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

[ccs]

I don't mind some background if a player wants to provide it but I'm not going to demand it; and nor am I going to change anything significant regarding the campaign based on it.

I ask for background details to be inspired about future hooks/adventure ideas, to get a sense of the character, & to get some of the players to consider their characters as more than just a compilation of stats/powers. Especially for characters entering at higher lvs. Ex; at 5th lv? You've done some stuff. You likely have some stuff. There's stories involved in that, so you'd better be prepaired to share some (because yes, there will be a quiz. Even if the other players don't ask, the NPCs will.)
It's taking time, but it's working.

And I will absolutely make changes in the campaign to accommodate peoples backstories.
Heck, in our 5e game? An entire nation made up of several dozen islands with a society based on guilds & castes sprang into existence on the map due to one of the characters backstories. And since the character fled from her guild/caste? It's most definitely playing a part in the campaign. She's incredibly valuable to her guild. Assorted Bounty Hunters are tracking her down.... They've killed one. But there's more out there.

- I prefer to put more focus on in-game background as the campaign develops, which allows me to tie things to played-party history rather than specific PC history that the other players might not even know about.

Played-party history going forward is just the story.

As for the latter? I have no problem with using PC history that the others don't know about. Afterall, they don't start out knowing the history of any other adventure I've cooked up. And yet they always seem to learn it somehow as things progress..... This is just "Plot hooks that I didn't come up with myself".

 

[pemerton]

In a traditional rpg I think the GM would feel they ought to give the player these clues but they would have freedom over when that happens.

That doesn't sound like a railroad, but I can see how it might misfire.

Another approach to "player-via-character-investment" is exemplified by Marvel Heroic RP: the PCs have "milestone" - events and/or actions that if they occur in the fiction earn XP for the character. The milestones are largely independent of the particular situations the GM is setting up - eg Captain America can give an instruction to another PC, and so hit a milestone, whatever the details of the GM-established situation.'

What works about this approach is that the player-driven drama and intraparty dynamics are at least semi-autonomous from the situations the GM is framing. It is good for emulating the banter and character development found in comics and other serial fiction. It lest the players dirve their PCs - especially once you include "meta" milestones, like Wolverine recognising a NPC as an old friend or enemy, which allow the players to connect their PCs into the world. But it doesn't break down if the GM is thinking of running situation X while one of the players turns up wanting to play PC Y.

Compared to this, or Prince Valiant, Burning Wheel is more intense but also more demanding.

the campaign folded prematurely, I think after around six sessions). That particular GM liked everything to happen very slowly - he really eked out his plots - so it's possible that plot hook may never have been resolved even if the campaign had lasted a lot longer.

A mostly separate point: my advice to any new GM would be always lead with your best stuff. Don't hold it in reserve for some notional later time.

To me it's exactly the same as railroading, only in this case the players are railroading themselves and more or less dragging the GM along with them.

There's no such thing as "the players railroading themselves". That's just called choosing and deciding.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

For an adventure hook, I’d say that generally I would not expect all characters to have a tie to the plot, nor as a player would I be surprised or expect to make one happen. In a normal campaign I’ll run 20-30 adventures and having each and every one linked to character backgrounds would end up feeling forced pretty fast.

However for a campaign or even a campaign arc, I would expect and strongly desire that my character (or players’ characters when I’m GMing) are tied into the situation. It adds depth and allows for more development of character, which I enjoy significantly.

As an example, when I ran Dracula Dossier, all my players’ characters had strong hooks to the story — they all had had experiences with vampires, and had a solid tie-in to the world of espionage. I had many arcs over the 3 years I ran it, and they would invariably feature one or more character backgrounds strongly. Individual adventures, although motivated by the character desires, did not generally feature a tie-in.

So the character Anton‘s being a double agent for Madame Bathory and needing to steal a magical artifact for her (betraying the team to do so) was a campaign arc for 5-8 sessions. But the adventure where the players had to break him out of a German asylum (because he had actually used the artifact) did not need them having any dependence on the asylum or anything about it.

 

[Campbell]

I do not like hooks in the sense of there being a particular thing that needs doing. I think dynamic situations where things change in interesting ways no matter what happens should be the goal.

I do not think every situation needs to be directly relevant to PC interests unless we are playing Burning Wheel or Sorcerer. I think a fair amount should be.

That happens relatively naturally if PCs are deeply integrated into the setting. I think they should be. Not a fan of nameless wandering vagrants.

 

[Zardnaar]

Up to them,I normally give them hints and/or a players guide to tie their characters to the campaign. Up to them what they do.

 

[MGibster]

As DM, I try to avoid it for the most part; largely because IME it's almost inevitable that whichever character the plot's revolving around is going to die at the first opportunity thus rendering that plot idea somewhat moot. That said, if it's something the PC/player brings upon itself e.g. taking on a quest in payment of a debt, all is cool.

I still remember the Angel (of Buffy fame) campaign I ran where this happened to me. I spent the whole of the campaign hyping up the introduction of a dragon for one of the PCs to tangle with. This character was a normal guy, kind of like Xander, who was befriended and trained by a knight (Sir Kay of Arthurian fame) and I had specifically introduced these elements into the game because the player loved dragons. So, the climax of the campaign arrives, the dragon appears, and what does my hero do? Decides he's interested in fighting some other lesser bad guys while other PCs take care of the dragon. It was certainly a letdown for me.

 

[Lylandra]

I prefer that my character is tied to the overall campaign and not just some random gal who could easily be replaced with a random NPC. Doesn't mean that the character has to be connected to every adventure hook (it becomes a bit unbelieveable if they are the center of the world), but at least to some of them.

Also, there should be room for a PC to actively connect themselves with the adventure. Maybe they like NPC X after they rescued them and proceed to help their family? Maybe they want to keep the ancient sword they found and learn more about it?

 

[Lanefan]

Also, there should be room for a PC to actively connect themselves with the adventure. Maybe they like NPC X after they rescued them and proceed to help their family? Maybe they want to keep the ancient sword they found and learn more about it?

This.

And it's on the DM to allow session time for this sort of downtime or quasi-downtime activity. Too many don't.

 

[aramis erak]

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

I prefer my characters to be an adventure hook in and of themselves, dragging the rest along on my sleighride of plothammer in my paragraph backstory...

Why, no, I'm not a narcicist... Not at all... it's just that if I'm the reason the others are held together, I, as a player, can divert things to the appropriate other players...

Not everyone appreciates that, tho'...

 

[The Green Hermit]

I prefer to be connected if you join in the beginning, because it builds buy-in to the story. Rerolled characters, though, just need to be melded to the current group and situation.