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

[pemerton]

@Hobo, [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] is the one who referred to "most GM advice for player-driven games".

And this isn't the D&D subforum. It's the general RP subforum.

But here's some advice from a D&D book about player-driven RPGing which says nothing about GM-driven spotlight sharing and emphasises the correlation between player skill and contribution to the shape and direction of play; and which also denies a zero-sum conception of the results of player skill:

First get in touch with all those who will be included in the adventure, or if all are not available, at least talk to the better players so that you will be able to set an objective for the adventure. Whether the purpose is so simple as to discover a flight of stairs to the next lowest unexplored level or so difficult as to find and destroy on altar to an alien god, some firm obiective should be established and then adhered to as strongly as possible. . . .

Superior play makes the game more enjoyable for all participants, DM and players alike. It allows more actual playing time. It makes play more interesting. The DM will have to respond to superior ploy by extending himself or herself to pose bigger and better problems for the party to solve. This in turn means more enjoyment for the players.​

AD&D PHB, pp 107-9.

(Notice also that Gygax doesn't think you can be skilled and timid. Part of the skill of play is choosing an objective and then being prepared to stick to it. That's not a logical claim. It's a claim about what constitutes skill in the activity in question.)

 

[Tony Vargas]

First: that being in the spotlight is the main - or only - route to enjoyment of the game. Not at all true.

I don't exactly disagree, but it does seem a key assumption of 'spotlight balance...'

...absent that assumption, it could be fine for one player to play the James Bond or Gandalf or whatever, and the rest of the players side-kicks and supporting cast who are just there to ooh an ah over his feats.

Second: that there's this "spotlight" resource that the players (not characters) are actively and intentionally always competing for in a greedy sort of way. While it's true that a DM only has so much attention to go around, it's not necessarily true that there's always (or ever, in some cases) active competition for said attention

That may or may not be true depending on the proclivities of the group. But, a system can have 'netrunner syndrome' (there can be aspects of the game that can only be resolved 1:1 and outright exclude other players), or not, regardless of how a give group feels about being spectators for a while.

Second, part 2: that a DM can't divide her attention and-or focus on two or more things at once.

All talk of 'multitasking' aside, yeah, that's a limitation of human DMs.

Second, part 3: that the only "spotlight" that matters is that of having the DM's attention. It's entirely possible, for example, that two PCs (and thus players) are engaged in their own private discussion while the DM sorts out PCs three and four. Here there's two independent spotlights - players one and two have one (their own discussion) while players three and four have the other; everybody's happy, and neither group sees or knows what the other is doing unless later narration makes it obvious.

Nod. DM attention is a fair approximation of splotlight time, but the attention/interest of the rest of the table can be a part of it, too - and the attention being basically positive for your character, being exciting or interesting or at least successful. Even if the DM spends a lot of time paying attention to your character as it fails miserably time & again and you get annoyed and frustrated, is it still 'spotlight?'

Third: that system mastery is the measure of how "good" someone is as a player. Absolute garbage.

Incomplete, anyway. System mastery is one skill, and in some games, like 3.x D&D, a very potent or heavily over-rewarded one. But there are others, skill at manipulating the DM is even more powerful & broadly applicable, for instance. Gygaxian 'skilled play' is distinct from system mastery, too.

 

[pemerton]

Third: that system mastery is the measure of how "good" someone is as a player. Absolute garbage. One can be an excellent and engaged player, full of good ideas and creative solutions put forth by memorable and entertaining characters, and yet still not know what dice to roll when, or why; or how to roll up a character.

Incomplete, anyway. System mastery is one skill, and in some games, like 3.x D&D, a very potent or heavily over-rewarded one. But there are others, skill at manipulating the DM is even more powerful & broadly applicable, for instance. Gygaxian 'skilled play' is distinct from system mastery, too.

I haven't seen anyone in this thread assert that "system mastery" is the measure of how good someone is as a player.

But there are some RPGs in which a player who has a good mastery of intricate mechanics will exert a greater influence on the play of the game. I think 4e is likely to be such a game at many tables; by all accounts, so is 3E. My view would be that, if you don't want a game where mastery of the mechanics is an important component of player skill and ability, then you shouldn't play a game that has that result. Moldvay Basic would be an example of that among the D&D editions.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Third: that system mastery is the measure of how "good" someone is as a player. Absolute garbage. One can be an excellent and engaged player, full of good ideas and creative solutions put forth by memorable and entertaining characters, and yet still not know what dice to roll when, or why; or how to roll up a character.

Lanefan

I disagree. I have that situation at my table and its infuriating when the game grinds to a halt as that player has to be told by the rest of the table why he should be doing X or using ability Y, or that yes you can attack twice per round. though an excellent and engaged player would be stretching it in this case...

 

[Campbell]

I know when I speak about skilled play I am not usually referencing skilled play of the mechanics nearly as much as skilled play of the fiction (or game world if you prefer). The fundamental skill of playing a roleplaying game is utilizing your knowledge of the game's underlying fiction to enact meaningful changes through your characters' capabilities. You can't spotlight balance around fictional positioning because outcomes can't be dictated ahead of time while respecting it.

 

[ccs]

Originally Posted by Lanefan View Post

Third: that system mastery is the measure of how "good" someone is as a player. Absolute garbage. One can be an excellent and engaged player, full of good ideas and creative solutions put forth by memorable and entertaining characters, and yet still not know what dice to roll when, or why; or how to roll up a character.

Lanefan

I disagree. I have that situation at my table and its infuriating when the game grinds to a halt as that player has to be told by the rest of the table why he should be doing X or using ability Y, or that yes you can attack twice per round. though an excellent and engaged player would be stretching it in this case...

And I'll disagree with you.
I've got a brand new player (a friends daughter) in the ToA game I'm running. What she actually knows about the rules atm wouldn't fill a dice bag.
But she is 101% eager to play, fully engaged (more so than some of the more veteran players), full of ideas (not always good ones from a technical PoV, but....) & creative solutions. Her character is quite entertaining & will definitely be remembered (probably because of whatever absurd & self-inflicted way she finally gets killed).
She lacks almost any degree of system mastery. But she's a good player.

 

[Sunseeker]

I disagree. I have that situation at my table and its infuriating when the game grinds to a halt as that player has to be told by the rest of the table why he should be doing X or using ability Y, or that yes you can attack twice per round. though an excellent and engaged player would be stretching it in this case...

I find it hard to say that any player of a hard-mechanics system (like D&D) can be considered "excellent" if they do not have a strong grasp of at least the fundamental rules, and by that I set a minimum of: the rules required to play their character, which of course varies from character to character, but puts the burden on the player to understand what they bring to the table. IME, it is hard not only for the individual player, but also for the group and the DM, to remain engaged when we are constantly having to stop and inform them that they must do X before Y, or that's the wrong die to use, or any other number of rules corrections. The inverse only makes things worse: if we are to consider a person an "excellent player" but exclude any level of system mastery from the equation, the rest of the table is forced to play on their terms, which frankly is unacceptable. No game should be forced to alter the way everyone plays because one person is unwilling, unable or uninterested in learning the rules.

For games with soft-mechanics (role-play heavy systems) I certainly agree that an engaged player is much more valuable than a rules-knowledgeable one, since the game is designed to be more flexible about what the player wants to do, rather than what the system allows the player to do.

Good ideas, creative solutions, engagement in the game frankly don't cut it when that same person is holding up the show over which die to roll for their longsword or which stat bonus they add to melee damage. That might make for a person you're willing to teach and help them improve, but I'd never consider them an excellent player in a hard-mechanics system until they've raised their degree of game knowledge.

Again IME: it's much easier to be a good role-player when you're also a good roll-player. When those roll-motions become learned they become fluid and they slide into the background allowing for much more focus on the role-play.

 

[Jody Nixon]

i ask the players for input and then flesh out the backstory a bit further inserting plot hooks and NPC's that i think they might actually meet.
I now have 5 players in my group and i plan to have an adventure based around each players background. They are all from various regions in the game world so it will be a chance to visit new locations but with a purpose that relates to each pcs background. i have an epic story arc in mind and look fwd to how things evolve once the party move about on some new adventures.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I find it hard to say that any player of a hard-mechanics system (like D&D) can be considered "excellent" if they do not have a strong grasp of at least the fundamental rules, and by that I set a minimum of: the rules required to play their character, which of course varies from character to character, but puts the burden on the player to understand what they bring to the table. IME, it is hard not only for the individual player, but also for the group and the DM, to remain engaged when we are constantly having to stop and inform them that they must do X before Y, or that's the wrong die to use, or any other number of rules corrections. The inverse only makes things worse: if we are to consider a person an "excellent player" but exclude any level of system mastery from the equation, the rest of the table is forced to play on their terms, which frankly is unacceptable. No game should be forced to alter the way everyone plays because one person is unwilling, unable or uninterested in learning the rules.

For games with soft-mechanics (role-play heavy systems) I certainly agree that an engaged player is much more valuable than a rules-knowledgeable one, since the game is designed to be more flexible about what the player wants to do, rather than what the system allows the player to do.

Good ideas, creative solutions, engagement in the game frankly don't cut it when that same person is holding up the show over which die to roll for their longsword or which stat bonus they add to melee damage. That might make for a person you're willing to teach and help them improve, but I'd never consider them an excellent player in a hard-mechanics system until they've raised their degree of game knowledge.

Again IME: it's much easier to be a good role-player when you're also a good roll-player. When those roll-motions become learned they become fluid and they slide into the background allowing for much more focus on the role-play.

Or, you end up with the problem I'm trying to fix in my group -- asking to make checks instead of stating a course of action. I'm guilty as charged on this as well, for quite some time, but I found it increasingly frustrating to have my players think in terms of the checks rather than what they want their characters to do. It's a hard thing to unlearn, apparently.

So, to sum up, I disagree, in part.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Or, you end up with the problem I'm trying to fix in my group -- asking to make checks instead of stating a course of action. I'm guilty as charged on this as well, for quite some time, but I found it increasingly frustrating to have my players think in terms of the checks rather than what they want their characters to do. It's a hard thing to unlearn, apparently.

So, to sum up, I disagree, in part.

I know another poster here is always beating this drum but I'm always telling my players to try to avoid rolling the dice if they can, tell me what you want to do and maybe you won't have to roll the dice and take the chance. The dice resolve uncertainty. But like you say they lead off with "I want to make a skill check" before even telling me what they are trying to do. Its almost like they figure if they make a skill check I will tell them something they have not thought of or something.

"As soon as we get to town I want to make a Gather Information check!"
"what for?"
"to gather information"
"about what?"
"you know, information!"

To me skilled play is mostly be able to avoid using the dice as much as possible by engaging with the DM and the information he is giving you. Why leave it up to a dice roll when a clever question or action will remove the uncertainty.

I have grown to see why some gamers dislike skill systems since it reinforced this kind of thinking IMO.