have players submit plot hooks?

[Rel]

where this fails is of course when one player decides his PC would never compromise and would prefer to find another party of adventurers to complete his hook. thus... he rolls up a new PC or the player leaves the group. this is a group game. and in that context there are meta reasons for the PCs to stay together.

Agreed completely but for the longest time hashing out this compromise too big chunks of game time and were NOT our most enjoyable bits of roleplaying. It would often go like this...

Player 1: "Well it's REALLY important to my character to go after the orcs who destroyed his village. Plus, if we act quickly we might rescue some of the captives before they're eaten!"

Player 2: "But my mission to uncover the secrets of the Ten Pillars of Dust is REALLY important too! I heard that if something isn't done by the next full moon, a DEMON will be unleashed and kill untold thousands!"

Player 1: "Riiight. As if we're going to defeat a DEMON. No WAY am I going there. Not while my people are about to be eaten alive by Orcs!" Besides, maybe if we defeat the orcs quick enough we'll be able to go do your thing too.

Player 2: *sigh* "Ok, fine. I'm tired of arguing about this. I can compromise and we'll go fight the stupid orcs!"

Player 1: "Ok great. I'm glad you compromised. Because I was NEVER going to compromised my special mission!"

Player 2: "Oh yeah?! Well screw you! I UNcompromise!..."

*rinse repeat for a couple hours*


Now first of all, I'd like to think we've all matured a bit over the ensuing years. But we've also made it a point to colaboratively generate characters for our recent campaigns and that helps cut down on this. We also have a tacit agreement NOT to unilateraly establish open agendas for our PC's that would force everybody else into line behind us. However one thing that the GMs (myself included) have encouraged is the occasional hidden agenda that the PC's can pursue secretly while the primary adventure takes place.

 

[ST]

There's other approaches, too. You can split the party up, and have the other PCs play cohorts or NPCs in the "mini-party" their PC isn't in. You can run a "striped" adventure where you cut back and forth between the different PCs doing their own things.

I think it's a good idea to discuss whether or not splitting the party is allowed, before you sit at the table. If there's a meta reason why everybody has to stick together, make sure everybody's in agreement with that, and you can work around it. If there isn't, and the group's comfortable with splitting, then no problem.

(I admit this works best in games other than D&D, though, given the emphasis on group-based combat and the 'party of specialists' mentality you see there.)

 

[ShadowDenizen]

Player-submitted plot hooks have worked well for our Shackled CIty campaign so far. (I try to keep AT LEAST one "DM built" plot hook and one "PC-initiated" plot hook per chracter.)

In my experience, it really helps to keep the players invested in the charcters and the game. (Of course, I do offer XP incentives for anything "above and beyond" the normal scope of the game, especially since Shackled CIty is a TOUGH adventure!!)

We've added a new shop run by worshippers of Zeus and Hephaestus (interesting since one of the PC's is a Hera-worshipper), and they're trying to establish a presence in Cauldron; needless to say the four major existing Churches are NOT too happy... (The player actually created and submitted the whole write-up; building, map, etc.)

One of the PC's has an extensive background where he knows Annah Taskerhill of the Stormblades (logical because, IIRC, they're both shawhbucklers.)

The rogue PC is trying in vain to gain access to the Last Laugh and/or the Alleybashers (who have been modifed to be a militant "splinter faction" of the Last Laugh.

The priest of Wee Jas? Naturally has quite a few hooks; he's VERY interested in why the temple aren't that interested in helping out during the Flood Festival.

 

[Janx]

Oh boy, have I had player input in future adventure design.

Player A - "You should make an adventure where I become seperated from the other players, and I have to fight a bunch of uber-baddies to save the rest of the PCs."
Player B - Have us rescue the NPC, then I will confess my love to his daughter. He will get mad, then the villain shows up we fight him, one of the PCs kills him, and then I find the item and...
Player C - I like big wars. I don't like small, dramatic fights. Everyone must think the same way as I do. I want to do an adventure of gurilla combat.

Only a few players do it, but those that do, do it all the time. All three are real examples, and only Player B would claim that I'm ruining their character when I didn't GM their script. A and C would come around, roll with it, then go back to giving suggestions.

This is the common problem I forsee. It's the same with character backgrounds, really. There's always some guy who wants to be noble born, and then use that to justify more starting money than anybody else. And then there's the inherited +5 sword they feel entitled to, at first level...

A GM has CRs and such to balance their adventure with. A PC needs something similar to balance their backstory, and immediate pre-start game goals. Perhaps a backstory point system, where you build a backstory (with plot-hook ties)...

 

[Dragonbait]

This is the common problem I forsee. It's the same with character backgrounds, really. There's always some guy who wants to be noble born, and then use that to justify more starting money than anybody else. And then there's the inherited +5 sword they feel entitled to, at first level...

Yup, someone tried to do this too. I also get this (real story)
Player - "I think some people should be allowed to start at higher levels than other people."
Me - "Interesting proposal."
Player - "yeah, so I want to be the 5th-level character. Everyone else can be level 1."
Me - "[Sarcasm]Ah, yes, that is fair for everyone else, isn't it.[/Sarcasm]"
Player - "Yeah, it is."
Me - "Ok. How about this: I will allow someone to be higher level than the others, but the players vote for who it will be, and no one can vote for themselves. That way, there can be a more experienced character, and the group will have voted for it, so they should be fine with the results. I'll just adjust the CRs appropriately."
Player - "Oh.. Well.. nevermind..."

 

[buzz]

Instead of (or in addition to) players developing detailed character backgrounds, what if they submitted 2 or 3 plot hooks that would help me as DM see what kinds of adventures the player wants his PC to be involved in?

I can no longer imagine running a campaign without doing this. It's practically step 1.

 

[buzz]

Personally, I prefer a game to go even further than that: forget the character. What does the player want the character to be doing? 'Cause those are two very, very different issues.

For a long time, I have had suspicions that tetsujin28 is a genuis. With this, my suspicions have been confirmed.

Tangential pimp: You know, what we're talking about here, and what tetsujin28 says above? It's, like, basically on page one of games like Burning Wheel and Dogs in the Vineyard.

 

[buzz]

usually as a player, when I write my background, I include lots of things that could be considered plot hooks. Some DM's grab onto them, others don't.

Yep. In our current AoW campaign, I basically wrote in as many hooks into the campaign setup as possible.

Spoiler

E.g., Balabar Smenk (big NPC in AoW) employs pretty much my PC's entire family. And, bingo, he's now holding my PC's sister hostage in order to get the PC to do his bidding.

One of the worst things a player can do, IMO, is to write a long backstory full of things the character did instead of things they want the character to do.

 

[riprock]

Oh boy, have I had player input in future adventure design.

Player A - "You should make an adventure where I become seperated from the other players, and I have to fight a bunch of uber-baddies to save the rest of the PCs."
Player B - Have us rescue the NPC, then I will confess my love to his daughter. He will get mad, then the villain shows up we fight him, one of the PCs kills him, and then I find the item and...
Player C - I like big wars. I don't like small, dramatic fights. Everyone must think the same way as I do. I want to do an adventure of gurilla combat.

Only a few players do it, but those that do, do it all the time. All three are real examples, and only Player B would claim that I'm ruining their character when I didn't GM their script. A and C would come around, roll with it, then go back to giving suggestions.

That mostly matches my experience.

When you have folks who take their characters and backstories very seriously, they often don't share the spotlight with each other.

The flipside is, when you get folks who are willing to cooperate and put the party first, they often don't have much creative energy or commitment to the campaign.

I have, in the past, been called in by a DM who said, "Look, all my normal players are running off in all directions and fighting each other. Can you come in for a few sessions and help me get them back on plot?"

I came. I tried. It didn't work very well.

 

[SorvahrSpahr]

I usually create a main story, then I ask for each character background story and I try to fit them into the main one. Other times, I may encourage the players to create their backgrounds while getting something in common. In my actual campaign, I managed to get all 3 characters in sync. They all had some kind of experience with the BBEG, the ex-cleric's village ritual got screwed thx to the dark paladin, the nymph, got her forest disturbed by him, he tried to open a portal to the abyss that was concealed inside her forest, and the ninja got assigned to kill him