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

[Lylandra]

In context this sort of makes sense but my first thought on reading it was still "Almost never? Does that mean I should be calling the cops?".

To clarify: I am no GRRM of character backgrounds

 

[Sunseeker]

To throw out some personal examples here and I don't know if they support any particular poster's argument or not but...

I'm often the driving force in parties. I admit to being something of a large personality, but like I discussed in a previous thread: I made adventurers. Adventuring is a driving force in the PC's life. So when there is choice lock or general indecision in the party, I will often have my character make dramatic decisions in order to push the game forward. Sometimes by design, sometimes on accident, this gets the DM to put a spotlight on my character. I get my PC into trouble sometimes doing this, but even when I do, that gets the rest of the party to make a decision (often to come save my butt). My goal as a player at a table is always to drive the game forward, my PCs desire mirror that in an in-game fashion. But driving the game forward often means you end up in the drivers seat for the long-haul. While this means you've accomplished what you want (the game moving forward) it also gives you control over if it keeps moving, if you take a detour, if you stop by a tourist trap or whatnot.

When you're driving on a long road trip, you're often in charge of what food the group eats, what hotel the group stays at. Sure, they get to eat, they get to sleep, but maybe not the food they wanted or at the hotel they like. At the same time, it is often easy for other players to be passengers. The driver gets rewarded because they continue to drive, and the passengers well...get to come along for the ride.

It can suck sometimes, I try not to bogart the spotlight but I've played long enough that I always know what I want to do, what my PC wants to do. It's easy for me to sit in the drivers seat.

 

[Lanefan]

To throw out some personal examples here and I don't know if they support any particular poster's argument or not but...

I'm often the driving force in parties. I admit to being something of a large personality, but like I discussed in a previous thread: I made adventurers. Adventuring is a driving force in the PC's life. So when there is choice lock or general indecision in the party, I will often have my character make dramatic decisions in order to push the game forward. Sometimes by design, sometimes on accident, this gets the DM to put a spotlight on my character. I get my PC into trouble sometimes doing this, but even when I do, that gets the rest of the party to make a decision (often to come save my butt). My goal as a player at a table is always to drive the game forward, my PCs desire mirror that in an in-game fashion. But driving the game forward often means you end up in the drivers seat for the long-haul. While this means you've accomplished what you want (the game moving forward) it also gives you control over if it keeps moving, if you take a detour, if you stop by a tourist trap or whatnot.

When you're driving on a long road trip, you're often in charge of what food the group eats, what hotel the group stays at. Sure, they get to eat, they get to sleep, but maybe not the food they wanted or at the hotel they like. At the same time, it is often easy for other players to be passengers. The driver gets rewarded because they continue to drive, and the passengers well...get to come along for the ride.

It can suck sometimes, I try not to bogart the spotlight but I've played long enough that I always know what I want to do, what my PC wants to do. It's easy for me to sit in the drivers seat.

I know exactly what you mean. My problem tends to be that I drive my own characters into their graves, at which point the 'passengers' get to loot me and move on...

What happens when someone else decides they want to drive, though? When you've set a course for Calgary and someone else decides 'hell with that, we're going to Denver'. Unless the party splits you've only got one 'car'...what then?

Lanefan

 

[Sunseeker]

I know exactly what you mean. My problem tends to be that I drive my own characters into their graves, at which point the 'passengers' get to loot me and move on...

What happens when someone else decides they want to drive, though? When you've set a course for Calgary and someone else decides 'hell with that, we're going to Denver'. Unless the party splits you've only got one 'car'...what then?

Lanefan

As as DM, I won't run a split party. (If Bob is on the left side of the city and Joe is on the right, that's different). But if Bob is in Never-Never Land while Joe wants to go to Metropolis, I'll straight up tell them "I ain't splitting the party, pick one way or the other, any characters who refuse to go in the party's chosen direction get retired until the rest of the party goes there."

If someone else wants to take charge, I'll usually let them, provided whatever they want to do isn't inane and time-wasting.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Further to the point, social dynamics among partners in five hundred, among a team in football, etc, are very parallel to social dynamics in D&D.

If one person in the football team doesn't try, or can't run, or whatever, does everyone else stop playing as hard; or just work around the weaker player; or encourage that player to try harder; or . . . ? There's no universal answer to that question - it depens on context.

So likewise, if everyone gets together to RPG (as opposed to go to the pictures, or play boardgames, or do some gardening together, or . . .), and one person isn't trying, doesn't put forward a rich character, doesn't engage the fiction, etc, what do we do? I take it that [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] - and maybe [MENTION=2205]Hobo[/MENTION]? - is saying it's the GM's job to make sure that that one person gets just as much spotlight/focus as everyone else. The only way I can see to do that is (i) to modulate (or even block) the engaged players' impact on the fiction, and (ii) to tell a story that involves that other player's PC (because inherent in the situation, that player isn't generating his/her own story).

As far as "winning is concerned": [MENTION=2205]Hobo[/MENTION], [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] - when you play D&D, don't the players cooperate to try and WIN the combats; to try and WIN the treasure; etc? At least as the rulebooks present it, and as I see it discussed on these boards, D&D seems to be oriented towards a form of success.

And if the group is not interested in PC success but wants to create an interesting or wacky story, is the meek player who doesn't contribute to that still going to get the same splotlight time? How.

And also - more to Ovinomancer than Hobo - you seem to be assuming that "spotlight" and the drive of story is zero sum, so that if player X has more player Y has less. That's not my experience at all - a game in which the players play rich characters that engage the fiction and drive things forward increases the intensity and drama for everyone.

In a similar vein - I prefer to play bridge or 500 with another player who knows how to bid, how to follow the play, etc. It makes the partnership better for both of us. Whereas playing with a timid partner makes for a tepid game. This is not zero sum either - it's certainly not about any sort of competition for spotlight time. It's about having RPG experience that are engaging rather than tepid or half-baked or primarily GM-driven.

Huh, you shifted goalposts and then made up a strawman for my argument that I already specifically addressed and refuted.

Firstly, the discussion is on your claim that skilled roleplaying deserves to have more control over the game as a normative rule, not a player who's not showing interest in the game. I addressed this earlier, when you tried to move the posts in your previous posts, and called it out. If you'd like to have a discussion about players that aren't even trying to engage the game, we can do that, but it'll be boring as neither I nor Hobo are going to defend players that aren't trying to engage. In the meantime, let's not try to pretend that all of the preceding conversation is about unengaged players instead of the matter it was about: you saying that skilled players deserve more spotlight.

Secondly, I'll thank you to not ascribe arguments to me that I've explicitly rejected making, as I have on the difference between player skill and player involvement.

Thirdly, on spotlight time: it is a zero-sum game, or close to one. The attention of the DM adjudicating your plays is very much a limited resource, especially measured over the course of a session or three. If one player is dominating the DM's attention to adjudicate his plays, the other players are not getting that time. And that's what spotlight time is: a player's time where they are driving the story forward. You can't just declare that it's not a zero-sum game without showing how everyone gains that resource regardless of who's currently driving the story. You'll need to actually argue that position. I've provided my argument above as to what spotlight time is and how it is a limited resource that must be apportioned. Your turn.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That seems like a system assumption in many cases, as well. If a system employs 'niche protection' for instance, or has formal roles like 4e did, there's an implicit assumption that you'll be in the spotlight when your niche or role is needed, and languishing when it's not. That everyone could be involved more or less all the time is harder to grasp - some players get it, the ones that are still engaged and feeling like they're shining even when they're the leader who's enabling the striker who's murdering the BBEG, some, sometimes, coincidentally, the one playing the Striker murdering the BBEG, don't, and feel like the spotlight's all theirs.

You may have more experience with games that exceed the industry-standard.

Goodness, Tony, do you prefer the one or two knee approach?

And, no, it definitely doesn't assume niche protection. Niche protection builds in a mechanical reason to share spotlight time, but it doesn't define it or mean that games without niche protection ignore the issue of spotlight time. Rather, it's still on the GM to frame the story in ways that engage players through their characters, using the characters traits, flaws, desires, etc. In games that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] likes, this is explicitly built into the game, as characters have mechanically important handles built into them that are designed to be leveraged by both the GM and player to move the story forward. The GM's job is to frame situations that engage those handles, the player's job is to not avoid that engagement. If one player is jumping in and forcing the story towards their handles, the GM can, and should, introduce elements that engage other players as well. If the GM is allowing a player to dominate the game in Burning Wheel, for instance, it's because the GM is failing to use the tools made explicitly available to engage with the other players -- the GM is allowing this to happen.

This, of course, addresses issues with players that care and are engaged and want to play. If a player doesn't want to engage, then they aren't going to engage. But that's not a matter of skill, it's a matter of caring. When discussing skill alone, the GM has a duty to engage those players as well.

Again, if @permeton wants to make the argument that disinterested and unengaged players should get as much spotlight time as engaged and interested players, there will be much less of a discussion -- more of a general agreement with an obvious statement. Instead he staked the position that displayed skill should be rewarded with extra attention as a matter of course, to which I do take exception. Assuming equal levels of interest, skill may result in more success, but it shouldn't result in more spotlight.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It's a cute line!, and I'll take flattery as cheerfully as the next poster; but I think there's some other disconnect going on here. (Also, maybe some of this should be in the conccurrent "living world" thread - many of the issues overlap.)

There seems to be a significant, but not fully articulated, premise underlying [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION]'s and [MENTION=32740]Man in the Funny Hat[/MENTION]'s posts. Here's a quote from the latter, which triggered my response:

​

This seems to assume that the GM has "ongoing plots and adventures"; and that the GM is the one who "give all the attention and glory". And that the GM is therefore under an obligation to make each PC of roughly equal significance in the fiction. (I don't think Ovinomancer necessarily agrees with MitFH's further conclusion, that this equality of significance should be an AD&D-style equality of insignificance, but that difference is (I think) secondary.)

As soon as you think about the game from a player-driven rather than GM-driven perspective, that premise falls away. The player-driven game might be a Gygaxian-style one, where the skilled player/wargamer will tend to adopt a leadership role in determining logicistical and tactical choices; or an "indie"-style one, where the player who presents a rich character that engages the fictional situation will tend to shape the fiction, and drive it forward. Either way, it will be those players who tend to infuence and impact the game more heavily than the players who sit back and don't engage in the same way.

And as long as the game remains player-driven, the GM can't control this - in the Gygaxian game s/he can present challenges particularly suited to the timed player's character, but that won't guarantee that that player steps up; and in the "indie"-type game s/he can present situations that seem to speak to the timid player's character, but that won't guarantee that the player will bite.

Once we see the game as player-driven, we can also see how "spotlight"/contribution/attention is not zero-sum. If one reads the reports of the original Giants tournament, one gets the sense of a crack team of wargamers working together in a terrific fashion, with the whole of the play being much greater than the sum of the individual parts. Or when I think about favourite moments in some of my own games over the past several years, I think of moments when the players pushed their PCs, and the fiction along with them, in ways that created connections, and conflicts, and thematic moments, that made the stakes and the significance and the fallout for all of the characters greater than it would have been if just one player was doing just his/her thing with and for his/her PC.

By drawing, or at least trying to draw, the similarity (in respect of this issue) between Gygaxian play and "indie"-play, under the broader label of player-driven, I'm trying to engage with your quip about "industry standard" and suggest that it's not just about good vs sub-par games, but about approaches to how the game is played, and how the fiction is established and developed, which have roots in RPGing going back to those early D&D days.

This post is long, but hopefully answers your question. I'm disagreeing with Man in the Funny Hat, and with Ovinomancer: I think there is nothing wrong with a player's investment in and commitment to play having an influence on the extent to which that player shapes the direction and unfolding of the game.

The alternative, which I think is strongly implicit in MitFH and (it seems to me at least) also implicit in Ovinomancer, is that the GM drives the game, and establishes its direction and unfolding. I know that it is fairly popular style of RPGing (having its publication origins at or about the time of Dragonlance, and being the norm throughout the late 80s and 90s, and a basic assumption of adventure-path play). But I personally don't like it.

Whether players write long or short backstories isn't that important to me. What I care about is that (i) the player's PC has some clear drive or hook for me to respond to, and (ii) that when I do respond, the player engages in some fashion. This post, from the concurrent "living world" thread, gives some actual play examples from some of my first sessions over the past few years:

[sblock][/sblock]

And, again, you're supplying an argument of mine I didn't make, and that I took pains to actually couch in the terms of the story-first style games you play. Nothing in my argument relying on system, or hidden GM information -- it's entirely as compatible with DM driven story 5e as it is with Burning Wheel. That you'd, again, separate this into your favorite mantra of 'systems matter' and assign me a side so that you can dismiss my arguments is par for the course.

To, again, put it into your preferred playstyle, characters have mechanical hooks and the GM should engage them. If a player is dominating play, there's every reason for the GM to frame the next crisis as focusing on another character's hooks to bring them into conflict with the gameworld. Even if you drive a scene, that doesn't mean you should also get to drive the next scene, even if your scene sets some or even most of the framework for the next scene's crisis.

Again, skilled play may determine success, but it shouldn't determine spotlight. I'll expound a moment: as a skilled player you may achieve your desired goal from a contest or challenge more often than an unskilled player, but the next scene may not engage your character at all but instead engage the unskilled player. They, being unskilled, may not achieve success, but the spotlight was still on them for that scene. Being skilled may mean you get outcomes you prefer more often, but it shouldn't mean that more scenes focus on your character.

 

[Mort]

Again, skilled play may determine success, but it shouldn't determine spotlight. I'll expound a moment: as a skilled player you may achieve your desired goal from a contest or challenge more often than an unskilled player, but the next scene may not engage your character at all but instead engage the unskilled player. They, being unskilled, may not achieve success, but the spotlight was still on them for that scene. Being skilled may mean you get outcomes you prefer more often, but it shouldn't mean that more scenes focus on your character.

I'll agree with this.

Though that leads to the question - What are the best ways for the DM to ensure "non-skilled" players share in the spotlight? Because, lets be realistic, if a player is skilled at the game they are also going to know how to get the spotlight at any given moment much better than someone who is not skilled.

Is this one of those times an out of game solution is best? Namely talk to the players and make sure that they understand you, as the DM, want a cooperative lack of spotlight hogging?

I've had the same group for so long, and they're all in sync with each other, regardless of game that this would be an interesting problem if it actually appeared at the table.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'll agree with this.

Though that leads to the question - What are the best ways for the DM to ensure "non-skilled" players share in the spotlight? Because, lets be realistic, if a player is skilled at the game they are also going to know how to get the spotlight at any given moment much better than someone who is not skilled.

Is this one of those times an out of game solution is best? Namely talk to the players and make sure that they understand you, as the DM, want a cooperative lack of spotlight hogging?

I've had the same group for so long, and they're all in sync with each other, regardless of game that this would be an interesting problem if it actually appeared at the table.

Ideals aren't always easy to achieve, I'll agree, but they shouldn't be less ideal because of that. If you engage a character based on things that character cares about, they get spotlight time. If another player is expanding their hooks to the point their so generic they engage everything or that they now cover other characters' hooks so they can steal time, that's a player bad behavior problem that, as you note, needs to be addressed directly and with conversation.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Thirdly, on spotlight time: it is a zero-sum game, or close to one. The attention of the DM adjudicating your plays is very much a limited resource, especially measured over the course of a session or three. If one player is dominating the DM's attention to adjudicate his plays, the other players are not getting that time.

That would certainly seem to be the case in a DM-driven style of storytelling and/or a heavily class-based, niche-protected game.
Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but even in that case sufficiently engaged players could still share the spotlight, making spotlight-seeking potentially positive-sum.
But, sure, if spotlight time is the DMs undivided attention, it's zero-sum, being limited by the length of the session. I suppose it could be negative-sum, if divided attention occurred and was counted as no one in the spotlight...

And that's what spotlight time is: a player's time where they are driving the story forward.

That doesn't have to be identical with the DMs attention, though - in a system where all resolution is DM-mediated, perhaps, but in those that are more collaborative, maybe not...