Do you prefer your character to be connected or unconnected to the adventure hook?

It's been my experience that players avoid having families, or kill them off in backstory, because of the commonality of GMs that punish them for having family. Most GMs look at things in backstory as hooks that hurt rather than hooks that are wholesome or fun.
This has not been my experience. Some of my characters have had families that were far away, and were just background; others have had relatives who showed up in the campaign storyline, although not in the middle of expeditions. One character's daughter has been enlisted to help in a scenario: if you need a music expert with a security clearance, and happen to be related to one, why not use her, rather than search for another?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

pemerton

Legend
Other than maybe the initial dungeon delve of a first level PC where my guy lives in a nearby village or something I don't really make up much of a background or try to tie them to much of anything other than a desire for wealth and glory.
I don't come into a campaign with an idea for a PC I want to tell a story about or anything like that. So I roll stats, see what cool PC I can make from that, and then he really just comes together in play after that.
What makes a PC cool, on your approach?
 

pemerton

Legend
it's really not that tough to come up with some basics, and use those to inform play. It doesn't need to be formalized, even. Just about any game can include this step. D&D 5E kind of does it with the Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws, but I don't think that those tend to be all that meaningful. The few times I've played with people other than my regular group, several folks didn't even bother to fill those sections in, and the DM didn't even look at the ones who did take the time.
It's been my experience that players avoid having families, or kill them off in backstory, because of the commonality of GMs that punish them for having family. Most GMs look at things in backstory as hooks that hurt rather than hooks that are wholesome or fun. Having living family is more often an invitation to a kidnapping or murder than having to juggle attending Cousin Bob's wedding with clearing out some bandits for the Duke.
These two posts prompted a few thoughts:

* I'm not sure which I dislike more - GMs who ignore backstory, or GMs who treat it antagonistically - but both are bad;

* As I've posted many times before, the original Oriental Adventures made a big impact on me, and part of that was that it brought familial connections and other sorts of bonds/loyalties (eg disciples to masters; monks to monasteries) to the forefront of the ingame situation;

* I think it's a real skill, as a GM - as in, one that can be worked on, reflected on, improved etc - to incorporate these background elements into play in such a way as to honour them, and treat them with appropriate respect and affection, while also using them to drive what is (typically, in RPGing) a dramatic or adventurous series of events.

The Burning Wheel Revised rulebook, in the section on Relationships (which is a formal element of PC build in BW) says (p 109):

If one of your relationships is your wife in the village, the GM is supposed to use this to create situations in play. If you're hunting a Vampyr, of course it's your wife who is his victim! Suddenly, you're swept up in a plot of terror or intrigue.​

One thing that helps with this is if the system has the resolution mechanics to enable non-GM fiat resolution of the situation once the GM has set it up. But the GM's sense of when to push hard, and when to pull back a bit, remains crucial.
 

Nytmare

David Jose
If one of your relationships is your wife in the village, the GM is supposed to use this to create situations in play. If you're hunting a Vampyr, of course it's your wife who is his victim! Suddenly, you're swept up in a plot of terror or intrigue.​

It should be noted that in BW a player choosing relationships is signaling that they want these kinds of dramatic moments, and it's not really within the bounds of the game for the GM to just outright slay a character's loved ones for the hell of it. A player choosing to have a Relationship is asking for the GM to use those relationships to motivate the character to action. An important part of your character is that thriving network of NPCs that bring the world and events to life. Otherwise the world is full of calls to adventure from random strangers and meaningless names in a block of introductory text.
 

hawkeyefan

Legend
Giving distinctive personality and character to characters is the easiest part of the whole operation. Two characters can be mechanically exactly the same underneath (same class, race, stats, etc.) but once I get my mitts on 'em they'll be completely different both in play and in how they're perceived by other players/PCs - and if all goes well they'll be memorable in some way.

So how do you go about that? Personality quirks and the like?

I find goals and desires tend to be a major defining factor for PCs, and that if they all just have a general goal of “find adventure” they tend to blend together.

I’m sure a lot of this is just me, though, so I’m genuinely curious how you differentiate your characters if they always start off in this blank slate kind of status.
 

hawkeyefan

Legend
These two posts prompted a few thoughts:

* I'm not sure which I dislike more - GMs who ignore backstory, or GMs who treat it antagonistically - but both are bad;

* As I've posted many times before, the original Oriental Adventures made a big impact on me, and part of that was that it brought familial connections and other sorts of bonds/loyalties (eg disciples to masters; monks to monasteries) to the forefront of the ingame situation;

* I think it's a real skill, as a GM - as in, one that can be worked on, reflected on, improved etc - to incorporate these background elements into play in such a way as to honour them, and treat them with appropriate respect and affection, while also using them to drive what is (typically, in RPGing) a dramatic or adventurous series of events.

The Burning Wheel Revised rulebook, in the section on Relationships (which is a formal element of PC build in BW) says (p 109):

If one of your relationships is your wife in the village, the GM is supposed to use this to create situations in play. If you're hunting a Vampyr, of course it's your wife who is his victim! Suddenly, you're swept up in a plot of terror or intrigue.​

One thing that helps with this is if the system has the resolution mechanics to enable non-GM fiat resolution of the situation once the GM has set it up. But the GM's sense of when to push hard, and when to pull back a bit, remains crucial.

Yeah, I tend to try to not just use family and similar PC connections as some kind of looming threat, or a cudgel to beat the player toward some preferred action or anything like that. But I will definitely have such connections come into play if it makes sense to do so. So family can become threatened by an enemy, let's say, or something similar. I try to balance this by also allowing that family member to be a positive source for the PC....of support or information or funds or what have you.

Having family means obligation and responsibility, but it also means support and care and a whole bunch of other positive things (hopefully, anyway!).

I think a lot of the problem is that these elements give another person, either the GM or maybe even other players, a bit of control on the PC, and for a lot of people, the PC is their sole area of narrative authority in the game and no one else's....and these elements push up against that. They are potential incentives for their PCs to behave in certain ways that the player did not willingly create themselves. Some of my players had this attitude for some time. I likely even shared it in our early days.

But with time, we all learned to trust each other that these are important elements of any story, and as long as they are considered such and handled appropriately, they enhance play. Now, we all willingly add these kinds of details all the time, or allow them to be added by the GM, or (most likely) we come up with them as a group when we create our PCs. Exactly how varies from game to game, but we have a kind of default questionnaire we use for games that lack this kind of thing.

I agree with your assessment that this is a skill that can be worked on and improved.
 

pemerton

Legend
It should be noted that in BW a player choosing relationships is signaling that they want these kinds of dramatic moments, and it's not really within the bounds of the game for the GM to just outright slay a character's loved ones for the hell of it. A player choosing to have a Relationship is asking for the GM to use those relationships to motivate the character to action. An important part of your character is that thriving network of NPCs that bring the world and events to life. Otherwise the world is full of calls to adventure from random strangers and meaningless names in a block of introductory text.
The bit that I've bolded I think can be true in systems beyond Burning Wheel!
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
Yeah, I tend to try to not just use family and similar PC connections as some kind of looming threat, or a cudgel to beat the player toward some preferred action or anything like that. But I will definitely have such connections come into play if it makes sense to do so. So family can become threatened by an enemy, let's say, or something similar. I try to balance this by also allowing that family member to be a positive source for the PC....of support or information or funds or what have you.

Having family means obligation and responsibility, but it also means support and care and a whole bunch of other positive things (hopefully, anyway!).

I think a lot of the problem is that these elements give another person, either the GM or maybe even other players, a bit of control on the PC, and for a lot of people, the PC is their sole area of narrative authority in the game and no one else's....and these elements push up against that. They are potential incentives for their PCs to behave in certain ways that the player did not willingly create themselves. Some of my players had this attitude for some time. I likely even shared it in our early days.

But with time, we all learned to trust each other that these are important elements of any story, and as long as they are considered such and handled appropriately, they enhance play. Now, we all willingly add these kinds of details all the time, or allow them to be added by the GM, or (most likely) we come up with them as a group when we create our PCs. Exactly how varies from game to game, but we have a kind of default questionnaire we use for games that lack this kind of thing.

I agree with your assessment that this is a skill that can be worked on and improved.
This kind of reminds me of a situation where I had a PC who, surprisingly for this player, had a father whom he lived with and cherished. Situations in game occurred such that this PC had come into possession of certain documents and seals that belonged to a secretive cult of assassins (the party had killed a member assassin and they were in his possession). So, I set up a scene where the PC came home to his father to find a gaunt, well dressed gentleman was visiting and waiting for the PC to return home. The gentleman introduced himself as a barrister under the employ of an unnamed party and wished to discuss some business with the PC. The short of it was that the gentleman was a representing the assassin cult and was there to negotiate the return of the items for an appropriate price -- to be paid to the PC. The player was under the impression this was a threat against his father (and was a bit put out I would do that, to be honest), but I had that trope ready to subvert -- the barrister expressed shock at the idea that he was there to threaten the father. He merely had gone to the PC's domicile to meet with him. The living status of the PC's relatives was of no concern to his employers -- if negotiations failed then action would be taken against the PC directly to ensure recovery. I believe I used the line, "My employers are direct people, and don't have the patience for extortion or threats.." This switch -- that I wasn't threatening the father -- alongside a quite generous offer for the return of the documents (a townhouse was offered) set the player back and actually had him agree to the swap (he was usually a "damn the torpedoes" type). As far as my plans went at the time, I didn't have anything long term here, I just wanted to introduce a new player that could be interesting in the future, and establish they were ruthless and pragmatic. I recognized that the PC's backstory had an interesting opportunity to subvert the expected trope.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
So how do you go about that? Personality quirks and the like?
Personality quirks and the like; voice and-or accent; speech patterns; alignment-ethics-morals (or lack thereof); signature moves or gestures or phrases, etc. - and that's all before even thinking about how it'll interact with each other member of the party be it through attraction, friendship, rivalry, enmity, or whatever. My cheat is to think of someone distinctive I've known either in the media or in person, and use that as a starting point - for example I've one long-lasting character whose voice, accent and personality are based on a combination of Biggles and an old friend of my father's who I've known most of my life; while another is largely based on evil-goddess-era Callisto from Xena.

The idea here is to ensure that the character is a) entertaining and b) memorable right out of the gate, such that even if it ends up as just a one-hit wonder it still leaves an impression. If the character lasts, it's usually possible to tone it down a bit if what I started with is really over the top.

I find goals and desires tend to be a major defining factor for PCs, and that if they all just have a general goal of “find adventure” they tend to blend together.
"Find adventure" (or, more often, "get rich") is where I usually start, as anything grander assumes the character will survive beyond its first adventure; and that ain't guaranteed at all. If the character does survive, larger goals often arise as play goes on even if it's something as simple as working toward building a stronghold or temple or lab, suitable for whatever class I am.
 

aramis erak

Legend
From a high-level perspective D&D is socially and economically easy.
At first read, I thought you meant tier 3+ play, rather than a distanced view... And D&D is really NOT easy for many at levels 10+, simply because the additive mechanics of new powers every level.

As far as the momentum of the editions...
Once a game is the 800 pound gorilla, learning other system has the disadvantage of lacking players to play with.

In running at my FLGS, I've often been the one GM with room for "just one more"... and 9/10 people showing up would rather not play than play something that's not D&D. But the ones playing my table bring their friends, friends who had little to no RPG experience.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top