How much back story do you allow/expect at the start of the game?

Desdichado · Nov 17, 2017

Ovinomancer said:
For background, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] prefers Burning Wheel style games that involve a good bit of tension and competition for story direction. From his point of view, skill at manipulating the game does earn you more spotlight time. Really, for any story first style game, someone that it adept at pushing their agenda in play will more often than not succeed, thus earning more of a share of the spotlight. But, as you note, doing this intentionally is more a sign of narcissism rather than how it should be. Which is why I find the bald statement that superior skill should result in more spotlight time to be at least somewhat worrisome. Acknowledging that social and interpersonal skills and interest in the game vary and this has an effect is one thing, but stating that those variances should be welcomed is against what I believe is the point of a cooperative game.

Ah. Well, that's why we have different tables, so different people with different styles can all have the game that they want, I suppose. It strikes me as a big mistake, or disingenuity to talk about a Burning Wheel paradigm as if it is going to be commonplace in D&D, or have anything to do with D&D at all, though. Unless, of course, he's proposing adapting some element of Burning Wheel specifically into D&D, which I did not notice that he is.

But I'm with you there too; that has nothing with how I play D&D, or for that matter, how anyone I've ever heard of who plays D&D plays D&D. So at best, it's an odd non sequitur that will confuse readers rather than help them.

Caliban · Nov 17, 2017

You don't need to be a better roleplayer to hog the spotlight at a gaming table. A player's personal charisma and force of personality can override anything on their character sheet.

Someone can build a combat monster with zero social skills, but still end up being the "face" of the party because the player is more proactive about talking to the NPC's than the person playing the bard. (This can be because the person playing the bard just really isn't good at social stuff, or because the person playing the brute is hogging the spotlight.)

Or build a brain dead diplomancer (Charming but dumb), but still end up controlling combats because they are a better at strategy and the other players expect them to give them a plan to execute, regardless of what character they are playing.

Some players are very willing to go along with things like this - they are just there to roll dice and hang out, they don't mind taking a backseat. Others will be competitive about it and get annoyed if they feel overshadowed.

All you can do is try to adjust the game to suit the players preferences and playing styles (and your own) and try to do better next time if it doesn't work out.

We aren't professional actors (most of us anyway) or writers. This isn't Shakespeare and it isn't a military wargame for high stakes. Just relax a bit and try to have some fun.

pemerton · Nov 17, 2017

Caliban said:
You don't need to be a better roleplayer to hog the spotlight at a gaming table. A player's personal charisma and force of personality can override anything on their character sheet.

Someone can build a combat monster with zero social skills, but still end up being the "face" of the party because the player is more proactive about talking to the NPC's than the person playing the bard.

<snip>

Or build a brain dead diplomancer (Charming but dumb), but still end up controlling combats because they are a better at strategy and the other players expect them to give them a plan to execute, regardless of what character they are playing.

I would consider those to be examples of skill at roleplaying: the former is an example of what I mean by trying to drive or shape the fiction; the second (if combat is a tactical minigame of the D&D sort) is wargaming/boardgaming skill brought to bear in a RPG context.

I'm not talking about annunciation or funny voices. I'm talking about proactively engaging the situation with which the PCs are confronted. Doing that is a skill, and I think players who have more of that skill will typically end up having a bigger infuence on how things unfold in the game.

Desdichado · Nov 17, 2017

pemerton said:
But if the player doesn't bite (to mix some metaphors) - and I've seen this happen, especially in club-type groups with all sorts of people turning up - then there I don't think there is an onus on everyone else to play a tepid game so that the timid player isn't any less influential on the shape of things.

(And in my experience, some of those timid players are still learning the game, and will be looking for models of less-timid play that they can learn from; and some others aren't really that into RPGing, or take pleasure from RPGing that isn't connected to shaping the direction of play, and so won't mind that others have more influence. If there are timid players who aren't interesting in engaging and driving the fiction, and yet want the fiction to invovle their PCs to the same extent of the PCs of others - they seem, in effect, to be asking the GM to control the fiction and tell everyone, including them, a story about their PCs. I personally don't like that sort of RPGing, either as GM or player.)

And this is why I ask questions. Much more is now clear, and what seemed bizarre to me now seems... well, it's not really all that different than how I play, I probably just would have described it differently, maybe. Player skill to me has ALWAYS had that connotation of competitive tournament style play that was briefly popular during the advent of AD&D. Talking about the social dynamic between outgoing vs more introverted players is something that I wouldn't have called skill, but I see what you mean there.

And it's true that for every group there are usually a few people that are more extroverted than not. [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] will of course remember the game I ran for quite some time a number of years ago where he and [MENTION=812]barsoomcore[/MENTION] and their characters Lash and Ricardo basically "took over" a six character ensemble cast, drove the direction the game went, etc. I did occasionally worry that some of the other players weren't getting as much of the spotlight as they should, but that's part of reading the group dynamic, I think. The rest of the group seem to be as amused by the chemistry between those two characters as I was, and were more than content to let them do their thing, contributing to the development of the game as they felt like it, rather than jockeying for time in the spotlight. When I tried to give other characters more opportunities to step forward, as often as not they passed, or just didn't do much with them.

I don't know that it was any skill at play though, as opposed to their desire in that particular campaign, driven by a combination of personality, mood, and group dynamic.

Ovinomancer · Nov 17, 2017

pemerton said:
Backyard cricket isn't competitive. One person bats, with everyone else fielding, until that person goes out. Then the one who got them out (generally bowled or caught) goes in to bat until s/he goes out. Etc, until we all decide there's some other way we'd like to spend our time.

Everyone is participating, but those who are better at batting, bowling or catching will exercise a greater degree of control over the flow of things. That's not a normative proposition: it's an observation based on experience.

You have a very, very strange definition of competitive to not see that your description is clearly competitive. It's a friendly competition, sure, but you only bat (the reward) if you defeat the current batter by fielding against them successfully.

In RPGing, my experience is that players whose PCs are more vividly realised, whose interest in the fiction is greater, who declare actions whereby their PCs take charge of the situation, will exercise a greater influence over the flow and direction of play than those whose PCs are ciphers, whose interest in the fiction is only passing, and who dont' declare actions for their PCs.

That's not normative; it's an observation.

Your next paragraphs clearly state that you think it normative as well. I'm confused as to why you'd post this and then immediately contradict it?

[MENTION=32740]Man in the Funny Hat[/MENTION] asked "Because other players are better roleplayers are they to be given all the attention and glory at the cost of always relegating other PC's to token importance and easily replaced by any other disposable character?" Putting the hyberbolic rhetoric to one side (there is little glory in RPGing; and the question is more interesting if we ignore the "always" and just consider it as "sometimes), that's a serious question. MitFH clearly thinks the answer is "no" - that the GM should modulate the fiction so that those players who lack skill as roleplayers get comparable spotlight on their PCs, and don't have less influence on how the game unfolds.

I don't agree with that proposition. I want the players in my games to bring their roleplaying skill, to engage with the fiction, to drive things via their PCs (including their PC backstories). One consequence of that is a proportionate degree of influence on the game.

Meaning you think it normative.

If some players are happier having a less prominent role, that's fine. If they want their PCs to be just as central to the events in the fiction, though, then they have to engage the fiction and try and drive it. My own experience, for what it's worth, that most peopel who enjoy RPGing can do this if they try, because their enjoyment of RPGing is one manifestation of a broader enjoyment of stories and of characters.

You cannot substitute desire for engagement with skill at engagement, though -- they aren't fungible qualities. If you're defending the proposition that skilled players should be rewarded by driving the narrative more often, you're accepting that less skilled, but equally engaged, players will get less opportunity to do so.

Again, this doesn't surprise me given your choice of playstyle and your previous descriptions of how you engage it.

EDIT: A further thought triggered by [MENTION=2205]Hobo[/MENTION]'s post.

There is an approach to RPGing which downplays story and character, and amplifies the wargaming/tactical element. Gygax advocates for this in his PHB (towards the end of the book, under the "Successful Adventures" heading). In D&D, an important element of doing this is planning and logistics: choosing gear; choosing spell load out; mapping well; having a good familiarity with typical dungeon tropes; etc.

I've played a bit of D&D along these lines, and much more Rolemaster where this stuff is important.

Skill is a huge factor in this sort of play. In my experience, good wargamers often are good at this sort of stuff. And the skilled players - the ones who come up with the plans, who can map out effective spell load-outs, etc - exercise a greater influence over the shape and direction of play than those players who just go along for the ride until it's time to roll a save or an attack or whatever.

Whatever the vehicle whereby players get to shape the flow of the game - whether by the wargaming stuff that Gygax was into, or the character/story stuff that is important in "indie"-type RPGs - some players will be better at it, or do more of it, than some other players.

There are obviously standard social norms around this stuff - when I'm playing bridge or 500 with my hardcore friends I'll follow the play and count the cards more closely than if I'm playing with less serious players just to pass the time - but that's a general feature of all games, not just RPGs, and the GM doesn't have any special role in relation to that when it comes to RPGing: if it's polite to open up space for a weaker player, well that falls onto the other players (to life their foot off the pedal) just as much as it might fall onto the GM (to provide that player with some opening).

But if the player doesn't bite (to mix some metaphors) - and I've seen this happen, especially in club-type groups with all sorts of people turning up - then there I don't think there is an onus on everyone else to play a tepid game so that the tepid player isn't any less influential on the shape of things.

Again, you falsely compare skill to desire to engage. You do this with your line about skilled players vs those that are just along for the ride. What about equally dedicated and engaged players that lack the social and play experience to be considered skilled -- that have the want but not the ability compared to the other players? Those should just suffer until they learn, right?

Finishing by again comparing to a straight up competitive endeavor (bridge) and noting you don't need to use as much skill with less skilled players to win doesn't really help your case.

Caliban · Nov 17, 2017

pemerton said:
I would consider those to be examples of skill at roleplaying: the former is an example of what I mean by trying to drive or shape the fiction; the second (if combat is a tactical minigame of the D&D sort) is wargaming/boardgaming skill brought to bear in a RPG context.

It's not roleplaying if my dumb barbarian with no social skills ends up negotiating with the foreign envoy because the bard literally has no idea what to say. It's bowing to necessity.

Now, if I choose to negotiate and play up my poor social skills at the same time even knowing that it will probably end badly for us - that's roleplaying.

I'm not talking about annunciation or funny voices. I'm talking about proactively engaging the situation with which the PCs are confronted. Doing that is a skill, and I think players who have more of that skill will typically end up having a bigger infuence on how things unfold in the game.

It is a skill (or perhaps a personality trait). It's just not roleplaying - you can do that without roleplaying, but ideally you do it while roleplaying.

pemerton · Nov 17, 2017

Ovinomancer said:
What about equally dedicated and engaged players that lack the social and play experience to be considered skilled -- that have the want but not the ability compared to the other players? Those should just suffer until they learn, right?

Finishing by again comparing to a straight up competitive endeavor (bridge) and noting you don't need to use as much skill with less skilled players to win doesn't really help your case.

Bridge and 500 aren't strictly competitive. The partners aren't in competition. Yet all the same issues arise - how does one play, in a social game, if one's partner won't ever bid above 6 tricks because s/he can't read a hand, and the other bidding, well enough to understand how many tricks s/he is capable of taking?

Whatever the answer to that question - and it's utterly contextual - it is fully translatable to the RPG context.

Consider even a strictly competitive game - say, backgammon. How closely should I compute the odds when playing with a child compared to playing with another friend who is as into it as me? Whaever the answer - and again it's utterly contextual - that answer is translatable to the RPG context.

The person who is not as skilled might learn. Others might hold back (for a bit; sometimes; until they get tired of doing so; until the campaign falls apart - how can there be general rules here?). The group might separate into its well-suited components.

My time for RPGing is limited, and it's a fairly time-intensive activity (multi-hour sessions reasonably frequently). I want more than tepid play. So I'm not going to encourage my players to hold back.

Ovinomancer · Nov 17, 2017

Hobo said:
And this is why I ask questions. Much more is now clear, and what seemed bizarre to me now seems... well, it's not really all that different than how I play, I probably just would have described it differently, maybe. Player skill to me has ALWAYS had that connotation of competitive tournament style play that was briefly popular during the advent of AD&D. Talking about the social dynamic between outgoing vs more introverted players is something that I wouldn't have called skill, but I see what you mean there.

And it's true that for every group there are usually a few people that are more extroverted than not. [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] will of course remember the game I ran for quite some time a number of years ago where he and [MENTION=812]barsoomcore[/MENTION] and their characters Lash and Ricardo basically "took over" a six character ensemble cast, drove the direction the game went, etc. I did occasionally worry that some of the other players weren't getting as much of the spotlight as they should, but that's part of reading the group dynamic, I think. The rest of the group seem to be as amused by the chemistry between those two characters as I was, and were more than content to let them do their thing, contributing to the development of the game as they felt like it, rather than jockeying for time in the spotlight.

You know, I was pondering on that a bit as well, and, yes, a lot of that game did revolve around the characters Lash and Rodrigo, but I don't think it was because of lack of participation from the rest of the cast (and it would be hard to say JC or Anti-Sean were wallflowers). It was more because it became more fun to torture Lash and Rodrigo and see what horribly bad choices they made in response than Lash and Rodrigo dominating the game. The focus of that game shifted a good bit from the wonderful start you gave us into the continued antics of the incompetent minions of an evil overlord game. The other players gleefully participated in making things worse, as I recall.

But, yes, a lot of the focus revolved around Lash and Rodrigo. I don't think it was skill that made it so rather than a unique confluence of attributes and some rather intriguing characters. I know that, as the player of Lash, I pretty much never felt like I was in control, but just reacting to a hostile world that, for some reason, hated me and didn't want me to be rich.

pemerton · Nov 17, 2017

[MENTION=284]Caliban[/MENTION] - I think we mean different things by "roleplaying". I mean "playing a roleplaying game".

If the dumb barbarian with no social skills can successfully negotiate with the foreign envoy, then I don't conlcude that player is a bad roleplayer. I conclude there is something wrong with the resolution mechanics.

But if the player of the dumb barbarian opens negotiations with the foreign envoy, which therefore shapes the fiction - in whatever fashion (perhaps adverse to the PC's interests, if the resolution mechanics deliver the sort of outcome we would expect) then that is the player shaping the fiction by engaging the situation.

There are obviously table norms around what it is or isn't polite to have your PC do - the player whose dumb barbarian torpedoes every social situation by "negotiating" with an axe is probably just a **** - but that's orthogonal to the current discussion. The reason for holding back there isn't to give timid players "spotlight" time, but a courtesy to one's fellow players who also have an intrerest in engaging the fiction with their PCs.

(Personally I'd go further than that - I think if the game system allows one player to generate a PC whose default modus is an axe, and another PC whose default is to talk, then the system should be able to cope with the motivational tension between these two characters without breaking down. Relying on social norms to manage this is a weakness in the system. But I think every version of D&D - even 4e - suffers from that weakness.)

Desdichado · Nov 17, 2017

Ovinomancer said:
I know that, as the player of Lash, I pretty much never felt like I was in control, but just reacting to a hostile world that, for some reason, hated me and didn't want me to be rich.

Well, you certainly got your revenge on the world, when your party destroyed it rather than saving it, and then wandered off into the blazing nuclear sunset of a burning world whistling unconcerned, completely sure that releasing the demons who had been trapped below the surface and were now free to wander it at will would have no real effect on YOU. And if everyone else burned; well, so what? They had it coming!

How much back story do you allow/expect at the start of the game?

Desdichado

Hero

Caliban

Rules Monkey

pemerton

Legend

Desdichado

Hero

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!

Caliban

Rules Monkey

pemerton

Legend

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!

pemerton

Legend

Desdichado

Hero

Similar Threads