DM-only backstory in modules

[Shadowslayer]

Have other people noticed a tendency in modules to give all sorts of cool backstory to the DM that it's impossible (or nearly so) for the players to ever learn about, so that what seems like a really cool set-up to the DM is incoherent and/or meaningless from the perspective of the players?

Maybe its because they know some people will complain that just putting a monster in an empty room with no explanation offends their sensibilities as "enlightened" gamers. After all a monster can't just be there as a challenge for the PCs, can it? There needs to be a reason for it being there, in the minds of many. So they provide you with one to make you feel you've gotten your money's worth.

 

[NCSUCodeMonkey]

I want enough backstory so that when the PCs do something completely outside of the realm of the printed adventure, I can extrapolate what should happen. If all I've got is a bunch of encounters with boxed text, stats, and "when the players go here, X happens," it's really difficult to make logical decisions when the players go off the beaten path. This is especially true because they often return to the beaten path later; if what you've made up in the meantime doesn't mesh with the ideas behind the adventure, the adventure tends to fly apart at the seams.

At least, that's been my experience. Maybe I'm just bad at running modules

NCSUCodeMonkey

 

[cfmcdonald]

Maybe its because they know some people will complain that just putting a monster in an empty room with no explanation offends their sensibilities as "enlightened" gamers. After all a monster can't just be there as a challenge for the PCs, can it? There needs to be a reason for it being there, in the minds of many. So they provide you with one to make you feel you've gotten your money's worth.

Good discussion guys, it's interesting to see so many different viewpoints. Shadowslayer, that was sort of my point. I guess I'm one of those gamers who thinks a monster should have a reason to be there. I also think that the players, not just the DM, should at least have a chance to understand that reason, and say 'a-ha!' I don't think there's anything wrong with mysteries, as long as they are mysterious and not just arbitrary or invisible (ie non-mysterious) from the point of view of the PCs.

As another example from the Eberron modules (not to pick on them, but I just read them recently), there's a villian who appears in several different guises throughout the series, but there's no reason for the players to suspect it's the same person, and there's no big reveal at the end. If the DM doesn't go out of his way to drop extra hints the PCs will never even know they had a nemesis.

 

[billd91]

There's a middle ground in all of this.

A certain amount of backstory, even if there's no mechanism for the PCs to uncover it, is useful for the DM to adjudicate the situation and provides versimilitude. Besides, players can be notoriously resouceful when it comes to figuring this stuff out. And if an enigmatic encounter catches their fancy, they might delve more into figuring it out.

Backstory also helps a DM adapt a module for his own campaign and may suggest side-adventures and other things to do.

There's a point of diminishing returns where the backstory can be too cumbersome to be worth the space and effort devoted to it.

 

[Shadowslayer]

I guess I'm one of those gamers who thinks a monster should have a reason to be there.

Actually, me too. I realize my tone may have suggested otherwise. On the other hand, I'm not a stickler...lots of old modules often had a weird room or two where nothing made sense (treasure chest on the ceiling...that kind of stuff) It never hampered my enjoyment that it never got explained. It was just a puzzle. Some guys hate that. I think it can be fun.

I think most game designers feel the need to explain everything these days, as gamers (at least the vocal ones) want something a little more sophisticated. Whether thats good or bad I'll leave to others to decide.

Cheers.

 

[smerwin29]

I think a main point to pull out of this great thread is that if you are writing a module for publication, write the "DM's Background" section last, only after you have written the actual adventure encounters. This avoids the problem I have seen with some writers who, since they write it down early, assume subconsciously that the background is apparent to the players.

While editing RPGA mods, I saw far too many cases of this problem. As people have stated, it's fine to give the DM some background information that the PCs may never learn as a way to give direction for NPC motivation, side treks, etc. I too love to read modules for that reason. However, there are those two cases where the inclusion of background information, especially irrelevant information, actually hurts the mod: (1) when the background information is important to the adventure but there is no way for the PCs to learn it, and (2) when the module is a tournament-type scenario where there is a time limit and the judge may have not had a long time to prepare the module.

In one RPGA scenario I edited, probably 10% of the module was an extensive background of a situation that started 500 years in the past. In reality, none of this information was relevant to the module. A member of one of the factions was in stasis for 500 years, and the PCs had to deal with it after it awakes. The pages of background could have been summarized in a paragraph explaining what this newly awakened creature thought and what it would try to do.

Of course, if this was a module that a DM wanted to incorporate into a campaign, all of that background might have been useful. But for a tournament module it just took up valuable time and space.

Regards,

Shawn

 

[howandwhy99]

Have other people noticed a tendency in modules to give all sorts of cool backstory to the DM that it's impossible (or nearly so) for the players to ever learn about, so that what seems like a really cool set-up to the DM is incoherent and/or meaningless from the perspective of the players?
snips examples

I've skimmed the rest of the thread, but do not have time to read everything. Here's my two cents just in case it hasn't been mentioned yet.

I think there are two things being referred to here:

On the one hand, I believe you are referring to the "Tarrasque in a 20x20 room" problem. Essentially, the players are exploring a dungeon, open a door, and encounter a seemingly implausible monster. In the module text a perfectly valid justification is given that explains away why the Tarrasque is in the room, but often this has little or nothing to do with anything else going on in the dungeon. Moreover, because it is so disconnected, the players have little chance of ever learning why (or better yet predicting) the Tarrasque is there anyways. So it ends up as wasted space and the encounter looks absurd.

On the other hand, it sounds like you might be questioning the ease of characters' access to the background which underpins the dungeon's design. This is different than the after-the-fact justification above as the background creates context for the entire adventure. It is why the dungeon was built as it was, the monsters act as they do, why the treasure is horded where it lies, and a whole lot more. Because of that, I personally find dungeons built logically, but with absurd creatures (like a Tarrasque) entice players more to ask questions, explore, and test things out. If they are observant and smart, then the background is slowly discovered. If not, then they may never discover every clue but can still enjoy the dungeon.

If you are having the first problem (Tarrasque in a 20x20 room), then the designer probably constructed the dungeon first and came up with the background after the fact. This is fine as it places the emphasis on "cool ideas" rather than internally coherent ones. White Plume Mountain is an excellent example of this. This problem is difficult to fix, but a good DM can create a backstory that explains most encounters and rewrite the rest. If you don't want to go to all that work you could simply use each disconnected background bit as a hook into another adventure. Unfortunately, this still prevents characters from predicting what they may soon face and all of what is happening around them. But that is not unusual in the real world either.

If you are referring to the second problem (an inaccessible background), then the designer may not have extrapolated enough from the adventure background or created enough clues for the characters to find while exploring. It may also be the players are not tracking this information closely enough either. Or they may not even be interested in the dungeon's make up to predict what and where things will be. This can be dangerous, but it depends on your preferred style of play. The Mud Sorceror's Tomb is a good example of where not paying attention to their surroundings can get a group killed.

Personally, I prefer using the second method of dungeon creation (form follows function), rather than loosely stringing things together . I find the obstruction of sticking to the background forces me to be creative and to keep tying my creations in to the original premises. However, I don't think either method really is better than the other. Sometimes you'll have a great idea that does not pertain to the original background, but you still want to include it. I find myself writing up subplots in these cases. However, it's essential the PC's can at some point learn each rationale no matter what the encounter/room/trap/treasure is. I suggest creating a list of clues above and beyond the ones offered by the module just in case your players have trouble in certain cases. Just try and run through things from a character's perspective. This also serves as a good doublecheck in case any glaring errors were missed.

 

[MerricB]

As another example from the Eberron modules (not to pick on them, but I just read them recently), there's a villian who appears in several different guises throughout the series, but there's no reason for the players to suspect it's the same person, and there's no big reveal at the end.

I'm going to call you on this one: this *is* revealed at the end. See page 30 of Grasp of the Emerald Claw. (encounter 40). There are other major flaws with the Eberron adventures, but that isn't one of them.

Cheers!

 

[Crothian]

Yes it does. If you walked into a movie that didn't make sense at all (with the occasional exception such as Mulholland Drive), you'd want your money back.

I could go on, but I can't believe that there isn't concensus on this issue in the direction I'm pushing - as far as I can tell it's a no-brainer, and it must be some weird DM culture thing which is up against it.

So, all adventures have to make complete sense for the players. There can nefer be any confusion or mystery. All the answers have to be provided for the players and there can not be secrets the PCs are unable to find out in the module?

I don't believe that. I think having things not explained can keepo the players involved. It gives them soemthing to search for to find answers. But I do like that since you can't understand it it has to be wierd, that's so nice of you. :\

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Backstory is one of those places where the woefully underused Bardic Lore skill really shines. Try it, you will come to love having a bard in your game.

The Auld Grump