DM-only backstory in modules

[Mark CMG]

On the one hand, I believe you are referring to the "Tarrasque in a 20x20 room" problem.

I missed that the first time through. You might be right. Nice catch.

 

[cfmcdonald]

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!

Good call, I missed that. It's enough of a hint that sharp players will catch it and say, "ah-ha!", which is key.

 

[Sigurd]

bill91 -- I think you've got the most reasonable summary of this all.


I think the process at the heart of this is that module writers fall in love with their own story, after all, telling is a form of very personal role playing. If the story exhausts them or they cannot escape its allure writers might not create enough resources to expose that story to the players. Certainly, on one level, this is failure to serve the players.

The Tolkien allusion is very apt. The Silmarillion deffinately contributed to the writing of the Lord of the Rings\Hobbit but its forced inclusion into the text of the main books might have destroyed the series. Who would read a book with 2 chapters of lineage after each introduced character? But for those that choose to seek it, the background works are the point of departure for story extensions. The backstory can create a logical framework to serve and align exposed storyline.

If your big baddy is the child of a Devil and a Millers wife that suggests a type of magic (lawful evil) and a setting element.

The backstory can serve the construction of the tale. So long as the backstory is intrinsic to the situation it is a plus. It may only justify a situation and not be exposed elegantly to the players but I think it is contributes to the structure of the story. It may not be a plus you choose to avail yourself of but that's true of every element of a module.

Everyone is right except those who deny others their preference.


Sigurd

 

[BWP]

You've taken it out of context. This is what I was disagreeing with: "but having a backstory that the players might not discover doesn't make a moduiile bad either." I say, yes, it does.

I took nothing out of context; that's exactly the point which I replied to. I'm afraid you're still wrong, for exactly the same reasons that I stated earlier. Good, relevant backstory cannot make a module bad. (Note especially "relevant".)

The DM, of course, can always make any changes that he likes to the backstory, including deleting it. That's up to him.

If you don't care about entertaining your players, you won't care about this either I suppose.

Where did that come from? If I as DM know something that the players don't, suddenly they're bored?

I know it can be frustrating as a player not knowing what's going on. I trust that one way or the other it will become clear in time. That's part of the "adventuring experience". Or the game experience, whichever you prefer.

There's a reason why movies bother to go "100 years earlier..." or "one week later" and present a flashback prior to the main story.

Actually, the usual reason is that the movie's producers aim their film at the lowest common denominator, and therefore assume that the audience are unobservant idiots with no ability to join dots. (Unfortunately, a lot of the time they're absolutely right.) Personally, I generally assume that my players are smarter than that. A lot smarter.

Yeah, it's that ridiculous...

Yes, that pretty accurately sums up your argument.

 

[rounser]

I took nothing out of context; that's exactly the point which I replied to. I'm afraid you're still wrong, for exactly the same reasons that I stated earlier. Good, relevant backstory cannot make a module bad. (Note especially "relevant".)

Nope, still think your comment is apropos to nothing as far as my point goes. Doesn't apply. Neither here nor there. Irrelevant backstory to the point I was refuting, if you like. Why? Because you're not saying the same thing as the point I was replying to! It's pretty simple really!

Where did that come from? If I as DM know something that the players don't, suddenly they're bored?

Not necessarily bored...could be apathy, or whatever removal of story does to player's interest in the game. Probably makes it drop.

I know it can be frustrating as a player not knowing what's going on. I trust that one way or the other it will become clear in time. That's part of the "adventuring experience". Or the game experience, whichever you prefer.

Well, there's the key. "Become clear in time". I'm not arguing against you then, just making the point that adventures that have backstory that the story doesn't make sense without also knowing, and which is either impossible for PCs to discover, or likely for them to miss, is usually poor adventure design, or poor DMing.

Actually, the usual reason is that the movie's producers aim their film at the lowest common denominator, and therefore assume that the audience are unobservant idiots with no ability to join dots. (Unfortunately, a lot of the time they're absolutely right.) Personally, I generally assume that my players are smarter than that. A lot smarter.

I disagree - telling a story properly doesn't insult the intelligence of the audience. It's just the art of telling a good yarn, and not leaving the story equivalent of the punchline of the joke in the backstory, and never revealing it to the PCs. Sure, the DM "gets it", but ideally the players should be entertained by the story too.

I also dispute that it's a reflection of Hollywood-style dumbing down to have flashbacks; there are plenty of movies and TV "whodunnits" where you can't just guess at what happened ten years beforehand for the story to make any sense. Usually, for the writers to bother, it seems that it's the thing that makes the story go (such as a murder or a cause for revenge). Unless this sort of thing is revealed by some means, eventually (even murder mysteries get around to revealing all eventually), then the story isn't going to make a hell of a lot of sense, because you're presenting the effect without ever explaining the cause.

Yes, that pretty accurately sums up your argument.

Yeah, good on ya...