How much back story do you allow/expect at the start of the game?

[Desdichado]

There are obviously table norms around what it is or isn't polite to have your PC do - the player whose dumb barbarian torpedoes every social situation by "negotiating" with an axe is probably just a **** - but that's orthogonal to the current discussion. The reason for holding back there isn't to give timid players "spotlight" time, but a courtesy to one's fellow players who also have an intrerest in engaging the fiction with their PCs.

(Personally I'd go further than that - I think if the game system allows one player to generate a PC whose default modus is an axe, and another PC whose default is to talk, then the system should be able to cope with the motivational tension between these two characters without breaking down. Relying on social norms to manage this is a weakness in the system. But I think every version of D&D - even 4e - suffers from that weakness.)

And that's where we part ways again. I don't think that's orthogonal to the discussion at all; it IS the discussion. And I STRONGLY disagree with looking for a system solution to perceived social issues at the table. Gaming is fundamentally a social pastime, even more than it is a "game", in my experience. Attempting to patch over social issues with rules is a little ... spectrumish for my taste. I would hate it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Bridge and 500 aren't strictly competitive. The partners aren't in competition. Yet all the same issues arise - how does one play, in a social game, if one's partner won't ever bid above 6 tricks because s/he can't read a hand, and the other bidding, well enough to understand how many tricks s/he is capable of taking?

Yes, the fact there aren't tournaments with cash prizes for the winners does go a long way to showing they aren't competitive games.

...

...

/sarcasm

Whatever the answer to that question - and it's utterly contextual - it is fully translatable to the RPG context.

No, it isn't.

Consider even a strictly competitive game - say, backgammon. How closely should I compute the odds when playing with a child compared to playing with another friend who is as into it as me? Whaever the answer - and again it's utterly contextual - that answer is translatable to the RPG context.

No, it isn't.

The person who is not as skilled might learn. Others might hold back (for a bit; sometimes; until they get tired of doing so; until the campaign falls apart - how can there be general rules here?). The group might separate into its well-suited components.

My time for RPGing is limited, and it's a fairly time-intensive activity (multi-hour sessions reasonably frequently). I want more than tepid play. So I'm not going to encourage my players to hold back.

No one claimed you should. However, as DM, you should take some effort to shine the spotlight on the less skilled players. Or accept that you're actually playing a competitive game. Which is fine, no one says you can't.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well, you certainly got your revenge on the world, when your party destroyed it rather than saving it, and then wandered off into the blazing nuclear sunset of a burning world whistling unconcerned, completely sure that releasing the demons who had been trapped below the surface and were now free to wander it at will would have no real effect on YOU. And if everyone else burned; well, so what? They had it coming!

We weren't getting paid to save the world, just to deliver the weapons of mass destruction to the people planning on using them for genocide. The fact we picked up that Demon Queen hitchhiker and tried and failed to leverage a big payday out of it is beside the point. If you ask me, maybe the world deserved it. Honestly, any world that picks that crew to be it's heroes deserves a lot worse than it got. We did the world a service, actually, and we should be paid for it. Handsomely.


EDIT: I miss playing Lash.

 

[Caliban]

[MENTION=284]Caliban[/MENTION] - I think we mean different things by "roleplaying". I mean "playing a roleplaying game".

Yeah, to me "roleplaying" is "playing the role of your character".

What you are calling "roleplaying" I would call simply "Playing the game" - even if it means doing things that would be out of character for your PC in order for the group to succeed at their current quest/goal/mission.

Ideally you do both at the same time, but sometimes you have to choose to focus on one over the other.

 

[pemerton]

Yes, the fact there aren't tournaments with cash prizes for the winners does go a long way to showing they aren't competitive games.

Huh? Do your play bridge or 500? The partners aren't in competition - they are cooperating in the bidding, and in 500 are cooperating in the play.

The fact that they're cooperating doesn't change the fact that questions of player skill, and how to handle it in a social context, come up. And it's not as simple as just allowing the more timid player some spotlight time. I've played with partners who want me to steer the bidding for our partnership, because they (i) want the pleasure of winning, and (ii) want to learn how to play the game, and therefore are happy to have a model.

In the RPG context, the analogue is that of letting the skilled wargamer make suggestions about spell load-out; or about combat tactics. That happens from time-to-time in RPGing, and has nothing to do with whether or not the game is competitive.

However, as DM, you should take some effort to shine the spotlight on the less skilled players. Or accept that you're actually playing a competitive game.

Why is it up to the GM and not up to the other players? Or up to the less skilled player to make some sort of move?

The GM has a a certain role in the way the game unfolds, but isn't a chaperone. The GM can frame situations that speak to the concerns of the less-skilled player, but if that player doesn't follow up (because s/he doesn't know how to, or is to scared to) then the focus is fairly quickly going to swing back onto a player who is ready to engage the game. And that has nothing to do with competition.

(Of course you can avoid the above dynamic by avoiding player impact on the shape and direction of the game, and just having the GM tell the players stories about their PCs. But personally I don't like that style of RPGing.)

 

[Desdichado]

Huh? Do your play bridge or 500? The partners aren't in competition - they are cooperating in the bidding, and in 500 are cooperating in the play.

The fact that they're cooperating doesn't change the fact that questions of player skill, and how to handle it in a social context, come up. And it's not as simple as just allowing the more timid player some spotlight time. I've played with partners who want me to steer the bidding for our partnership, because they (i) want the pleasure of winning, and (ii) want to learn how to play the game, and therefore are happy to have a model.

LOL. It's not a competition; we just want to win!

I mean, c'mon. When people tell me "Not everything has to be a competition!" I usually respond with something like, "That's why you're losing, loser!" but that's a JOKE. I don't literally believe that.

 

[pemerton]

I STRONGLY disagree with looking for a system solution to perceived social issues at the table. Gaming is fundamentally a social pastime, even more than it is a "game", in my experience. Attempting to patch over social issues with rules is a little ... spectrumish for my taste. I would hate it.

Social issue: who gets to decide whether their's an orc in the room? And if there is, who gets to decide if the adventurer's attack it? And if they do, who gets to decide what happens to the orc?

System answers those questions: the GM decides what's in the room; the players decide what their PCs do; the resolution mechanics decides what happens to orcs that get attacked.

Social issue: A's barbarian wants to attack; B's swordthane wants to negotiate. System can answer that question to, eg by allowing B to declare some sort of reaction to A's declaration of an attack. Or by establishing parameters in which the players can expect competition and/or cooperation between PCs, and which guide the referee in framing situations that work within those parameters (some Fate aspects might work to help with those parameters; D&D alignment probably can too, though not as robustly in my personal experience).

 

[pemerton]

LOL. It's not a competition; we just want to win!

The parnters aren't in competition with one another. Do you play bridge or five hundred? Do you know how bidding works? The players (with partners sitting opposite) take turns to bid, with the successful bid binding the partnership. So bidding is competitive against the other partnership, and cooperative with one's partner.

In bridge pay is cooperative for the partnership that loses the bid, but not for the winner (who plays their hand and the dummy). In 500 play is cooperative for both partnerships.

Yet the social issue of timid players, and how to handle them, can arise in the context of a partnership. (I know; I've experienced it.) The fact that the partners aren't in competition doesn't make it any less. Some timid partners like playing with a strong partner who will dominate the play of their partnership and win the hand; other timid partners get resentful if their parner dominates play in that way, as they feel embarrased/shown up/that their participation didn't really matter (and that perception can often be correct).

Those social issues are not obviated by the fact that the partners are not competing with one another. And the dynamic is no different from D&D - does the timid player who can't do maths, never remembers the spell lists and forgets about his/her PC's magic items want the skilled wargamer to take charge (so the PCs beat the monsters); or will s/he be resentful, and rather make his/her own choices even though they lead to failure in the adventure?

There's no general answer to that question - it's utterly contextual, and the contrast of competitive/cooperative doesn't shed any light on that context. There's no general truth to the claim that the GM should make sure the player choices don't matter, so that the PCs will succed in the adventure whatever choices the timid player makes, or even if s/he doesn't choose at all but just dithers.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Backstory? What is this you speak of?

Usually half my players don't even have names for their PC when we start the first session. Never encountered this mythical "backstory". Heard some goths playing Vampire at the game store talking about it once but I thought they were just on drugs.

I would hope a player with all this "backstory" woudn't get too upset if a pit trap and a stirge killed his PC in the first session.

 

[Desdichado]

Social issue: who gets to decide whether their's an orc in the room? And if there is, who gets to decide if the adventurer's attack it? And if they do, who gets to decide what happens to the orc?

System answers those questions: the GM decides what's in the room; the players decide what their PCs do; the resolution mechanics decides what happens to orcs that get attacked.

This isn't helping rebut my claim that this whole discussion is veering into spectrum territory. Quite the opposite. Do you have a system to decide where to go out to eat with your friends too? And what everyone will order? Is there a rulebook for that? Is this a RAW dinner, or do you have documented house rules?

The parnters aren't in competition with one another. Do you play bridge or five hundred? Do you know how bidding works?

Yes, yes, yes but the GAME is a competitive one. I think this is your disconnect with the conversation that the rest of us are apparently having; you can't divorce the concept of "game" from some endeavor where you try to "win." That's why you keep making comparisons that are false equivalencies from our point of view and have little to do with what we're talking about. You keep saying things like "the dynamic is no different from D&D" and the rest of us keep saying... "uh, yeah, they actually have very little in common." From your perspective, it's all about "what are the rules to play this game?" From our perspective, it's a much more casual; "hang around with your friends rolling some dice and having fun." Superficially they may be very similar, but the paradigm applied is light-years apart. Social issues can only successfully be resolved socially. Trying to make "rules" for them or force them into a "system" is how you reliably fail.

There's no general truth to the claim that the GM should make sure the player choices don't matter, so that the PCs will succed in the adventure whatever choices the timid player makes, or even if s/he doesn't choose at all but just dithers.

OK, that really is a non sequitur. Either that or a strawman.