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

[Caliban]

My characters aren't all orphans..

Well, that's kind of what I referring to. I can understand not necessarily wanting a story arc centered around your character, but Saelorn was advocating making your character an orphan so that their family can't be used in any story lines "just because they are related to your PC". Instead, they all get to die "just because they are related to your PC"...

I think it could more easily be accomplished simply by telling the DM that you don't want your character to have any story lines created specifically for them.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

"Malevolent GMs" should be talked to—"hey, we don't really like that kind of thing happening in our games; it's not cool, and it's not fun." If they still can't get the point, play with someone else. Life's too short.

For a long time, that was just a part of the game, and it might even have been a big part of the appeal for some GMs. Some people enjoy hiding behind their cardboard screen and laughing maniacally whenever they roll dice, even if they ignored what the dice actually told them. I was reading a book recently - Blood Dawn, a game from 1996 that may have influenced the Fallout series - which was entirely written with the expectation that the GM would be messing with the players at every opportunity. It's just the way things were.

Since then, the hobby has gone back and forth, and different groups from different eras with different gameplay philosophies have merged (to mixed success). There are still some of the old-school adversarial GMs who like messing with players, but they're mixed with the newer-school GMs who treat the game like an exercise in collaborative storytelling, and the true role-playing GMs who try their best to arbitrate impartially.

So it's not as easy as just calling out an adversarial GM as being a jerk, or a storytelling GM as being manipulative, because they may be doing everything right by their understanding. Even if you actually have that discussion and explain that you don't want to play that kind of game, and assuming they agree to change, old habits die hard and they may not be entirely aware of when they are doing those things. An orphan PC removes that temptation for them to mess with you; it removes the opportunity for them to fail as the GM. Or, if you have a mixed group where some players may actually want that sort of engagement, it tells the GM that you specifically do not wish to be treated in such a fashion; it's an easy way of opting out from that.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Well, that's kind of what I referring to. I can understand not necessarily wanting a story arc centered around your character, but Saelorn was advocating making your character an orphan so that their family can't be used in any story lines "just because they are related to your PC". Instead, they all get to die "just because they are related to your PC"...

It's more like they become my PC because they are an orphan. Batman wouldn't have become Batman if his parents hadn't died in such a fashion.

Not every superhero is an orphan, of course, but choosing to role-play as Batman rather than Squirrel Girl does not actually affect their respective parents in any way.

 

[pemerton]

I have no idea what system you use has to do with this discussion. This isn't a system issue. It's an issue of style and player expectations.

Upthread you talked about systems (eg Fate) that affect the way backstory is generated and incorproated into play.

There are also systems that affect the way family members are incorporated into play.

Hmm, so, in corollary, someone that isn't as good at roleplaying but is working on it should be content to watch his/her/xir betters and be thankful for the scraps? Improvement is a matter of practice, for most things. Doesn't your concept actively reduce practice time for those most needing it while giving extra to those already proficient?

That would depend heavily on the group dynamics, I think.

I'm just responding to the post that its unfair that a player's skill should affect the direction and content of the game. That's not true in any other game I can think of, so I'm not sure why it should be different for RPGs.

there's the whole 'group activity' where roleplaying isn't a competition to be rewarded with spotlight time but someone you do as a group for a shared purpose. However, it is good to remember that your preferred games do pit PCs against each other as a matter of play, and skilled play increases the chances that the story moves in the direction you push.

I don't really follow this.

Backyard cricket is a group activity. The better athletes will still get more spotlight time, and exercise greater influence over the flow of events. That has nothing to do with competition - it's about the fact that the flow of events is itself affected by the skills deployed.

 

[Xaelvaen]

It is purely dependent on the starting level for the campaign. The higher the level, the more detail I want - there's no specifics other than that. If I'm starting the players with one or two magic items, in example, I require them to create an interest story as to how they received the item. Otherwise, I just want interesting hooks - that usually comes in the form of a single 1080p OneNote page.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Upthread you talked about systems (eg Fate) that affect the way backstory is generated and incorproated into play.

There are also systems that affect the way family members are incorporated into play.

That would depend heavily on the group dynamics, I think.

I'm just responding to the post that its unfair that a player's skill should affect the direction and content of the game. That's not true in any other game I can think of, so I'm not sure why it should be different for RPGs.

That's not what was said. No one is saying a player shouldn't affect the direction and content of the game. Your statement was that a better player should, as in deserves, have greater control over the game. That's the point I'm contesting, not that a good player should have some effect on the game. That's trivially obvious.

I don't really follow this.

Backyard cricket is a group activity. The better athletes will still get more spotlight time, and exercise greater influence over the flow of events. That has nothing to do with competition - it's about the fact that the flow of events is itself affected by the skills deployed.

Again, your choice of example is telling -- you picked a competitive game for your example, even if a usually friendly one. In competitive games, skill is an important factor. In cooperative games, it should take a lesser role. You shouldn't be using your superior skill to dominate the playtime, in other words.

 

[Desdichado]

For a long time, that was just a part of the game, and it might even have been a big part of the appeal for some GMs. Some people enjoy hiding behind their cardboard screen and laughing maniacally whenever they roll dice, even if they ignored what the dice actually told them. I was reading a book recently - Blood Dawn, a game from 1996 that may have influenced the Fallout series - which was entirely written with the expectation that the GM would be messing with the players at every opportunity. It's just the way things were.

Since then, the hobby has gone back and forth, and different groups from different eras with different gameplay philosophies have merged (to mixed success). There are still some of the old-school adversarial GMs who like messing with players, but they're mixed with the newer-school GMs who treat the game like an exercise in collaborative storytelling, and the true role-playing GMs who try their best to arbitrate impartially.

So it's not as easy as just calling out an adversarial GM as being a jerk, or a storytelling GM as being manipulative, because they may be doing everything right by their understanding. Even if you actually have that discussion and explain that you don't want to play that kind of game, and assuming they agree to change, old habits die hard and they may not be entirely aware of when they are doing those things. An orphan PC removes that temptation for them to mess with you; it removes the opportunity for them to fail as the GM. Or, if you have a mixed group where some players may actually want that sort of engagement, it tells the GM that you specifically do not wish to be treated in such a fashion; it's an easy way of opting out from that.

Yes, but I take it from your post that you specifically don't like that as part of the game, hence your backdoor approach to take it off the table. It's really neither here nor there, I suppose, but my preferred way of dealing with it is playing with people that I already know won't try to make the game suck for me. There often seems to be an unspoken assumption in RPG talk that you have to deal with players the way that they are and work around them. While there's certainly some truth to that, especially of course, assuming that these players are your friends and you enjoy hanging out with them socially, there's also a great deal to be said for playing with people that have enough in common with you in terms of what assumptions they bring to the table about what the game will be like that instead of constantly fighting misaligned expectations, you're just on the same page to begin with.

There's nothing wrong with being discriminating and selective in who and how you spend your leisure time. I'd wager most of us already feel like we don't have as much leisure and hobby time as we'd like to feel like it's a good use of it to spend it in a struggle session about the right way to play.

 

[Desdichado]

Upthread you talked about systems (eg Fate) that affect the way backstory is generated and incorproated into play.

There are also systems that affect the way family members are incorporated into play.

Which was a tangential aside, and you weren't responding to my post.

Whatever. Your post came across as a non sequitur. But pay me no mind; I'm not the stay-on-topic police. I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from with that.

I'm just responding to the post that its unfair that a player's skill should affect the direction and content of the game. That's not true in any other game I can think of, so I'm not sure why it should be different for RPGs.

I can think of plenty of games for which that's not true. Pretty much any game that isn't competitive, including the ones that RPGs are most often compared to in those "what is an RPG" blurbs at the beginning of an RPG, like cops-n-robbers or cowboys-n-injuns. There's no skill involved, because the whole point is for everyone to have fun cooperatively, not compete with each other. How do you even have more skill at cops-n-robbers? What skill?

RPGs are fundamentally unlike every game that YOU'VE tried to compare them to, which is why your comparisons fail to be convincing; they're false equivalencies. Fundamentally, any GM who allows one player to get more "spotlight time" because of his "greater skill" is a bad GM. The only skills involved tend to be 1) being a narcissist that hogs to the spotlight by nature, or 2) catering to the GM specifically so that he subconsciously (or even consciously if he's a REALLY bad GM) gives you more attention than the rest of the group.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Which was a tangential aside, and you weren't responding to my post.

Whatever. Your post came across as a non sequitur. But pay me no mind; I'm not the stay-on-topic police. I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from with that.

I can think of plenty of games for which that's not true. Pretty much any game that isn't competitive, including the ones that RPGs are most often compared to in those "what is an RPG" blurbs at the beginning of an RPG, like cops-n-robbers or cowboys-n-injuns. There's no skill involved, because the whole point is for everyone to have fun cooperatively, not compete with each other. How do you even have more skill at cops-n-robbers? What skill?

RPGs are fundamentally unlike every game that YOU'VE tried to compare them to, which is why your comparisons fail to be convincing; they're false equivalencies. Fundamentally, any GM who allows one player to get more "spotlight time" because of his "greater skill" is a bad GM. The only skills involved tend to be 1) being a narcissist that hogs to the spotlight by nature, or 2) catering to the GM specifically so that he subconsciously (or even consciously if he's a REALLY bad GM) gives you more attention than the rest of the group.

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.

 

[pemerton]

Again, your choice of example is telling -- you picked a competitive game for your example

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.

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.

[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.

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.

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. I've played 500 with people who will hardly ever bid above six whatevers. Depending on the details, it might be rude to try to push every hand to some complex play at eight or more tricks bid; but it's generally not going to be rude to bid seven, even if that means the timid player doesn't win the bid. But in any event, as the example shows, issues around social norms in games - how hard to play with timid players - aren't particularly special to RPGing. Nor does the GM 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 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.)