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
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?

If you sat down to play a game of D&D in our group and didn't have your spells, armor, weapons and feats picked before initiative was rolled, you'd catch a LOT of stink-eye. We would NOT wait for you.

As for the Goblin thing: if there are to be obvious major variances between a standard D&D setting and what the DM's running- a lack of goblins being a good example- then it is up to the DM tell you that. And if that didn't happen, I would expect to work with the DM to resolve and revise my PC to be in conformity...or revise the game world to make my choices make sense.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

sheadunne

Explorer
If you sat down to play a game of D&D in our group and didn't have your spells, armor, weapons and feats picked before initiative was rolled, you'd catch a LOT of stink-eye. We would NOT wait for you.

I thought we were talking theory here, not practice. But it's pretty norm in the games I run now. You'd be pretty disappointed making choices upfront and miss a lot of fun opportunities to grow your character in the game world.

As for the Goblin thing: if there are to be obvious major variances between a standard D&D setting and what the DM's running- a lack of goblins being a good example- then it is up to the DM tell you that. And if that didn't happen, I would expect to work with the DM to resolve and revise my PC to be in conformity...or revise the game world to make my choices make sense.

None of which would be required by waiting until game play for those decisions to be made.

I will say that most versions of D&D do not lend themselves to this style of character background and development. It requires system mastery and bending to make it work. I tend to not run many D&D games these days for that reason. But I would love to see D&D evolve into an organic RPG experience.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Janx

Hero
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.

Using D&D 3e as my example, deciding what feats, skills, etc your PC has right when it matters becomes an interuption in game play to make sure you have enough skill points, etc. Doing the math, making sure you have enough free Feat slots, calculating attack bonuses is all stuff that I prefer to be done on your sheet before the game actually starts.

Further, getting to pick you skills right when you need one in the game feels too much like Johnny RightTool, who always happens to have the right tool for the job, rather than solving the problem with the tools he has, not the tools he wants.

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?

I subscribe to the definition of role playing that you are defining a character and then choosing to restrict yourself to that character's definition when you play the game. So if you choose to play a Lawful Good Fighter, you are choosing to restrict yourself from wanton slaughter of villages as a means to Restless Native Pacification.

So, what you know how to do, what equipment you start with, who your parents are, what your PC is like is all starting state decisions.

What your PC grows into is a different matter of course.

It may be a bad way to play a GAME, but it may be one of the correct ways to play a ROLE PLAYING game.

An RPG is more about player's screwing themselves with initial character restrictions and trying to optimize from there, than a regular game of Monopoly or Poker where you'd never choose starting from any restriction if you could.


Where you may see my choosing Swimming as a skill before the game starts as not adding to the game, versus picking it when my PC really needs to cross that river, in fact, it shapes the game because my PC is going to seek out solutions where his ability to Swim is an advantage over NPCs who can't.

So a non-swimming NPC being chased by PCs is going to blow up the bridge to thwart pursuit. A PC with an empty skill slot is just going to pick swimming to bypass the challenge. A PC who actually took swimming originally is going to come up with swimming across the river as his solution. A PC who didn't take swimming is going to come up with something different.

I actually get more organic game play by virtue of the "locked in" choices the PCs made during character creation that were independent of the actual adventure.
 

JamesonCourage

Adventurer
You'd be pretty disappointed making choices upfront and miss a lot of fun opportunities to grow your character in the game world.
I can't speak for Danny, but I most certainly would not be disappointed by making my decisions beforehand. It's necessary for me to make them beforehand, even.

I have negative interest in making up my backstory as I go along. That pulls me so far out of immersion that it's not something I ever want to engage in. I want to know who I am, and experience has shown me that if I want to know that, I want to know where I've come from. Heck, it's why I made an optional Life Course for my RPG that lets you roll out random events (shaped by a few custom, pre-selected character traits). You can see what events have happened for your character, so that you have some hooks, know some NPCs (good or bad), have some history, and see how it shaped who you are now.

I'm not going to be disappointed by writing "sword" down, instead of leaving it blank until having a sword is convenient. I'm going to be happy when I write "sword" down, and then my sword being useful comes up, or when I improvise something because I don't have that axe.

I'm not going to be disappointed by making my decisions beforehand, and, if I'm running a game, it's not going to keep my players from having "fun opportunities to grow their character in the game world." They, like me, want a chance to have their characters connect with the world and the setting. They don't want to say "I knew this language all along" when it's convenient; they'd rather pantomime, look for translators, or the like, and see how things grow out of those interactions.

I get that you enjoy your style, but both your post (especially the bit I quoted above) and this article come off as a bit one-true-way ish, in my opinion. And both of those opinions, when taken to the extreme (one-true-way), are wrong. They definitely work for a lot of players, but I have negative interest in that style of game, and I'd probably bow out after the first session if I showed up and that was how things went down.

That's not to say that my way is objectively better, or anything. But I 100% object you statement, above. I'm going to be disappointed if we do it your way, not the other way around. Because, very simply, your way isn't right for me. And, perhaps predictably, KM's way isn't right for me, either. I'd much rather make explicit choices for my character before play, and do so based on explicit setting facts presented to me before play that I had no hand in making. I want the worlds and setting there, prior to me making my character. I want my background fleshed out, prior to me playing my character, so that I can immerse in my character (since that's what works for me).

Your way isn't bad, or wrong, or not-fun, or anything. I mean, for me it is, but it's not objectively so. And I hope people on both sides can at least see that it's simply preference, and that just because you found something revolutionary for you and your group at some point, it doesn't mean I'm missing out on fun (as you pretty explicitly said in the bit I quoted) because I don't like it. It just means that I don't like it. As always, play what you like :)
 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
You'd be pretty disappointed making choices upfront and miss a lot of fun opportunities to grow your character in the game world.

Not at all- its just that my PC's choices going forward would be made in light of the PC's past, just like those I make in my own.
 

sheadunne

Explorer
I can't speak for Danny, but I most certainly would not be disappointed by making my decisions beforehand. It's necessary for me to make them beforehand, even.

Not at all- its just that my PC's choices going forward would be made in light of the PC's past, just like those I make in my own.

I find it interesting that you both have taken that quote out of context which directly refers to games I run, which are a home brew system and plays quite differently than other games. The game requires you not to make those types of discussions ahead of time in order to advance your character. So yes, if you make those decisions ahead of time you're going to be disappointed because they won't come up in play. It has nothing to do with play style, it's mechanical in the game.

Please try not to make it seem like I'm against anyones preferences. I'm suggesting alternatives and ones that I both enjoy and prefer.
 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
So yes, if you make those decisions ahead of time you're going to be disappointed because they won't come up in play.

You seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying: I make those decisions before gameplay because, when presented with a choice of actions, I want to have a PC framework in my mind when I ask myself "What would ______ do in this situation?"

That way, I am making decisions based on what the PC- not I- would do in a given situation. The PC background is thus the fulcrum upon which my lever (PC) pivots, allowing me to move the world.
 

sheadunne

Explorer
You seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying: I make those decisions before gameplay because, when presented with a choice of actions, I want to have a PC framework in my mind when I ask myself "What would ______ do in this situation?"

That way, I am making decisions based on what the PC- not I- would do in a given situation. The PC background is thus the fulcrum upon which my lever (PC) pivots, allowing me to move the world.

I understand. In my game that isn't possible. Or rather, its possible through personality, profession and biology, but not background story. That's all I'm saying. You have the end result of your background story, just not the details. I'm not saying you won't be disappointed that its not available to you. But mechanically speaking having it leads to being unable to advance beyond the equivalent of a level one character. It's built into the game because I enjoy it and find my players like it, although it requires thinking differently about background and how it plays out in their characters lives.

As I said in a previous post it doesn't work well with D&D which almost completely ignores background and focuses a great deal on the detail of items like feats, class abilities and spells and uses level to balance them rather than the abilities themselves. Wish isn't balanced with toughness which isn't balanced with a barbarians rage. The character level attempts to balance those items.

Since D&D ignores background, or rather only really cares about it at first level rather than the characters entire career, it doesn't lend itself to a system that makes background a continuous source of discovery about the character. It implies that I learned fishing between level 10 and 11 when i took the skill, rather than something I learned fishing with my dad 15 years ago and it just hasn't presented itself in the game until now, because there was no need to fish. And it certainly wasn't something I thought about taking at level one because I had no idea I wanted my character to learned fishing and I know my character better now that I've played him for 10 levels.
 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
I understand. In my game that isn't possible. Or rather, its possible through personality, profession and biology, but not background story. That's all I'm saying. You have the end result of your background story, just not the details. I'm not saying you won't be disappointed that its not available to you. But mechanically speaking having it leads to being unable to advance beyond the equivalent of a level one character. It's built into the game because I enjoy it and find my players like it, although it requires thinking differently about background and how it plays out in their characters lives.

This whole tangent would have also been interesting in that "how much does system matter to player enjoyment" thread!

While I probably would not find such a system enjoyable, it's cool that you & your fellow players do- viva la difference!
It implies that I learned fishing between level 10 and 11 when i took the skill, rather than something I learned fishing with my dad 15 years ago and it just hasn't presented itself in the game until now, because there was no need to fish.

Well, yes- if you only allocated points to fishing skill between 10th & 11th, the implication is that that is the implication, and that if you wanted to be proficient in fishing since childhood, you had to allocate SPs at 1st.

However, that is only an implication. It could just as easily be said that you hadn't fished in so long, your skills had atrophied from disuse, and it wasn't until between 10th and 11th that you shook the rust off and started fishing proficiently again.

D&D doesn't care about background if you don't.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

JamesonCourage

Adventurer
I find it interesting that you both have taken that quote out of context which directly refers to games I run, which are a home brew system and plays quite differently than other games.
I didn't feel like it was out of context, but I'm sorry it came across that way. You seemed to explicitly say how someone else would feel if they didn't play in your theoretical style. That is what I was responding to. Sorry for any offense.
The game requires you not to make those types of discussions ahead of time in order to advance your character.
So it's not a game I'd want to play long term, but it'd be fun for one-shots, maybe. I like branching into other styles in the short term.
So yes, if you make those decisions ahead of time you're going to be disappointed because they won't come up in play. It has nothing to do with play style, it's mechanical in the game.
Um, it's still play style, to me. Pretty clearly play style, at that. I'm totally okay with giving up convenient bonuses if it helps me immerse in the game. And for me, that has meant knowing my character's history, equipment, etc.

I also understand I'd be giving up mechanical advancement. I might even do that, if it meant I'd be able to play long term with a group of people I liked. I most certainly couldn't play long term if I accepted your background method, so I might accept being level 1 forever just to play, provided I liked the group. To me, it's better than the alternative.
Please try not to make it seem like I'm against anyones preferences. I'm suggesting alternatives and ones that I both enjoy and prefer.
Cool, no worries, then. I thought you were saying I'd have less fun if I didn't do things your way. If that's not what you meant, then we're good. I'm glad you like your thing, man, and I have no problem with you advocating it. Lots of other people like your method, and many others out there. As always, play what you like :)
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top