical Items can be used without any problems.


I love that, if you looked at 10 of my 2e Wizards, or 10 of my 2e Fighters (if I had 10), you'd see 10 distinct playing pieces.
To me: The main difference is in how you present them.

Even if all 10 Wizards were wearing Mage Robes and carrying Staves, where they look (mostly) the same, it's how the Player presents and portrays each that makes the difference. 1e, 3e or 5e.
This is what I love about the Game/s.


I mean, if the character legitimately won't work, why bring them? That seemed so obvious, I rarely bother to explicitly mention it.

That said, a lot of GMs are dumb, in the "too quick to declare something unworkable" direction. Heck, I started constantly referring to my characters by name because I got tired of describing something, people telling me it was "impossible", and then having to say, ”no, it isn't - I've *done it*".

This can just be a clash of concepts.

Ok, while I know that while it is [B]allowed by the D&D 3x Rules*, I find it very hard to believe in a Gnome (Halfling, Goblin, Kobold) dual wielding Greatswords!

*Let me see if I can remember {no book access}
Gnome with 13+ Str 3rd level Fighter with Two Weapon Fighting feat (1st), Monkey Grip feat (F1), and Dual Weapons feat (3rd).

I mean, I might be able to see a "normal person" (Human, Half-Orc, and maybe Half-Elf) with at least a 16 Str doing that (and even this pushes the bounds of believability),
but someone about 3'6" and weighing around 30# (what, about equal to a 4 year old human? - even with a 20 Str) wielding not one, but two, swords about 6' long and weighing almost half the PC's weight each...

Bad enough we got Buster Weapons in the game, now… Something three times the size of a Greatsword?

Although, I actually have seen the Halfling Fighter using a Greatsword, and being very effective with it.


Ah. I was discussing hooks due to the GM wanting to run a particular adventure, or for joining a campaign in progress. So, yes, things are a bit different in a more sandboxy scenario. There, you focus more on the part I all but completely ignored - making sure that you mesh with the party.

Actually… I think there must be some communication snafu here, because the notions of "hooks" and "sandbox" are mutually exclusive, the way I define the terms.

I did think that there might be a big difference between our ideas of what "hooks" might be.

What you seem to be thinking is Railroading*
The use of something about a PC, be it their Background T/I/B/F, Backstory as a means for the GM to tell the Player that they must be involved (Hook?) in what is being Run (Plot): Or they must behave a certain way because of Alignment (or Class) saying so.
- is exactly the kind of thinking that gave RPGs a bad reputation in the first place.
(especially D&D, plus having the whole "Satanic Panic" debacle.)

Railroading is forcing everyone down a particular path, and often involves having the same Ending, regardless of "path/s" taken. There are several types of Railroading, including the Predestined Hero (King/Queen) with Plot Armor.

*Not to be confused with Lininer.
Lininer is where Encounter 1 gives the needed information for getting to Encounter 2, until reaching the End Goal. While this might seem similar to Railroading (because PCs must have the information from E1 to get to E2) due to "having to go through" all the Encounters in order; But, with Lininer all that is really needed is the information itself, which even the Average GM can give through different means.

PCs don't want to fight the Angry Ogre? (E4)
But, Party clears out a nest of Harpies?
Have the information needed about E5, the "Terrifying" Troll. With at least one RP Encounter where they can find out that both Acid and Fire Permanently kills Trolls.

But, I had to learn how to not do Railroading, even when running Lininer.


******

Most everyone I know has two terms for setting types:

(1) I can't think of the "lingo" for what is known as "Fixed Location" setting.
Curse of Strad is the best example I can think of, since there is only a very limited area and the Fog prevents simply leaving, and "escaping" from the Realm requires killing Strad.

Where the best Sandbox "starting" setting would be Phandalin (Lost Mines of Phandelver) because there's unlimited access to all the rest of the Sword Coast available for the DM to use when the Players "leave the area".

Sure, my games are more sandbox, now.
But, that's what I find works for my games.

And here are the reasons I tend to use Faerun as the basis of my regular games.

1) FR is the most used campaign for 5e, so even new players can easily find information on it.

2) Old Players will most likely already know a lot about FR, both from earlier editions of D&D and the novels.

3) I can tell all the Players what changes I've made to FR, and most of the time don't have to go in depth about these changes.

But, my actual Homebrew World is a lot more complicated, and requires Players that are both invested in the World with their PCs, and dedicated IRL.


Why? So that I don't have to worry about the bad things I've been discussing?

Since I cannot believe that is actually your question, what are you really trying to ask?

I asked because I'm trying to figure out, exactly, how playing with you is possible.

On one hand, you seem to be saying "Make connections with other players."

While on the other hand, saying: "Except me. Neither GM nor Player shall touch my background/backstory."

The GM has to accept the PC you decided "fits the game".

The Players just accept your being at the table and not asking any questions OoC, and only interacting IC with your PC after you've "given permission" by you addressing them or their PC directly.

Now, I'm really hoping this is incorrect.
But, others getting this impression from you can be the cause of not being able to find a group.

Quertus
2019-06-17, 07:24 PM
I did not use the word "hate". Please withdraw this accusation, and do not accuse me of it again

Apologies. You never used that word. Whether I incorrectly inferred such sentiment, or whether my usage is an artifact of spending so much time with kids, I am too senile to remember.


OK, feel free to consider it a mark against my skill that I run games that all my players enjoy, and that I enjoy running, rather than the game you want me to run.


If you don't want this, fine. I hope you have the games you want to have. But you and I should play in different games, for the same reason that a footballer and a basketball player should play in different games.


There is a long, long distance between not doing something I don't want to do, and being "against supporting" them.

When people are looking for somebody to run a basketball game. I am not "against supporting" them just because I have no interest in basketball and won't referee their game. I am not "against supporting" people who want to play superheroes when I'm running a fantasy game, or wizards in my Flashing Blades game. It's not true that every game must be perfect for every player. My players enjoy my games, and that's all I'm trying to achieve.

So I would tell them "No, that's not something I would be willing to do. I hope you find the game you want and enjoy it. Meanwhile, I have players enjoying the game I am willing to run, and I need to focus on them."

This is "against supporting" other people only in the same sense that feeding the poor in New York is "against supporting" hungry people in Boston.

One ice cream machine / shop only serves vanilla*. A second can serve either chocolate or vanilla. All things being equal, the second is superior** to the first, right?

A third ice cream machine has two spouts, and can serve both vanilla *and* chocolate; the third shop can ring vanilla and chocolate up in the same order. All things being equal, this third version is strictly superior to either of the first two, right?

To finish my metaphor, some GMs are "Baskin Robbins 48 flavors" stores, run by master chefs, who can spotlight share different flavors, sequentially in multi-dip cones, or in "twist" cones, or even blending the flavors together into entirely new flavors. And they're wise enough to give samples before selling whole batches, to confirm that it's valid (although, as master chefs, their intuition is usually pretty good, but people's tastes differ).

Yes, "fun" is the name of the game. It takes skill to be able to deliver a fun game. But I view a GM who can deliver a fun game to a greater variety of groups to be more skilled than one who can only deliver fun to smaller subsets, or even to only one group or style of group. Whether the ice cream is a metaphor for the difference between high school romance drama / tactical basketball simulator / (supernatural?) murder mystery, or the ability to fulfill the "8 aesthetics" of fun, (Discovery, Challenge, etc) or build complexity, or backgrounds / connections to the world, or nearly any other set of similar criteria.

By all means, prove me wrong, but this is the stance that I hold, that a GM who can produce more varieties of fun / who can cater to more tables is more skilled than a GM with less capability.

-----

If my friends invited me to play a game of basketball, even if it isn't my preference, if I was free, I would join them. This is what I meant by "support".

However, there are games where I believe that my "dislike / hatred" of the concept would likely be detrimental to the group's fun. So, even if I'm not busy, I'll bow out of those.

-----

If one of your players said "this has been fun, but I want to try something different - I want my character to have absolutely no connection to the world, and no hidden information. I sprung out of the ground yesterday, fully grown, the product of my own epic spell (cast in the future) - a true self-made man". How would you respond? Would you respond "let's do it!" (I'm guessing not, from my understanding of your stance). Would you respond, "no, I lack the ability to run such a game"? Or "no, I lack the inclination to run such a game?" Or even "no, I lack both the ability and the inclination to run such a game"?

This is what I meant by "skill" and "support". Feel free to propose an alternative for either word (I'm pretty sure that the first one is applicable, though).

* And no insult intended here - this isn't a reference to "plain vanilla" or anything, as it's simply the most common / popular flavor, and I happen to *like* vanilla.

** Sure, you've got people who are deathly allergic to peanuts being in the same store as them. Players like that, who cannot tolerate any talking/role-playing at their table, for example, are a special case.


You are describing one way of creating characters as if it's a universal truth. It isn't.


It is simply not true that new characters have no complication, plot element, or other incident that takes longer to develop.


Well, of course you don't. Until you accept that it's all right for the games I like to be different from the games you like, you will keep trying to show me that I'm wrong to want characters tied to the world they inhabit.

This whole bit is simply the result of a misunderstanding - I misunderstood what you meant by "develop" in the phrase "complication, plot element, or other incident that takes longer to develop."


Insult received. This is an unfair, and untrue guess made up about me.

More fun with words.

OK, suppose your GM dies mid-campaign. They left no notes (or those were destroyed by whatever caused their death).

Or you, and you alone, were abducted by aliens / to another reality.

In these scenarios, you would never play one of your old characters again, right?


That statement is simply false. That detail was at both the start and the end of my post. I repeat:

"We don't all enjoy the same things, and that's fine -- even if it means that some people can't play in the same game."

"There's nothing inherently wrong with people wanting to leave all continuing plot elements and long-term consequences behind. But I have no interest in playing in, or running, such a game. I won't port a character to another game, and no character from another DM's game will ever play in my game"

That misses the "why".

I mean, I think I understand (correct me if I'm wrong) that it is this hidden information - this stuff that the GM knows about your character that you do not - that is important to you. Whereas, what is important to me is how the character reacts to and grows from a variety of stimulus (specifically, a larger variety than a single GM is likely to ever have the all skills to produce all of them to my satisfaction).

What I don't understand is why your desire (or other things you haven't explained) translates not only into"your characters are from the world" and "your characters never change GM" to "no characters from another world at my tables", but also "all characters from my tables have hidden information" and "no characters from my tables ever leave".


Great! Have fun with that. I'm not trying to convince you that your way is wrong -- just that it's not for me.


As a player, I want a character tied to the world, with things going on that the DM knows and I don't. As a DM, I want characters tied to my world, and with some things in their history that I know and they don't.


No problem. Here is the relevant information:

"There is no way for a PC, NPC, creature, or god to travel from my worlds to worlds I did not create. There is no way for a PC, NPC, creature, or god to travel from worlds I did not create to my worlds."


There is indeed. A game in which characters are part of, and tied to, the world they live in is very different from a game in which they are not. You clearly know that they are different, because you prefer one of these to the other.

It is perfectly acceptable for you to prefer games in which the PCs are not part of, and tied to, the world they live in. I have said that more than once.

But is is also perfectly acceptable for me to prefer games in which the PCs are part of, and tied to, the world they live in. You have not agreed to that.

That is our only point of difference. I agree that your preference is OK, even though I do not share it. You are arguing against the idea that my preference is also OK, even though you do not share it.

I… fine. I was trying to avoid this topic, but if you're insulted already, I may as well go there.

If everyone supported both styles of play, then you could have your fun playing connected characters under a single GM, and I have my fun playing characters who are "not from around here" under multiple GMs.

Obviously, if everyone only supported one style or the other, only one of us could have fun.

If everyone gamed "my way", you could have fun with your group. But if everyone gamed "your way", I could not have fun with mine. By which I mean, my stance is inclusive (people can have connections or not), whereas yours is exclusive (people *must* be from around here, *must* have hidden information).

So, while I'm fine with you / your group / anyone playing charterers from the world, with background connections, never leaving their world, only ever played under one GM, whatever, you explicitly exclude things at your table. The underlying reasons why determine whether excluding things from your table is acceptable or not.

"You can eat peanut butter, but not at my table."

"You can have guns, but not in my house."

"You can follow (insert religion), but not in my country."

"You can have kids, but not with my daughter."

"You can have your gay / colored / foreigner marriage, but not with my cake."

"You can sell cookies, but not in my store."

There is - in my eyes, at least - a difference between what type of exclusion are acceptable, and what types are objectionable. Although different people may disagree on which is which.

And it's the same for your preference for hidden information as it is for barring from and staying in the world - sure, it's your preference, and that's fine, but you force it on the whole table.

Which is why you are correct: I have not sanctioned your tendencies of exclusion, because I do not understand the root cause. Thus, I do not know that I agree with them.

Quertus
2019-06-17, 10:16 PM
Just hitting a few things at a time, in case the battery or I decide it's time to sleep.



Villain
Basically, I'm led to believe that there simply cannot be any kind of connection to your Character/s from the DMs side. All connection/s must be thought of by you.



That would just make me ask more questions.
(Both IRL, or as my PC)

(1) How my father knew your (family)?

(2) How was your brother killed, exactly?

(3) Could your brother's death have been an accident?

(3a) If not, What evidence to prove those actions do you have?

(3b) What was my father's goal and motive/s for doing that?

(3c) How do you know those goals/motives?

(4) What are you wanting to do with me?

(4a) Are you seeking "revenge" and are out to hurt/kill me?

(4b) Are you wanting me to join you in bringing my father to Justice?
**********
Ummmm...
More importantly, this causes me to wonder:
"Are you (the RL person) unable/unwilling to keep IC and RL separate?" (Like: it's not what "your Character thinks/feels" when something affects your PC - but how you, IRL, think/feel about those things, and then applying that to your PC)*

Because I'm not able/willing to go down the "Psychological Rabbit Hole" over a Forum.

* [B]Note: I am not saying that you are doing this. Just pointing out that it can be interpreted that way.[B]

Although you took it in some different directions than I did, I think you got the basics of what I intended with the question: making this villain makes for some complicated revaluation of the character / father dynamic.

Depending on the character, that might be something I'd be OK with (despite technically involving role-playing the backstory NPC off screen), or it might not (if it invalidates the purpose of me making/running the character). Also, for some of my characters, it might be completely nonsensical (they don't have fathers, for example).

So, I'd say… run it by me?


To me: The main difference is in how you present them.

Even if all 10 Wizards were wearing Mage Robes and carrying Staves, where they look (mostly) the same, it's how the Player presents and portrays each that makes the difference. 1e, 3e or 5e.
This is what I love about the Game/s.

This is why I specified that the *playing piece* would be different. Yes, the personalities - the *character* of the character - will vary in any system, but, in 2e, the playing piece did, too. Also, the variance in the underlying playing piece gives different opportunities for growth. So… I'd say that it encourages the development of different personalities, too.


I asked because I'm trying to figure out, exactly, how playing with you is possible.

On one hand, you seem to be saying "Make connections with other players."

While on the other hand, saying: "Except me. Neither GM nor Player shall touch my background/backstory."

The GM has to accept the PC you decided "fits the game".

The Players just accept your being at the table and not asking any questions OoC, and only interacting IC with your PC after you've "given permission" by you addressing them or their PC directly.

Now, I'm really hoping this is incorrect.
But, others getting this impression from you can be the cause of not being able to find a group.

Well, seems like there's been a huge communications snafu here. Let's try again.

As my FF example indicates, I'll state if I think that the GM's reasoning is unfounded / faulty (Quertus being "unscientific"); otherwise, I'll attempt new vectors to tie the character into the game until the GM & I agree (Quertus), or I run out of ideas for that character (Winx). In the latter case, obviously, I pull out a new character. So, kudos to me for making a good example! :smallwink: :smallcool:

(Note that, for simplicity, I've limited the example to player/GM interactions. At some tables, the players may have input / be involved, and you'll get things like: "you should bring Armus!", "My character could recommend Winx to Mr. Fantastic", "I don't think my character would get along with your troll cyborg idea", "based on our party composition so far, we could really use a brick", etc)

Once play begins, my characters will often interact heavily with the PCs, and with the NPCs. This is because I enjoy forming these connections in play. However, it depends on the character - some are less suited to, or more selective in playing, this particular minigame than others. But, usually, I'm more gregarious / vocal than most at the table.

No, nobody gets to change my characters' history. The rest of the table is welcome to do whatever they want with their backgrounds / connections / history / whatever. (Although, if your character, that my character has previously met in another game, has retconned that out of their history, my character will treat yours as a doppelganger (or alternate reality invader, or wibbly wobbly timey…), and act accordingly.)

Now, all that said, a lot of tables I've encountered (especially modern ones), the GMs really can't be bothered to talk about the game, and it's just "here's the specs, bring that", with no metagame conversation whatsoever. So… how this plays out at actual tables may vary.

Quertus
2019-06-17, 11:05 PM
To me, there is a difference between asking the DM for getting certain Magical Item/s at High Level Character Creation (regardless of the Edition) and simply expecting to automatically just have that item because WBL says so.

The Magic Shops were deliberately removed from 5e (actually 4e, if I understand correctly)

5e D&D is designed to be used without Magic Armor and Weapons. (As long as the Party has a Caster with the Magic Weapon spell)

The rest of the Magical Items can be used without any problems.

I mean, there is - it's part of the philosophy difference between editions (and systems).

I generally prefer the 2e way for D&D, but 3e doesn't work too well / gets kinda clunky without a lot of extra effort from the GM unless you follow RAW item availability & crafting rules.


This can just be a clash of concepts.

Ok, while I know that while it is allowed by the D&D 3x Rules*, I find it very hard to believe in a Gnome (Halfling, Goblin, Kobold) dual wielding Greatswords!

*Let me see if I can remember {no book access}
Gnome with 13+ Str 3rd level Fighter with Two Weapon Fighting feat (1st), Monkey Grip feat (F1), and Dual Weapons feat (3rd).

I mean, I might be able to see a "normal person" (Human, Half-Orc, and maybe Half-Elf) with at least a 16 Str doing that (and even this pushes the bounds of believability),
but someone about 3'6" and weighing around 30# (what, about equal to a 4 year old human? - even with a 20 Str) wielding not one, but two, swords about 6' long and weighing almost half the PC's weight each...

Bad enough we got Buster Weapons in the game, now… Something three times the size of a Greatsword?

Although, I actually have seen the Halfling Fighter using a Greatsword, and being very effective with it.

Actually, I was talking more "this character wouldn't work well on this adventure / with this party" than "this playing piece doesn't follow RAW".


Ah. I was discussing hooks due to the GM wanting to run a particular adventure, or for joining a campaign in progress. So, yes, things are a bit different in a more sandboxy scenario. There, you focus more on the part I all but completely ignored - making sure that you mesh with the party.

Actually… I think there must be some communication snafu here, because the notions of "hooks" and "sandbox" are mutually exclusive, the way I define the terms.


I did think that there might be a big difference between our ideas of what "hooks" might be.

What you seem to be thinking is Railroading*
The use of something about a PC, be it their Background T/I/B/F, Backstory as a means for the GM to tell the Player that they must be involved (Hook?) in what is being Run (Plot): Or they must behave a certain way because of Alignment (or Class) saying so.
- is exactly the kind of thinking that gave RPGs a bad reputation in the first place.
(especially D&D, plus having the whole "Satanic Panic" debacle.)

Railroading is forcing everyone down a particular path, and often involves having the same Ending, regardless of "path/s" taken. There are several types of Railroading, including the Predestined Hero (King/Queen) with Plot Armor.

*Not to be confused with Lininer.
Lininer is where Encounter 1 gives the needed information for getting to Encounter 2, until reaching the End Goal. While this might seem similar to Railroading (because PCs must have the information from E1 to get to E2) due to "having to go through" all the Encounters in order; But, with Lininer all that is really needed is the information itself, which even the Average GM can give through different means.

PCs don't want to fight the Angry Ogre? (E4)
But, Party clears out a nest of Harpies?
Have the information needed about E5, the "Terrifying" Troll. With at least one RP Encounter where they can find out that both Acid and Fire Permanently kills Trolls.

But, I had to learn how to not do Railroading, even when running Lininer.


… by my definitions, a "hook" is a reason for a character to go on an adventure. So, the party is searching for Atlantis - why? For one character, their hook is "Fame"; for another, "Wealth"; for a third, "closure - my Dad went missing looking for Atlantis, and I'm hoping to find out what happened to him".

In a sandbox, by my definitions, the onus is on the players, not the GM, to match their characters' motivations to one or more pieces of content. The GM just provides content (which they believe capable of hooking most parties), and the players decide which hooks to follow.

That didn't make much sense - let me try again. In a sandbox, Gandalf may hear about orcs, and a Necromancer, and a Dragon, and some spiders, and lots of other things. And he chooses which thread(s) to follow up on. The GM doesn't have to ask Bilbo for a hook to match the spiders, because it doesn't matter whether Bilbo engages the spider scenario. It's up to the party which pieces of content to engage - and how to engage them. Maybe Bilbo learns that the elves a) craft magic items, and b) are led by someone with a fear of dragons, and so c) tries to convince the Dragon to lean on the elves to produce magic items for the dwarves to use to conquer the humans, to split the wealth with the Dragon.

Great Dragon
2019-06-18, 02:48 AM
Note: I'll respond to your other post when less tired.😇


Just hitting a few things at a time, in case the battery or I decide it's time to sleep.
Understandable.



Although you took it in some different directions than I did, I think you got the basics of what I intended with the question: making this villain makes for some complicated revaluation of the character / father dynamic.

Depending on the character, that might be something I'd be OK with (despite technically involving role-playing the backstory NPC off screen), or it might not (if it invalidates the purpose of me making/running the character). Also, for some of my characters, it might be completely nonsensical (they don't have fathers, for example).

So, I'd say… run it by me?
Ok. I feel like we made some progress.
Took a Side Quest and some Investigation….
😁


This is why I specified that the *playing piece* would be different. Yes, the personalities - the *character* of the character - will vary in any system, but, in 2e, the playing piece did, too. Also, the variance in the underlying playing piece gives different opportunities for growth. So… I'd say that it encourages the development of different personalities, too.

Umm… is that trying to find the mini that "looks like" your PC? Where you hunt in every Gaming Store, RPG Convention, hobby shop, and even online to find it?
And once found, will Paint it to be "closer" to the actual description you have for the PC?

If so - wow. I'm impressed.


Well, seems like there's been a huge communications snafu here. Let's try again.

As my FF example indicates, I'll state if I think that the GM's reasoning is unfounded / faulty (Quertus being "unscientific"); otherwise, I'll attempt new vectors to tie the character into the game until the GM & I agree (Quertus), or I run out of ideas for that character (Winx). In the latter case, obviously, I pull out a new character. So, kudos to me for making a good example! :smallwink: :smallcool:

(Note that, for simplicity, I've limited the example to player/GM interactions. At some tables, the players may have input / be involved, and you'll get things like: "you should bring Armus!", "My character could recommend Winx to Mr. Fantastic", "I don't think my character would get along with your troll cyborg idea", "based on our party composition so far, we could really use a brick", etc)
Ok. That can work, but not for all tables.

Jay R has firmly stated that "outside" PCs aren't allowed in his game/s. (No disrespect intended with the following, Jay R.)

So instead of reaching for your Huge Binder of (premade) Characters, perhaps make a new PC, with no "premade" history.

Like for the F4, instead of coming up with ways for Quertus (your PC) to be accepted by Mr Fantastic, (and your not wanting my Spiderman-variant) you create the equivalent of Iron Man, which is someone that Reed can both understand, and respect. (Even though Reed does not really study robots, nor did he study Robotic Engineering enough to build an exo-suit like what Iron Man is. Reed knows enough that how the suit works is based on the same "Scientific Laws" that he uses every day.)

So, we need at least a little backstory here, since we want to know a few details of this new PC.
(Working with the DM)

OoC: what makes your PC different from Tony?
A) Is the PC an "AU" version? Without the bad heart, or drinking problem. If so, what "Physical flaws" do you chose?

B) Is the PC basically a D&D Artificer?

IC: Where are they from?
Pick your favorite >Marvel< City.

What is the Suit?
The latest in Japanese design and tech?
Or the American Competition to that?

…. Lots more possible.


Once play begins, my characters will often interact heavily with the PCs, and with the NPCs. This is because I enjoy forming these connections in play. However, it depends on the character - some are less suited to, or more selective in playing, this particular minigame than others. But, usually, I'm more gregarious / vocal than most at the table.

Neat. I tend to be more gregarious in person, as well.


No, nobody gets to change my characters' history. The rest of the table is welcome to do whatever they want with their backgrounds / connections / history / whatever. (Although, if your character, that my character has previously met in another game, has retconned that out of their history, my character will treat yours as a doppelganger (or alternate reality invader, or wibbly wobbly timey…), and act accordingly.)

Now, here can be the point of contention.

Because you don't want anyone changing your PC's history, could mean that most of your premade PCs will have problems being allowed into the game.
As for being allowed into the game: See new PC above. (Changing to match Game Genre)

But, if no… Just politely say farewell, and seek a compatable DM/Group.


Now, all that said, a lot of tables I've encountered (especially modern ones), the GMs really can't be bothered to talk about the game, and it's just "here's the specs, bring that", with no metagame conversation whatsoever. So… how this plays out at actual tables may vary.



(FMU: OD&D pretty much only had one World, and everyone used the same Rules/Mechanics.)

But, this was at least partially true even as far back as AD&D 1e.

Where it was assumed that if you were a "true player", you had at least already read all the "official" books on the Campaign Setting being used (Lots of "debate" of which was 'better': Greyhawk or Faerun), if not you actually owning all said books. If not - you were S*L.


***

And by AD&D 2e, Homebrewing started to become super popular. And the "flame wars" started in the mid 80s? (Not sure. I missed most of the early internet days) I do recall these in the 90s.


***

3.x was the Power Player's baby.
I really did like the system, but it was way too easy to ramp the Power into Overdrive.


***

4e? Kinda niche. I don't know much about this one.
Lots of old (mostly 3x) players went Pathfinder 1e, instead. Haven't seen PF 2e.


***

5e isn't really that much better.

Especially for players that easily compare 5e "Archetypes/Subclasses" with 3x "Prestige Classes". (With Grognards reminding everyone that, Back in the Day, Bards took 3 Classes to get (that wasn't really worth the effort), and Paladins were a Fighter {then Cavalier} subset.
"And don't get me started on the Original Barbarian!!" Or Monk...)

Although 5e is easy enough to learn that getting to the actual game usually doesn't take too long.
(As far as basic mechanics goes)

But, even here, Race and Class, Multiclassing and Feat Options between PHB, Xanathar's, Sword Coast Adventurers' Guide, and Elemental Evil Player's Companion (Backgrounds from Tomb of Annihilation and now Ghosts of Saltmarsh): and new Race options from Volo's and Mord's - it can quickly overwhelm new players. Heck, even old players (me) can find it hard to remember which is in what book.

Quertus
2019-06-18, 06:27 AM
Umm… is that trying to find the mini that "looks like" your PC? Where you hunt in every Gaming Store, RPG Convention, hobby shop, and even online to find it?
And once found, will Paint it to be "closer" to the actual description you have for the PC?

If so - wow. I'm impressed.

There is that, too, but when I say "playing piece", I mean the mechanics of the character, the difference between Knight and Rook and Bishop.

A Wizard with Fireball and Stinking Cloud who owns Boots of Speed and a Robe of Useful Things will play differently than one with Flight, Invisibility, and Polymorph who owns a Wand of Wonder and an Amulet of Caterpillar Control.


Ok. That can work, but not for all tables.

Jay R has firmly stated that "outside" PCs aren't allowed in his game/s. (No disrespect intended with the following, Jay R.)

If I gamed with him, my existing characters would be from his table.


So instead of reaching for your Huge Binder of (premade) Characters, perhaps make a new PC, with no "premade" history.

Does not compute. This unit not designed to play "error - history not found".

My characters all have backstory. The better ones also have history from time spent being played at actual tables. (EDIT: for clarity, time at the table makes them better - not just more solid, more tested, but also time spent playing the character is better than backstory.)


Like for the F4, instead of coming up with ways for Quertus (your PC) to be accepted by Mr Fantastic, (and your not wanting my Spiderman-variant) you create the equivalent of Iron Man, which is someone that Reed can both understand, and respect. (Even though Reed does not really study robots, nor did he study Robotic Engineering enough to build an exo-suit like what Iron Man is. Reed knows enough that how the suit works is based on the same "Scientific Laws" that he uses every day.)

I have several power suit characters; only one with play time (unless you count giant robot pilots). I could have used them as examples, except none would be interested in exploring new worlds under the guidance of Reed.


IC: Where are they from?
Pick your favorite >Marvel< City.

Is Marvel the one where I could just make a new "Metro City", "Steel City", etc, or was that DC?


What is the Suit?
The latest in Japanese design and tech?
Or the American Competition to that?

…. Lots more possible.

Ah, the old Marvel facerip system. It was my character's first action in the game, to build the Suit of Invulnerability… in a cave… with a box of scraps. :smallbiggrin: :smallcool:


Now, here can be the point of contention.

Because you don't want anyone changing your PC's history, could mean that most of your premade PCs will have problems being allowed into the game.

Anyone *wanting* to change my PC's history could be a huge point of contention - and an indication that they do not understand or appreciate human psychology and the effects of events on a person well enough to where I wouldn't constantly have to hold them back from taking a **** on the game.



As for being allowed into the game: See new PC above. (Changing to match Game Genre)

Eh, a) I picked characters I'd mentioned before; b) exploring the alternate realities created in Secret Wars, doesn't seem like home genre should matter, except that c) diversity of home genre in the party would be tactically advantageous.


3.x was the Power Player's baby.
I really did like the system, but it was way too easy to ramp the Power into Overdrive.

Balance to the table.

Quertus
2019-06-18, 10:35 AM
So, back to my question. When y'all collaborate on making interconnected backgrounds, from what I've heard, consensus is that major players in one's background, like siblings and spouses, are probably a bad idea. So that is at least part of why I only have experience with epic failure.

But, beyond that, step me through y'all's process. I'm trying to figure out what else went wrong, so step me through the process, assuming nothing beyond that I / we / they always fail at this, so we could be doing absolutely anything wrong.

Max_Killjoy
2019-06-18, 11:16 AM
I think I lost track at some point, but isn't this two different discussions?

1) GM and player collaborating on that player's PC's background.
2) Players collaborating on each other's PCs' backgrounds.

On the former, I'd consider it almost a necessity in any game I was running or playing in, so that the PC actually fits into the setting/world.

On the latter, I'd say "only if it's utterly voluntary and there's no pressure". Systems or tables where players get to impose elements into the PCs or PC backgrounds of other players are absolute non-starters for me.

MrSandman
2019-06-18, 11:31 AM
But, beyond that, step me through y'all's process. I'm trying to figure out what else went wrong, so step me through the process, assuming nothing beyond that I / we / they always fail at this, so we could be doing absolutely anything wrong.

Or maybe you could describe a real experience where it went amiss and we could talk concrete stuff instead of just beating around the bush with theoretical discussions, especially since several people have already described their process.

kitanas
2019-06-18, 12:59 PM
Anyone *wanting* to change my PC's history could be a huge point of contention - and an indication that they do not understand or appreciate human psychology and the effects of events on a person well enough to where I wouldn't constantly have to hold them back from taking a **** on the game.
Balance to the table.

I think this quote right here is indicative of the fundamental disconnect. Quertus, correct me if I am wrong, but do you believe that for a given set of life events, there is one and only possible personality that can result? That given enough information about a person's life or personality, someone could perfectly predict the other?

If so, that might be the issue, since mixing of players ideas and concepts into your backstory requires a fundamentally more "flexible" view of the human psyche

Lord Raziere
2019-06-18, 01:23 PM
I think I lost track at some point, but isn't this two different discussions?

1) GM and player collaborating on that player's PC's background.
2) Players collaborating on each other's PCs' backgrounds.

On the former, I'd consider it almost a necessity in any game I was running or playing in, so that the PC actually fits into the setting/world.

On the latter, I'd say "only if it's utterly voluntary and there's no pressure". Systems or tables where players get to impose elements into the PCs or PC backgrounds of other players are absolute non-starters for me.

Yeah probably. though I've never heard of any system or group of players being forced into connections like that, so I don't even see why you'd it bring it up, it seem pretty obvious to everyone that such a thing is always voluntary.

but this thread has been derailed into "everyone is baffled at Quertus's bizarre views and methods on roleplaying."

Great Dragon
2019-06-18, 01:34 PM
I mean, there is - it's part of the philosophy difference between editions (and systems).

I generally prefer the 2e way for D&D*, but 3e doesn't work too well / gets kinda clunky without a lot of extra effort from the GM unless you follow RAW item availability & crafting rules.

*Since it's been about 20 years since I really played 2e, could you explain this a little more?
I'm suspecting there is a difference between our experience with that system.

Which can be seen as your not really wanting to play anything but First Level 3x games.
Because you expect WBL to give you the items that you want at higher levels.

Ok, maybe a little harsh.
I'll try again.

Like, you might, when making a new 15th Level PC, in fact not expect for your Wizard to already have the Staff of the Archmagi.

But, you might "expect" to get a Ring of Protection +4. But, say the DM only wants to give a +3 Ring right away, placing the Ring +4/5 as part of the rewards in the Adventure.

Would this be acceptable?
Or would you feel that it wasn't fair, because your PC wasn't at "peak performance", as allowed by WBL?

(Note: I'm ballparking WBL to Item costs.
As stated, I don't have access to the books)


Actually, I was talking more "this character wouldn't work well on this adventure / with this party" than "this playing piece doesn't follow RAW".

Well, I was trying to show a little for why a Character might not be seen as compatible, despite following RAW.

Sure, I (personally) would allow the Double Greatsword Dueling Gnome into my 3x game, despite the fact that I kinda have problems really believing that being possible.


… by my definitions, a "hook" is a reason for a character to go on an adventure. So, the party is searching for Atlantis - why? For one character, their hook is "Fame"; for another, "Wealth"; for a third, "closure - my Dad went missing looking for Atlantis, and I'm hoping to find out what happened to him".

In a sandbox, by my definitions, the onus is on the players, not the GM, to match their characters' motivations to one or more pieces of content. The GM just provides content (which they believe capable of hooking most parties), and the players decide which hooks to follow.

That didn't make much sense - let me try again.

Actually, (I think) it did.
I'm thinking that for you, it's about choice.

In the "Bad DM" scene, you're only given the one choice: Follow "Plot".
With them "using" things from Background and Backstory to insert your PC.

Where the "Good DM" has "End Goal":

Gandalf may hear about orcs, and a Necromancer, and a Dragon, and some spiders, and lots of other things.
And lets "Gandalf" decide (hopefully after consulting the other PCs) which to pursue first.
But, maybe has it where only by engaging with everything (except maybe the spiders) do they find out about the "Real Threat" (Sauron).

And instead of sending two "innocent PCs" into Mordor, everyone finds a way to go on that journey, where they face Challenges together (and gain power, both through abilities (classes) and unique items.


Maybe Bilbo learns that the elves a) craft magic items, and b) are led by someone with a fear of dragons, and so c) tries to convince the Dragon to lean on the elves to produce magic items for the dwarves to use to conquer the humans, to split the wealth with the Dragon.

That would have been a rather interesting scene.


There is that, too, but when I say "playing piece", I mean the mechanics of the character, the difference between Knight and Rook and Bishop.

A Wizard with Fireball and Stinking Cloud who owns Boots of Speed and a Robe of Useful Things will play differently than one with Flight, Invisibility, and Polymorph who owns a Wand of Wonder and an Amulet of Caterpillar Control.

But, those differences are only known and noticed by you, unless you A) deliberately point them out to everyone OoC or B) use them during game play.

Although I think I understand:
Like lots of players thinking in terms of Team Role:
Tank (Warrior), Striker (Ranger/Rogue), Controller (Sor/Wiz), Support (Cleric).

Now, even here there can be some confusion, since there are people who take a Support and also Tank.


Does not compute. This unit not designed to play "error - history not found".

My characters all have backstory. The better ones also have history from time spent being played at actual tables. (EDIT: for clarity, time at the table makes them better - not just more solid, more tested, but also time spent playing the character is better than backstory.)


Anyone *wanting* to change my PC's history could be a huge point of contention - and an indication that they do not understand or appreciate human psychology and the effects of events on a person well enough to where I wouldn't constantly have to hold them back from taking a **** on the game.

The main point was that you were already having/deciding what the Backstory for every PC was: Ancestry, Birth, Childhood, Teen, and how the chosen Class and Background features were acquired, along with all the PC's Personality.

Where everyone else started from the other end, where things like Childhood and maybe even Teen events (while technically existing) were only filled out when/if it becomes important.

Like, I might choose the Outlander (Hunter) Background for my (PC Goal) Monster Slayer Ranger.

Now, I might place: "Raised by Gypsies" for Childhood events, but leave some details open for the DM. (Like who the Gypsy Leader was during that time)

And put "Learned to provide for Troup by hunting" as Teen Event. Meaning this is where the Outlander Background came from.
But, the exact details are left blank.

Adding "Found and trained by (Local) Ranger on how to become an even greater provider and protector" for how the PC got their Class. Again, leaving out the details of who that person was. (Name, Race, gender, level, etc)

Maybe listing starting equipment, Weapon, Armor, and Explorers Pack, and some gold coins.
(For this, I'd ask the DM what the PC had for starting gold. They either tell me what that is, or they allow me to Roll)

Personality isn't added until the game actually starts.


****
Now, some DMs not only like to see that, but tie things into specific Elements of their game.
Like if you take the Noble Background, they will pick which House within the (Starting) City the PC is from, and what the source of their income (or political influence) is.
(Hopefully working with the Player to create more details: Ancestors, Parents, Siblings, Cousins, etc)

I'd say this was the case with Jay R - But without knowing a lot more about both this person and their Game setup, it would be rude for me to do more than guess. As such, I'll let them confirm or deny.


Is Marvel the one where I could just make a new "Metro City", "Steel City", etc, or was that DC?
DC Heroes RPG, I believe.

But then both Marvel and DC have "infinite" Multiverses, which is why you could "find" NYC on an Island in the middle of the Atlantic ocean.


I have several power suit characters; only one with play time (unless you count giant robot pilots). I could have used them as examples, except none would be interested in exploring new worlds under the guidance of Reed.


Ah, the old Marvel facerip system. It was my character's first action in the game, to build the Suit of Invulnerability… in a cave… with a box of scraps. :smallbiggrin: :smallcool:

Again, sometimes examples are just examples.

I was sticking with the "Reed" reference and using Marvel's Iron Man as a basis for the (new) Powersuit PC.


Balance to the table.
Is brought by everyone coming to the table.

What I might be having problems understanding, is my "seeing" that you're tending to blend Character Personality with Player Attitude.

Now, it could also be that your simply combining "everything" together, Crunch and Fluff plus "psychological" ramifications on how a "Real Person" (like from our RL world) would believe and behave, based on those things.

Max_Killjoy
2019-06-18, 02:58 PM
Yeah probably. though I've never heard of any system or group of players being forced into connections like that, so I don't even see why you'd it bring it up, it seem pretty obvious to everyone that such a thing is always voluntary.


There is a well-known system or family of systems where "the player to your left gets to decide something about your PC" is SOP, and my search-fu is failing me on confirming which it is.

And there are multiple "indie" games where even more such "around the table" is SOP.

Quertus
2019-06-18, 09:57 PM
Or maybe you could describe a real experience where it went amiss and we could talk concrete stuff instead of just beating around the bush with theoretical discussions, especially since several people have already described their process.

That would be beneficial. Even if the Playground gave no input, just putting it into words, trying to explain it to others, I might see it better for myself.

Unfortunately, it would require me to remember the details well enough to do so. :smallfrown:


I think this quote right here is indicative of the fundamental disconnect. Quertus, correct me if I am wrong, but do you believe that for a given set of life events, there is one and only possible personality that can result? That given enough information about a person's life or personality, someone could perfectly predict the other?

If so, that might be the issue, since mixing of players ideas and concepts into your backstory requires a fundamentally more "flexible" view of the human psyche

It doesn't matter whether you follow Deterministic or Chaos Theory logic, you're still looking at the problem upside down.

Namely, whether or not a given set of inputs could produce one or multiple outcomes, changing the inputs changes which outcome(s) exist in the set of possibilities.

It's people wanting to change the inputs, but expecting the same output, that I am decrying.


*Since it's been about 20 years since I really played 2e, could you explain this a little more?
I'm suspecting there is a difference between our experience with that system.

In 2e, by RAW, a 1st level character could roll a Staff of the Magi on the random treasure table.

Enough said?


Which can be seen as your not really wanting to play anything but First Level 3x games.
Because you expect WBL to give you the items that you want at higher levels.

Ok, maybe a little harsh.

The game designers put in rules for item availability, so… I think RAW is pretty clear on what you can expect to get where, and how the developers expected the game to be balanced.

That said, if you spend your wealth differently than they did, play the classes differently than they did, or in any way deviate from their expectations (including restricting expenditures beyond RAW), the results on game balance are undefined.



I'll try again.

Like, you might, when making a new 15th Level PC, in fact not expect for your Wizard to already have the Staff of the Archmagi.

But, you might "expect" to get a Ring of Protection +4. But, say the DM only wants to give a +3 Ring right away, placing the Ring +4/5 as part of the rewards in the Adventure.

Would this be acceptable?
Or would you feel that it wasn't fair, because your PC wasn't at "peak performance", as allowed by WBL?

(Note: I'm ballparking WBL to Item costs.
As stated, I don't have access to the books)

There are much better things to spend WBL on than said +4 ring. So, no, it has nothing to do with what's "optimal".

Except… balance to the table. If I do *everything* that's optimal, that won't be balanced to most tables.

What isn't "fair" is the GM deviating from RAW to make it more difficult for me to balance to the table.

If what's balanced to the table is me starting with a free +5 ring, then the GM should do *that*. The GM wanting to give a +4 as a "reward" is getting in the way of them doing what's right.

You should define your principles, define what's "right", and stick to that. Is it balance? Then ignore WBL, ignore what you want to give as a reward, and make balance happen, however it needs to happen. Is it having rules? Then follow RAW, ignoring balance or what you want the players to lack, so that you can give it as a reward.

Honestly, just typing it, "I want you to lack this thing, so that I can reward you with it" sounds pretty dysfunctional. Seems to me like you should reward people with what they want, rather than engineering a want to fit your intended reward.

Also, it's not like I'd make a new 15th level character, when of course I'd run an existing one. Haven't we been through this? :smallwink:

-----

In short, there's the "lawful" approach, where you follow RAW. And there's the "Chaotic" approach, where you ignore RAW, and balance to the table. Anything else, and the GM is not only in uncharted waters, but they've foolishly set themselves up to where everything is their fault.


Well, I was trying to show a little for why a Character might not be seen as compatible, despite following RAW.

I think my party of the Paladin, the Assassin, the Undead Hunter, and his dear childhood friend, the Undead Master has that covered.


And lets "Gandalf" decide (hopefully after consulting the other PCs) which to pursue first.
But, maybe has it where only by engaging with everything (except maybe the spiders) do they find out about the "Real Threat" (Sauron).

And instead of sending two "innocent PCs" into Mordor, everyone finds a way to go on that journey, where they face Challenges together (and gain power, both through abilities (classes) and unique items.

Gandalf is the GM's best friend / ****, to whom the GM imparts lots of information that he doesn't share, while he constantly abandons the party, runs off and has solo adventures.


That would have been a rather interesting scene.

Cinematically? Iffy. But at an RPG table? Utilizing the tools that the GM put fourth in unexpected ways is the best.

Zzzzz…(falls asleep)

Satinavian
2019-06-19, 02:11 AM
In short, there's the "lawful" approach, where you follow RAW. And there's the "Chaotic" approach, where you ignore RAW, and balance to the table. Anything else, and the GM is not only in uncharted waters, but they've foolishly set themselves up to where everything is their fault.

House rules and special campaign rules are a thing. If a group doesn't use WBL, it just doesn't. And no, considering how horrible the balance in 3.x can be that does not make it automatically less balanced. Whatever replaces WBL is probably more fit to whatever the group wants gear to be.

But of course, if the group has houserules, that makes importing characters more difficult, considering they might no longer be rules-legal and would have to be converted.

Great Dragon
2019-06-19, 02:24 AM
Actual Questions ignored.
Noted.



It doesn't matter whether you follow Deterministic or Chaos Theory logic, you're still looking at the problem upside down.

Namely, whether or not a given set of inputs could produce one or multiple outcomes, changing the inputs changes which outcome(s) exist in the set of possibilities.

It's people wanting to change the inputs, but expecting the same output, that I am decrying.

Actually, they are putting in different inputs, and never knowing the output in advance.



In 2e, by RAW, a 1st level character could roll a Staff of the Magi on the random treasure table.

Enough said?

Yep. Different experiences.

Sure, it was possible, but the odds of that happening (for any specific magic item) are beyond my abilities to calculate.

IiRC, by RAW, it was the DM that did the random roll/s for possible magic items, not the Player.

If I'm mistaken, by all means post the relevant information, preferably into a Spoiler.


The game designers put in rules for item availability, so… I think RAW is pretty clear on what you can expect to get where, and how the developers expected the game to be balanced.

That said, if you spend your wealth differently than they did, play the classes differently than they did, or in any way deviate from their expectations (including restricting expenditures beyond RAW), the results on game balance are undefined.

Umm, isn't deviation from expectations the entire point of an RPG?


There are much better things to spend WBL on than said +4 ring. So, no, it has nothing to do with what's "optimal".

Except… balance to the table. If I do *everything* that's optimal, that won't be balanced to most tables.

What isn't "fair" is the GM deviating from RAW to make it more difficult for me to balance to the table.

If what's balanced to the table is me starting with a free +5 ring, then the GM should do *that*. The GM wanting to give a +4 as a "reward" is getting in the way of them doing what's right.

You should define your principles, define what's "right", and stick to that. Is it balance? Then ignore WBL, ignore what you want to give as a reward, and make balance happen, however it needs to happen. Is it having rules? Then follow RAW, ignoring balance or what you want the players to lack, so that you can give it as a reward.

Honestly, just typing it, "I want you to lack this thing, so that I can reward you with it" sounds pretty dysfunctional. Seems to me like you should reward people with what they want, rather than engineering a want to fit your intended reward.

Bringing in your "Experienced" premade Characters means that everything about them should already be known, and recorded.
(Racial abilities) (Background benefits)
Class abilities and power/s (and not just spells) based on Level
Equipment and all Magic Items

Heck, if you wanted to do "DM Hopping" with a Character, it was required that you kept the original Character Sheet, any Permanent change to the PC was put on a new Sheet (along with the date of said change/s), and you recorded at least summaries of every game session for that Character with each DM.

In some cases, contact information for each DM was also needed. Since there were too many players would try to get more than they had "earned".

Never had that problem?
Lucky you.

As such, you absolutely cannot bring "balance" to the table with any of them.
Since you couldn't have known what the other Players had, or what "Plot" the DM had chosen.

Making a new PC, with the aid of the DM, absolutely can "bring balance" to the table.
Especially when all the PCs have connections.
(Something you've made clear you're not willing to do)


I think my party of the Paladin, the Assassin, the Undead Hunter, and his dear childhood friend, the Undead Master has that covered.

Nope, I can think of several ways that can work.
But, that's just me, I guess.

"Unlikely" is different from "beyond belief".

Now, if you told me the LG Paladin was Redemption Oath, The NE Rogue Assassin was a mercenary that will betray friends, and The Undead Hunter was clueless about his best friend, the LE Undead Master's, true goal of becoming a Lich?

Then, yeah.
Not a compatible Party, normally.


Gandalf is the GM's best friend / ****, to whom the GM imparts lots of information that he doesn't share, while he constantly abandons the party, runs off and has solo adventures.

Sure, and if I find that I'm "Sam" in that situation, I'd ignore *Gandolf" and I'd leave with my trusted best friend/s to see if we might actually save (or conquer) the world.

And if I'm stuck following whatever "subplot" they are doing, or being railroaded (in this case given LotR cutscenes for my PC's "Encounters") to a specific end.

I'll just politely tell the GM that I won't be returning to their game.

I don't support "GM's best buddy" games.


In short, there's the "lawful" approach, where you follow RAW. And there's the "Chaotic" approach, where you ignore RAW, and balance to the table. Anything else, and the GM is not only in uncharted waters, but they've foolishly set themselves up to where everything is their fault.

And what about DMs like me?
That don't do either "Lawful" or "Chaotic"?


Zzzzz…(falls asleep)

I'm hoping that's not a "subtle hint" that you'd like for me to no longer engage with you in this conversation.

Quertus
2019-06-19, 06:16 PM
So, let me outline my basic points: I am not, on principle, opposed to making character backgrounds together.
In practice, however, I only remember seeing it fail, badly, so I am opposed to, personally, doing so under the old paradigm / without having learned something potentially relevant since those days.
Further, most players are opposed to the lag between when we would sit down to create characters together, and when I would be ready to play.
I am in no way opposed to others linking their backgrounds together (although, that said, I might be wary of those I've previously seen fail seemingly because of doing so, especially if they give no indication of having learned anything since their last attempt)
Anything I have created, I have done so for a purpose. Changing those things generally defeats the purpose. Thus, I am opposed to the GM changing the background of my characters, as it defeats the point of me making them in the first place.
If I had a GM with sufficient understanding of human psychology (they could answer questions of the ilk of "what do you know about a customer from the question, 'how much is this?'", they didn't believe that they could just change background elements or badly roleplay background NPCs without it impacting the character, etc), and they were willing to take the time to work through things with me, I would not be opposed to collaborating with a GM on a character's background.

Anything that seems to contradict these points, assume that it is misunderstood, misstated, mistyped, or conditional (ie, just because I love blueberries doesn't mean I love them on pizza).

Actually, rather than the bulleted list I had planned, I'm going to start here:


House rules and special campaign rules are a thing. If a group doesn't use WBL, it just doesn't. And no, considering how horrible the balance in 3.x can be that does not make it automatically less balanced. Whatever replaces WBL is probably more fit to whatever the group wants gear to be.

But of course, if the group has houserules, that makes importing characters more difficult, considering they might no longer be rules-legal and would have to be converted.

As a rule, I don't really do "conversion" - the character works, or it doesn't. That aside…

Yes, GMs make house rules - sometimes, really cool ones. My point (other than being written from the PoV that house rules usually are bad, to the tune of "worse than what they were replacing", IME) was simply that if you deviate from any of numerous requirements, you have left the confines of the very, very narrow section of possibilities where the game was actually tested, and where concepts like CR and WBL have defined value. If you choose to leave those confines, you enter "any rules you make, it's on you if they break" territory.

(For fear of losing this reply, I'll stop here, and edit in my off-topic list later)







Lastly, my "Zzzzz… (falls asleep)" comment was the most coherent i could manage after realizing I had rambled on about rutabagas (and their ilk) for several paragraphs of walking dream that i deleted before submitting my previous post.

Great Dragon
2019-06-20, 12:34 AM
@Quertus:
Ah. I'm relieved.

Thank you for the summery.

I'll try to do the same.


*****
I seek to understand everyone's viewpoint.
(Sometimes asking questions until I do understand, can be annoying. Apologies if I did this)

I will try to have everyone come to a common ground.

I don't ever force anyone to do something they dislike. (Sometimes I'll get carried away trying to show "options")

Player Attitude is more important than Character Personality.

I will do my best to help someone build their Character, from understanding Game Rules to Backstory. And I encourage teamwork.

Personally, I prefer Balanced Characters, able to handle all the different types of play:
Social, Exploring, and Combat.
Being better in one is hard to avoid, in most RPGs.


*****

Well, I believe we have reached an end point.
Unless otherwise notified.

Thanks for the conversation, Quertus.

I look forward to discussing the next subject.