Do Your PCs Make Your World?

I love puppies. Do you love puppies? Anyway, this article isn't about puppies, it's about making your campaign world relevant to your players, but puppies are so fluffy oh my gosh you guys, and they're pretty much the Number 2 thing googled for on the internet so puppies puppies puppies puppies puppies arf arf arf #somanypuppies. Anyway, now time for the article!

I love puppies. Do you love puppies? Anyway, this article isn't about puppies, it's about making your campaign world relevant to your players, but puppies are so fluffy oh my gosh you guys, and they're pretty much the Number 2 thing googled for on the internet so puppies puppies puppies puppies puppies arf arf arf #somanypuppies. Anyway, now time for the article!



Sun Tzu said “Know your enemy.”

The Temple of Apollo said “Know thyself.”

A common refrain in any creative or business endeavor: “Know your audience.”

Curious thing about those aphorisms applied to D&D and other RPGs: they all mean basically the same thing. They mean, “Know your PC’s.”

The PC’s are your “audience” because they are the avatars through which the players experience your creations, your events and scenes and plots and enemies and locations. The PC’s are your “enemy” because what you make is antagonistic toward the audience: they will endure tests and need to overcome obstacles and struggle against you. The PC’s are even “yourself,” because their choices say a lot about what kind of game they expect you to run. If you’re prone running combat-heavy orgies of violence, don’t expect a lot of pacifists.

The exhortation should be obvious: know them.

Indeed, if you know nothing about the game you are to run except what PC’s are going to be played in it, you know enough to plan out a session, and adventure, even a whole campaign, and for those things to be rewarding and compelling and interesting.

The-more-you-know.png

The more you know, the more you can exploit...

The Narcissism of RPGs
You are engaged in a creative performance whenever you play an RPG.

That’s play. Not plan. Creating a character or creating a setting or creating a villain is certainly creative, but it’s kind of narcissistic creativity: you make something, and then appreciate how awesome this thing you made is. If you’re a DM enraptured with your own NPC’s political maneuvering or dramatic villain, or a player so proud of your damage output or your elaborate backstory, until it hits gameplay, you’re just sitting in a room marveling at your own creativity.

When you use it in play, the creativity gets presented to others: “Here’s my elaborate backstory,” you say, “Enjoy!”

Only, often, the response is “Meh.” Or a polite “Cool.” The thing with our creativity being expressed in a game is that if the creativity isn’t meant to be played with, it’s not doing very much. The audience ultimately doesn’t care that much. The reason they don’t care that much is because they’re here to play a game, not listen to a story: your elaborate character or world history is all well and good (though don’t be surprised if folks tune out while when you get to about the third or fourth new proper noun…), but that’s just exhibiting your creativity, putting it on display. It’s saying, “Look at this cool thing I did. Isn’t it cool?” The best possible outcome there is assent: “Yep. Cool.”

Playing an RPG is a creative performance. It’s not about making an awesomely detailed campaign world. It’s not about having a 10-page setting bible. It’s not about having a complex character history. It’s about how those things are actively done, in the moment, in a room with you and your friends. This is one of the things that separates RPG’s from board games or video games. However elaborate your prose for your in-character World of Warcraft character, it’s not performed, in person, in a room with other people, actively in the moment, using your body and your eyes and your voice and your gestures. However exciting a game of Ticket to Ride is, you’re not pretending to be a train, or getting into the mindset of the passengers.

That performance means that your setting history and your character’s sky-high defenses aren’t important until they are something that is used in play. And being used involves more than just being stated – it involves being interacted with, manipulated, played with. Nobody cares about your awesome creation until someone else at the table picks it up and runs with it.

That makes narcissism nearly impossible. It involves taking something you’ve created, and trusting the other people at the table to take it and use it in a responsible way, getting their own unique spin and interpretation on it. It indelibly changes the thing, making the other players part and parcel of the experience. If another player takes your complex back-story, and says, “Well, I was there for most of that, too, because my character and your character were friends,” it changes your back-story just as it changes theirs. It’s no longer just your creation. It has a place in the minds and histories and games of the other players at the table, too, and their own creations. You have influenced others. You’re not just exhibiting your creations, you are sharing them, seeing them altered, and getting them back.

It’s a potent mix.

Using the Illusion
So, what’s the point of all this talk about performing creativity? What does it have to do with making our games better?

It works like this: imagine you are in a formless, shapeless, colorless void, deprived of sensory stimulation, surrounded by nebulous nothingness. This is your game before it is played: nothingness. Nonexistence. Nirvana.

Then, one of your players comes up to you. Lets call her Cecilia. Cecilia says, “I’m going to be an elf wizard.”

BOOM. The universe is created, and it has elf wizards in it. But it does more than imply the existence of that particular elf wizard. Suddenly, you can start building a world around them.

Like: do other elf wizards exist? How about elves that are not wizards? Wizards that are not elves? What kinds of elf wizards might there be? How are elf wizards made? How do they live their daily lives? How do they die?

You start building the world around the player, like a planet forming around a rocky core, collecting more mass as it spins, suddenly full of interesting topology. More than just a world, though, you’re creating a relationship, something that can be performed in play: Cecilia, as an elf wizard, is going to be different from some elves, similar to some wizards, involved with them at various levels. This is relevant in pretending to be that elf wizard: if she’s a typical elf in a world full of elf wizards, the expectations are going to be different than if she’s an unusual elf in a world full of non-elf wizards, where she’s an exceptional character. Those two little words are two little hooks, ways that the setting you’re creating applies actively to the character Cecilia has created. You can play with her character by having, say, an NPC comment on how strange it is to see an elf as a wizard, and she can play with your setting by having her character blow that NPC to smithereens for his foolish impudence. Or whatever.

There’s more than just context, though. An RPG, like any game, is driven by conflict, and so not only do you have an elf wizard, you have, implicitly, a group that opposes elf wizards, simply by her choice to create one. Those who oppose elf wizards are going to be dichotomous in some way: maybe they’re anti-intellectual fire elementals who love to burn trees and books. Maybe they’re dwarven lumberjacks who believe all wizardry is evil. Whatever they are, they have context, too, which means that not only has Cecilia’s elf wizard given birth to crusading dwarven lumberjacks, she’s also given birth to the mountains in which they live, and the valley in which they war with the elves, and their Lumberjack-King, who sleeps all night and works all day (his work is elf-murder).

In addition to context and conflict, a character has a relationship with the other party members: Cecilia is playing an elf wizard, but Matt’s playing a dwarf cleric, which means that even with the cruel dwarven lumberjacks, there’s something that unites her character and Matt’s character. Perhaps it would have to do with Matt’s conflict: perhaps they both oppose the Cult of the Night Sky, which is made up of vampires. Maybe they ALSO both oppose the Lumber-jerks: perhaps this is a splinter group (HA!) of dwarves, or perhaps Matt’s character belongs to the minority faction working for peace and mutual prosperity. So what do the rest of the elves think about these dwarves? And what to these dwarves think about those elves? And more interestingly: what do the vampires and the dwarves think of each other? Why might they work together? What plot could benefit both of them?

By the time you have 3-6 different PC’s, you have more world material than you will ever need, and all of it precisely relevant to the characters in your games, which means that it will not just gather dust in your notebook or be met with apathy at the table. When you say, in that first session, there is an arcane library on fire because of dwarven vampires wielding chainsaws, Matt and Cecilia will both be very interested in how and why that happened, because you’ve taken elements of their characters, and woven them into the world. You took their contribution, and responded.

…And Knowing Is Half The Battle!
As you dig down to the intricate details of the characters, their precise stats and their abilities, it becomes clearer what elements of the world they cause to exist. A high AC, for instance, implies not only the tools to achieve it (the armor, the agility, the training), but also the existence of things that create those tools. If your knight is clad in brilliant armor, somewhere, there’s a crafter who considers that their masterpiece, and somewhere, there’s a villain who doesn’t rely on weapons to kill the PC’s. This villain might be the same villain implied by their class or race, or might be a DIFFERENT villain. If Matt’s dwarf cleric also has a high AC, maybe the vampires love using poison gas. Or maybe some other wicked group uses poison gas.

Any particular game element – a skill bonus, a weapon, an ability score – that is high or low or common or unusual in a character can be sprung out and spun into a world where that character is very, very relevant. This works as much for you as for the players, too: if you’ve got an awesome villain, consider how that villain impacts the PC’s. Suddenly you’re not putting your creativity on display, or keeping it bottled up, but putting it down on the table, so that everyone can play with it. That’s the point after all: playing the game.

So I want to hear from you: what elements of PC’s have you spun out into world or story elements? Or, what story elements have you embedded in your PC’s? Has your knowledge of what the PC’s are capable of translated into a compelling game, or not? Let me know down in the

If you'd just like to post pictures of puppies in response to this article, that's cool, too.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
Heh- I don't know if it can be taught!

I had been a gamer for about 15 years before it clicked for me, but it was something that occurred at a deep level. I can't even point with any precision at when I changed my style. All I can say is that I was tired of playing the same-old same-old...but still wanted to play what I wanted to play. I just played the PC a little differently. After that campaign died, the next PC- same group, but different system and genre- was different from the ground up.

That PC was for a supers game. PAX was a P.A.G. (power armor goon)* who, unlike most of this archetype, was designed from the ground up to defeat other P.A.G.s, AIs, rogue computers, and do less-lethal crowd control...and not necessarily by slugging it out, either. His nastiest trick against P.A.G.s was actually overriding their control of the armor they inhabited, shutting them down or making them stack their allies. He could also make enemy armor brittle, create huge patches of super-slick ice, and had an Autofire gun that fired rounds similar to RW beanbag rounds on steroids. He had the usual suite of P.A.G. powers, but not enough to go toe-to-toe in combat with other P.A.G.s in melee, and his armor was less durable than theirs as well.

He had a single lethal attack: a last-resort weapon that launched a swarm of High-energy AP explosive rounds. (Never got used.)






* any Super who wears Iron Man-style powered battle armor.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Enkhidu

Explorer
I disagree that sandboxing and PC centric play don't mix.

The first two sessions in our current campaign were 1) party building and 2) region building. For #1, we had a group character creation session where people could talk both mechanics and backgrounds in order to riff off one another. For session #2, we sat down, I drew a regional map, placed a region-wide landmark, and plopped a city in the middle of it. Then I started asking leading questions based on previous history - "so you're playing a halfling - where do you live in the city, and did you always live there?" That one gave me a Hobtown (a quarter of the city sized for halflings) and Greenacre (a village about a week's worth of travel away). I did this with all the players, with each giving PC-specific hooks in this urban centric region.

So basically everything on the regional map was a "known quantity" that included not only the characters backstories but also themes that the players themselves wanted to include. Everything outside of the region, however was unknown territory. So basically anytime the PCs stay on the map it's PC centric, and when they stray from the map, well it's definitely "here there be monsters" territory and that lends itself well to site-based, sandboxy campaigns.

I like to think that our method works really well for giving us both.
 

sheadunne

Explorer
In my current game (homebrew game system) background is developed during play. Each session players get a background point that they can use to say they're proficient at a task, know someone, or are familiar with a place. In D&D terms, this might be like players assigning skill points during play, rather than prior to play or when they level up. The rogue doesn't put points into Forgery until it comes up in play. It feels more organic to me.

I'm also not a fan of siloed PC creation or advancement. I don't care if your PC's father was killed by bandits. If you don't have at least one other PC buying into it, it's not going to come up during play. One of the biggest challenges to gaming in general is that character creation and leveling aren't part of game play. They happen outside of the game.

I find that the following things are the most useful for character creation (more so than background story).
- Profession (what was her place in society)
- Personality (what are her key personality traits)
- Physical, mental, social characteristics (biology)

After that, everything else can be developed during game play. Why not wait until you meet an NPC bandit before deciding that your character's father was killed by bandits? Why not wait until you're fishing on the river before you decide to have fishing as a skill? Why not wait until you find the Crossbow of Shooting-Really-Good before deciding that you have some skill with shooting a crossbow? It just feels more organic to me.

Always a good discussion.
 


sheadunne

Explorer
Once you know where you've been, you can't change it. It's just there interfering with your choices, limiting your options. That just feels like a bad way to play a game. Instead, why not wait until a choice adds something to the game, whether it's complicating it or assisting it?

If a character makes the choice prior to the start of the game that he wants his character to be on the run from the law, he's forcing the game to go down his path. It doesn't add to the game, to forces it to do his bidding or he won't have any fun.

The other option is to wait until "running from the law" becomes an interesting development to the story of the game. The player doesn't need to request that the game be focused on his character's backstory, he waits until the backstory presents itself and then the background becomes an interesting complication to the evolving story.
 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
Once you know where you've been, you can't change it. It's just there interfering with your choices, limiting your options.

That's certainly one way of looking at it.

OTOH, I see it as more realistic: like a RW living being, each bit of the PC's past informs how he reacts to events going forward. It provides a mental framework to the question of "what would this guy do in this circumstance?"

And that can matter. If another player- or the DM- asks you why you did X instead of Y, there is an extant groundwork you can point at.

Having that background in hand from the beginning has also helped me decide language, skill, spell, feat, weapon & armor choices- things you definitely need before the first initiative die is rolled.
 

Argyle King

Legend
I agree that players tend to be more engaged when their character is tied to the game world. I also highly enjoy some of the things described in the OP. However, that is not the only way; nor do I feel it should be because not every player is going to fit into the same style of play.

In one of the GURPS Dungeon Fantasy games I ran, the only part of the world I had created was one town. At the beginning of the campaign, I gave the PCs general info about the town -the things everyone there would know. That town is where the campaign would begin, but, beyond that, I told them to create their backstories, and I would build the rest of the world around that. It worked very similar to some of what the OP describes. Two members of the group decided to be dwarven brothers who came from mountains west of town; as such, it was established that there was a dwarven clan and mountains to the west. One member of the group decided to be a priest from a church in town; as such, it was established that that particular faith was in town. ...and so on, and so on. I highly enjoyed doing things that way, and I liked that everyone was invested in the game.

Currently, I am a player in a Star Wars game. My choices during character creation didn't change the universe or what was in it. However, the game system did give me hooks to tie myself into what was going on. In this case, the campaign world was not build around me; instead, my character was built around the campaign world. I feel that is an entirely valid way to do things as well. In many cases, when I've been a DM for some players who needed some structure to be nudged forward, and they have preferred experiences in which they could build something which was given definition by what was already established.

I believe -a lot of the time- a group will have some mix of both. There are going to be players who thrive on the idea of being able to add something to the world with their choices, and by that I mean filling in some of the blanks left by the GM. There are also going to be players who prefer more structure; they don't want to change the world and fill in blanks, but they do want to be a part of the world and explore what is in it; interact with it. The latter might very well still have a desire to fill in some blanks, but possibly on a scale which is more organic and grows from play rather than being predestined before the game begins. Neither approach is right or wrong; simply different, and in no circumstance would I ever suggest these are the only two styles of play.

There are some who prefer to engage the game as a game first, and maybe -maybe- get involved in the creative endeavor second. The numbers of the game, and a sense of winning by using those numbers is what intrigues them. As with above, I do not believe this is right or wrong. It is certainly not my preference, and I very much prefer a different style, but what I like and dislike is not the same as what someone else likes or dislikes. It is also my opinion that there are systems which encourage (or are at least better suited) to certain approaches.

Some of my most frustrating times with D&D have been when what I wanted to do with a character -what I felt I should do when considering the investment I had in the story and the fiction and my character- was at odds with what the game system said I should do, and there was little I could do to reconcile the two. The less a system's structure causes me to feel that way, the more I find I can enjoy the rpg experience. Note, this isn't the same as saying I cannot enjoy the experience; I simply prefer that a game's fluff and crunch have a coherent enough relationship that conflicts like the one's I'm mentioning here do not happen often. The same thing occasionally happens from the GM side of the table as well; there have been times when I've felt that what I was trying to build didn't make sense in the context of the game I was using at the time.
 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
Some of my most frustrating times with D&D have been when what I wanted to do with a character -what I felt I should do when considering the investment I had in the story and the fiction and my character- was at odds with what the game system said I should do, and there was little I could do to reconcile the two. The less a system's structure causes me to feel that way, the more I find I can enjoy the rpg experience. Note, this isn't the same as saying I cannot enjoy the experience; I simply prefer that a game's fluff and crunch have a coherent enough relationship that conflicts like the one's I'm mentioning here do not happen often. The same thing occasionally happens from the GM side of the table as well; there have been times when I've felt that what I was trying to build didn't make sense in the context of the game I was using at the time.

Yep.

That's why, even though HERO is my favorite system bar none, I sometimes prefer to play in other systems for particular campaigns. While HERO is super flexible, and I have yet to come up with a PC I couldn't design with it, I have found that the play experience can be better in campaigns in which a genre-specific mechanical system is used.
 

Herobizkit

Adventurer
One setting I've always wanted to try is role-playing players playing an online RPG (qv .hack, Sword Art Online, even Mega Man NT Warrior/Exe. Shadowrun doesn't technically count, though I've played 2e and 3e), having a persona both outside and inside a game world. I'd like to be able to play modern and fantasy at the same time, but not necessarily fusing them into a Shadowrun-type gestalt.

I even pitched to the players a game where they are actors role-playing characters in a TV show that features the above... so role-players playing role-players playing role-players playing an RPG.

It got too meta for them.
 

sheadunne

Explorer
OTOH, I see it as more realistic: like a RW living being, each bit of the PC's past informs how he reacts to events going forward. It provides a mental framework to the question of "what would this guy do in this circumstance?"

That's why players develop personality for their character. If someone is grumpy, the reason why he's always grumpy only matters when the background can be leveraged in play. If the player waits to develop that background until it fits within the game world, then he gains more options and choice to make the background work for the story, not against it. He might decided once they players enter the town of HereYouAre that the reason his player is grumpy is because when he visited the town before, people made fun of him. That's now something that adds to the story. If he had chosen it before the game started, it would have been possible that the PCs never went to the town and the background doesn't become part of the story. It's just the math on the paper than leads to = grumpy.

Having that background in hand from the beginning has also helped me decide language, skill, spell, feat, weapon & armor choices- things you definitely need before the first initiative die is rolled.

I find they don't need to be decided before initiative is rolled. They can be decided during play, when they matter to game play. I chose Goblin for my character because my Granddaddy taught it to me, which he learned during the Goblin war 30 years ago. If there aren't any Goblins in the game, did that choice really matter at all? Am I now limited in choosing even more Goblin related spells, feats, skills, because my background is influencing my character?

Does my character use a sword or an axe? Does it matter until I roll dice or need to leverage the weapon in some way? What if I chose sword before we started playing, but several opportunities arose before I even used the sword that suggested axe would have been a better choice? Did I miss opportunities and choices because of a choice I made prior to even playing the game? If I had waited, wouldn't I have been able to participate even more fully in the game?

I don't know, but it's where my thinking is at and where I am right now when it comes to background, character creation, advancement and game play.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top