Are your players risk takers?

[Edgewood]

Are your players like this or are your players the sort that will be "chased up burning trees"?

Well if by "risk takers" you mean NEVER EVER RUNNING AWAY FROM ANYTHING THAT POSES A THREAT THAT ANY BALANCED MINDED PERSON WOULD CONSIDER AS OVERWHELMINGLY FOOLHARDY TO TAKE ON, then yes...yes they are risk takers.

 

[Psion]

Well if by "risk takers" you mean NEVER EVER RUNNING AWAY FROM ANYTHING THAT POSES A THREAT THAT ANY BALANCED MINDED PERSON WOULD CONSIDER AS OVERWHELMINGLY FOOLHARDY TO TAKE ON, then yes...yes they are risk takers.

I tell you... I've seen players run the gamut. The above describes my old group. Some new groups (especially in convention games I have run) seem to be very timid, as if they forgot that taking chances and facing conflict is sort of part of the game.

When it comes down to it though: some players are in it for the action; other players are about their characters.

Along these lines, I rather like Ryan Stoughton's Raising the Stakes hack, so players can self-select to the type of play they like.

 

[Glyfair]

Using family members as bait is widely considered bad DMing.

I disagree with this idea. I would agree that using family members only as bait is bad DMing. NPCs you have a relationship should have a good balance of being useful (for example, giving you a place to hole up when the heat is on), color to add to dimension to a character, and a threat which can help motivate a PC. Many DMs, even most, only use them as threats.

Or the even more trite "the villain is my family member"!

Bah, well done this can be good. In fact, this can be used even if the player has "killed off" all the family in their background.

Player Background - My immediate family was killed in the big war. My extended family (uncle & aunt who raised me) were killed in the "kicker" that leads to the adventure.

Villain - "Luke, I am your father!"

 

[Ed_Laprade]

I have a standing rule in my games, either make up some kind of background that immerses the character into the setting somehow, or I will do it for you when it becomes narratively convenient.

"Your buddy Larry who is always trying to borrow money from you? Well the last time you refused him he went and borrowed money from Nanda the Shark instead, and now he needs your protection because he can't pay the 200% interest."

EDIT: I wanted to add that creating a background with potential hooks is your way of guiding the game in a direction you want, otherwise you get stuck with what comes up.

"Hey Larry, does the phrase 'tough s***' mean anything to you?" Would be my response to that sort of railroading. If I didn't write it, it means nothing to me.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

I think it depends on whether you see the PC as a narrative character or as an avatar to immerse yourself in.

If they're a narrative character, then being tormented by the ghosts of their past, having to make tough decisions with their family/friends in peril, making sacrifices, and generally having bad stuff happen to them (that shines the spotlight on them, incidentally), are what you want to happen - that makes a good story.

But if you're looking at things from the perspective of the character, you see a thrilling tale of adversity and being forged by the hard lesson of life ... and you say "Screw that! I want the story where I achieve my goals, lose nobody important to me, and retire happily!" Stuff like having your family threatened by your archenemies is interesting ... when it happens to other people. But if you're looking to immerse yourself as a character, you don't want one with more problems than you have.

Of course, from the DM's perspective - the PCs are always narrative characters. And that's where you sometimes get tension - between the DMs idea of what would be an interesting story, and the players' concept of how they want their PCs lives to be.



Now personally, I'm somewhat in the middle - I won't hesitate from going into normal danger, such as overwhelming enemy force, deadly traps, and so forth. But I don't really find putting my character into certain kinds of stress fun.

I'm not saying I mind the occasional "evil forces are threatening your home town" plot. But always having to worry about your family/friends being used as leverage against you, or killed in revenge - just not my cup of tea. So I generally write backgrounds where the situation won't arise. And I wouldn't appreciate the DM changing that background to make it more "interesting" - those omissions aren't a mistake, they're a hint saying "I'm not going to enjoy that plot, try a different kind of threat".

QFT I've played both kinds of characters, and those in between. Depends on how I'm feeling going into the game. (Which can change, depending on how the game goes.)

 

[Jeysie]

The folks in my group have never had any problem with creating characters that have families, personal villains, odd and detailed backstories, personality quirks and weaknesses, etc. It's fun having the DM be able to tie your character into the plot in a personal way, bouncing idiosyncratic neuroses off each other, and coming up with ways to succeed despite bad dice rolls and character weak spots.

But YMMV, as we're definitely not a "kill things and take their stuff" sort of group. And, oddly enough, we're not usually risk takers in terms of actual gameplay. We've been known to go to the trouble of trying to sneak or talk our way through an encounter even if, say, we're Level 6 and the opposition is a few bog-standard Orcs.

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

my players often have family's and friends and try to make connections in there community as for risk well last time they grappled and chocked out a werewolf so take that for what its worth.

 

[Jackelope King]

I think it depends on whether you see the PC as a narrative character or as an avatar to immerse yourself in.

If they're a narrative character, then being tormented by the ghosts of their past, having to make tough decisions with their family/friends in peril, making sacrifices, and generally having bad stuff happen to them (that shines the spotlight on them, incidentally), are what you want to happen - that makes a good story.

But if you're looking at things from the perspective of the character, you see a thrilling tale of adversity and being forged by the hard lesson of life ... and you say "Screw that! I want the story where I achieve my goals, lose nobody important to me, and retire happily!" Stuff like having your family threatened by your archenemies is interesting ... when it happens to other people. But if you're looking to immerse yourself as a character, you don't want one with more problems than you have.

Of course, from the DM's perspective - the PCs are always narrative characters. And that's where you sometimes get tension - between the DMs idea of what would be an interesting story, and the players' concept of how they want their PCs lives to be.

Good analysis. If you see your PC as nothing more than your vehicle for exploring the adventure, then you're more likely to avoid background interests or relationships than you are if you see your PC as a character in the narrative (which I tend to do).

This is also something which the rules of the game can influence. In Mutants & Masterminds, you get a Hero Point (akin to an Action Point) when a complication like this arises for your character. Your character's mom gets kidnapped? Take a hero point! A supervillain attacks while you're on a date in your secret identity? Hero point! Luke I am your father? Hero point. Since hero points are essentially a license to do something cool (reroll a missed attack or failed save, stunt a new power, shake off injury or fatigue, etc.), players tend to want complications to arise, as it gives them an advantage later on.

Bah, well done this can be good. In fact, this can be used even if the player has "killed off" all the family in their background.

Player Background - My immediate family was killed in the big war. My immediate family is killed in the "kicker" that leads to the adventure.

Villain - "Luke, I am your father!"

They sure can be well done. At the end of a long and very unhappy adventure where their enemy wound up getting offed by the Big Bad Evil Guy (since our defeating that enemy played into the BBEG's hands), my character went home and got a phone call from the BBEG so that he could say thanks to his child personally for all the hard work. I'd left open the identity of the character's father (only child of a single mom), and the BBEG's reveal completely changed the character's role in the game world. Definitely one of this GM's best twists.

 

[Cor Azer]

My players are not particularly risk averse, but they are often lazy

As it regards to character background, my players usually have a vague idea of where their character's came from and how they grew up, but nothing that a DM could really work with. And often when I'm running an "external threat" game (ie, a campaign where the BBEG has no prior relationship with the PCs) they don't need much more than that vagueness, and we'll work together during play to clear up the abstract. But when we run an "internal threat" game (ie, no real pre-planned villain plot, free-form campaigning and following the PCs desires), then obviously, player background is much more important.

When actually playing, my players are fairly cautious. I think I've hit them with a few too many good surprises or twists at really memorable plot junctures, and although I try not to overdo it (maybe once or twice a campaign for the really major plot twists), I seem to have developed a real reputation for "there's something more going on here". As a result, as soon as I call something out from the norm (ie, window dressing), they immediately drop to combat positions. Even having random NPCs comment on their paranoia hasn't divested them of such practices.

Oh well... I still get them when I want too

 

[Vegepygmy]

Using family members as bait is widely considered bad DMing.

I disagree with this idea. I would agree that using family members only as bait is bad DMing.

The problem is that many players have had a bad DM in their past use the family members they included in their background only as bait. And it only takes one or two bad experiences like that for them to learn not to provide DMs with that opportunity anymore.

I myself do it. When I'm playing with a DM whose skill and style are unknown to me, I'm a lot more likely to come up with a "friendless orphan" background for my PC than I am when I'm playing with a DM I know and trust not to abuse the information.