How much back story for a low-level PC?

[Neonchameleon]

As a GM, you can determine how well you dealt with PC background material by a simple expedient: After you reveal your take/twist on the background material, do the other players immediately provide you with more material in the hopes that you will do the same thing for them/to their PCs?

If so, you are doing it right.

Very much this. (I'd rep if I didn't need to spread it around).

And the initial scenario presented had the PCs saying that they wouldn't provide more material in an effort to prevent it happening again - i.e. the reverse of Raven Crowking's test.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Heh.

I had a player present me with a "blank slate" background: Found in the woods by priests of Badur (a deity in the setting), memory gone, just remembers the name "Keye" (and the PC calls himself Locke). The PC is a fighter. Just as a throwaway, the player decides to make the fighter left-handed.

So, naturally, I decided that Locke was, in fact, not really Locke -- but rather Keye. Keye is the reflection of Locke, generated through the Plane of Mirrors, and Locke is a powerful wizard. When the PC lost his memory, he assumed Locke's name, but lost his memories otherwise, and began life again as a fighter.

In the campaign milieu, reflections from the Plane of Mirrors are like reflections from a Mirror of Opposition.....yet the PC's memory loss allowed him to become a (mostly) seperate being.

The PC "Locke" discovered that he had no relfection himself. And he ran into folks who had met the real Locke and recognized/did not recognize him. He began to hear about some guy doing things in his name, and apparently with his face. Eventually, he met the real Locke and "remembered" the truth (I had prepared a short handout for him).

EDIT: Locke and Keye departed on good terms....The first time such a thing had happened with a reflection and its generator in the history of the milieu.

The players liked it so much that I was flooded with material for a time. Not all of it was the sort of stuff that I considered making game events around, but some of it was. And, for the some of it that was, wading through the rest was worth it.



RC

 

[Desdichado]

Note that I said "Something that takes most non-adventuring wizards the best part of 50 years, often more. And that's starting when their brains are young - and asuming that the spells are accessible (whihc in the case of lichdom they normally aren't.)"

Well, why'd you say that, and how is it relevant? The daughter left to go adventuring; who says the widowed mom has to sit at home knitting all that time? She's a bitter, widowed empty-nester.

If there is a 35 year old woman who suddenly starts to learn spells and throw herself into mortal peril because she fears death (wait, what?), then she's going to be the centre of the town's gossip. Such a thing would have massive ripples in the surrounding world. (Set it up like that and it could possibly be done).

I'm not aware of any version of D&D that reflects that idea in the rules. In fact, most of them have you get better and more able at mental skills (like, say, spellcasting) as you enter middle and old age.

And every last one of them is a DM case of Deus Ex Machina or takes a lot of foreshadowing to be met with anything other than eyerolling.

Well, sure. You're determined to roll your eyes at any explanation, because you're determined that this idea can't be made to work.

:shrug: Your call, I guess, but I think you're being particularly stubborn about refusing to see how it could work perfectly well if you were willing to run with it.

Just because turning the mother into a lich is utterly ridiculous doesn't mean it's a straight choice between the ridiculous and absolutely nothing. Plots that wouldn't be static but that would be fine include town politics, remarriage or affairs, joining cults (including good ones), death, debt, winnings (including betting on kids to succeed), etc. Even learning a little magic is fine.

You're running a false dichotomy.

No I'm not. How ridiculous specific example might be is a completely 'nother question than whether or not the GM should be in there doing something this drastic with an NPC related to a PC. Maybe you're conflating the two discussions, but I'm not.

Um... you are running a comedy game here with no attempt at immersion, right? Or possibly a parody?

Frequently, yes. Those ideas come from well established fairy tales played straight, however.

Not when the player knows a hell of a lot more about that character than the DM does. Now if the player and the DM agree the secret, and have it kept from the PC that's fine. If the DM wishes to re-write the core of the character, that's not collaborative. That's the DM throwing a bucket of paint.

The player doesn't know anything about the character. Hadn't even thought about her once until the GM invited her to give him some background for him to work with. False.

In the case of Anakin Skywalker, things weren't this way because all the player knew was that Luke's father was dead - there weren't an entire host of unwritten but still important interactions to revise. And as a player I'd have probably written the hook onto the sheet. "Father: Dead before he was born (or so he believes)."

And I think that's really bizarre. "Before a GM can keep a secret about the setting, he has to check with his players to make sure they're OK with that secret."

Well, that makes it not much of a secret at that point, doesn't it? Kinda defeats the entire purpose of trying to spring a campaign secret on the players in the first place, doesn't it? What you've essentially done is to radically expand the traditional turf of the players into what is traditionally the turf of the GM, and have players dictate what certain NPCs must be like and must do. As well as curtail the opportunity for some really classic elements rife throughout the source material that informs the game like, "Surprise! Mom or dad was secretly XXX instead of YYYY like you believed."

I'd say you just described a classic example of how lack of trust between player and GM can create an impoverished gaming environment.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

As a GM, I ask for a couple of paragraphs. More is fine, but people who can produce more quality back-story are pretty rare.

As a player, I range from a couple of paragraphs up to multiple pages (even occasionally a short story), depending on several factors: how much of the character is already inhabiting my head, how much time I have, how lazy I'm feeling, how much I know about the other characters, how roleplaying-intensive I think the game will be, how excited I am to play, and so on.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I think the poll has perfectly replicated a sideways Cisco logo.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

My problem with what Hobo wrote was that it gave off an impression that one of the players was off with the DM wasting away countless hours while the rest of the party was waiting to get back to the adventure. That is a gross exaggeration of the truth - at least, as it applies to the group I play with. In reality, the DM may only spend a few minutes a session handling any particular PC's extra-curricular activities.

I took him to mean that setting up a Thieves' Guild would encompass the equivalent of at least a "Side Trek" adventure. And any characters not motivated to helping set up a thieves' guild, for example a paladin, would be left "twiddling their thumbs" while the side trek was running. If it's really nothing more than a few die rolls to create a guild, I agree that the contention against a background-crafted guild seems odd to me.

For the game I'm prepping to run, there are more than ... thirty orders of knighthood ... sixteen regiments ... nine gentlemen's clubs ... more than thirty bishops' curias ... scores of chapters ... and dozens of confraternities exist for the religious

Granted, with more prepared options it's more likely the players will choose a pre-prepared background. But why is it that it's only OK for the DM to create off-screen, not the players. Why do you (or the campaign authors) get to create stuff outside of the game but not the players? I, for one, don't mind allowing the players to share in minor world-building if they want to.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Well, why'd you say that, and how is it relevant? The daughter left to go adventuring; who says the widowed mom has to sit at home knitting all that time? She's a bitter, widowed empty-nester.
I'm not aware of any version of D&D that reflects that idea in the rules. In fact, most of them have you get better and more able at mental skills (like, say, spellcasting) as you enter middle and old age.

OK. She's still on the career track for a non-adventurer (unless she's busy scandalising the town). And for the record, the more experience points you have the more experience points you need to gain a level. The older you are, the more experience (and hence experience points) you have.

Well, sure. You're determined to roll your eyes at any explanation, because you're determined that this idea can't be made to work.

It's a bad idea. Unless massively foreshadowed.

No I'm not. How ridiculous specific example might be is a completely 'nother question than whether or not the GM should be in there doing something this drastic with an NPC related to a PC. Maybe you're conflating the two discussions, but I'm not.

And I'm the one suggesting things that don't involve completely re-writing the NPC.

The player doesn't know anything about the character. Hadn't even thought about her once until the GM invited her to give him some background for him to work with. False.

The player designed the character. At the request of the GM. Not a close relationship now. But certainly one that existed.

And I think that's really bizarre. "Before a GM can keep a secret about the setting, he has to check with his players to make sure they're OK with that secret."

Bwuh? Not what I said. "Before a GM can re-write significant aspects of the character's past, he should check with the player of the character."

Well, that makes it not much of a secret at that point, doesn't it? Kinda defeats the entire purpose of trying to spring a campaign secret on the players in the first place, doesn't it?

And once again you are missing the point. If it had been a GM created NPC with a mysterious past who had been the lich that would have been fine - even (or perhaps especially) if they had interacted with the PCs a lot in the past.

What you've essentially done is to radically expand the traditional turf of the players into what is traditionally the turf of the GM, and have players dictate what certain NPCs must be like and must do.

Expand slightly. You seem determined to equate "The DM should not put on his viking hat and tear up the player's work when the player has created the NPC" with "The DM should ask permission to use any NPC."

As well as curtail the opportunity for some really classic elements rife throughout the source material that informs the game like, "Surprise! Mom or dad was secretly XXX instead of YYYY like you believed."

Foreshadow the damn secret first.

I'd say you just described a classic example of how lack of trust between player and GM can create an impoverished gaming environment.

And you seem determined to wreck that trust. As was the storyteller I've had (White Wolf) who saw fit to insert dark deeds into my character's own past - and not of the sort of dark deeds he'd have done.

There's no point submitting background to you on current showing. Because you aren't going to use it colaboratively. You're going to drive a bulldozer over the parts you use and replace it all, keeping only trivial details.

 

[Desdichado]

And for the record, the more experience points you have the more experience points you need to gain a level. The older you are, the more experience (and hence experience points) you have.

For the record, no version of D&D that I'm aware of grants XP to anyone just for getting older, either. False again.

It's a bad idea. Unless massively foreshadowed.

That would probably be a better way to do it, yes. But your absolute pronouncement isn't so. Lots of folks like being surprised. That is, after all, why thrillers, suspenses and mysteries are popular genres. False again.

And I'm the one suggesting things that don't involve completely re-writing the NPC.

No, it's is new territory that doesn't contradict what was already written. It may contradict the interpretation of what was already there, but therein lies it's value. False again.

The player designed the character. At the request of the GM. Not a close relationship now. But certainly one that existed.

I don't even know what you mean by that.

Bwuh? Not what I said. "Before a GM can re-write significant aspects of the character's past, he should check with the player of the character."

You continually talk about "rewriting" something. Nothing is being rewritten. Quit talking about "rewriting" and maybe we can have a conversaion on the same page. You are haring off after a red herring, and hence your conclusions are nonsensical. False again.

And once again you are missing the point. If it had been a GM created NPC with a mysterious past who had been the lich that would have been fine - even (or perhaps especially) if they had interacted with the PCs a lot in the past.

No, I'm not missing the point; I just think your point isn't much of one, and I disagree with it to boot. Players don't need to deliberately tell GM's to "hey, create a mystery or surprise out of my backstory sketch" and GM's don't need to go to players, and say, "Hey, if I do this, is this in line with what you had in mind?" In fact, if they do do so, you've deliberately crippled and improverished the gaming environment, because you've ruined and exempted the possibility of running a really classic plotline, i.e., someone the character was close to is now a traitor/villain/something else. That really is a classic plotline. False again.

Expand slightly. You seem determined to equate "The DM should not put on his viking hat and tear up the player's work when the player has created the NPC" with "The DM should ask permission to use any NPC."

Put on viking hats? Tear up player's work? I don't see any of that going on at all. I do see a bizarre "The GM should ask permission to use NPCs" though. I certainly don't get that. That's not an accurate description of anything that we've discussed in this thread by way of example. False again.

And you seem determined to wreck that trust. As was the storyteller I've had (White Wolf) who saw fit to insert dark deeds into my character's own past - and not of the sort of dark deeds he'd have done.

See, now that's just absurd and ad hominem to boot. I haven't wrecked any trust with my players. Quite the opposite; I think my players are, if anything, eager to see how their characters can get screwed over by something that they didn't anticipate. It's developed into one of the funnest things about our games; we all throw strange curveballs at each other and see what kinds of fun things we come up with to react to them. False again.

Although you kinda tip your hand there; you're equating your experience with a bad Storytelling GM you had once with an entire playstyle. That's quintessential paranoia and lack of trust that you are bringing to the discussion. Just because you had one bad GM who liked doing something, there's no reason to assume that other GMs who like playing in that same territory are equally bad.

There's no point submitting background to you on current showing. Because you aren't going to use it colaboratively. You're going to drive a bulldozer over the parts you use and replace it all, keeping only trivial details.

Uh... no. Just plain wrong. False again. You keep making up that strange claim of "replacing" and "rewriting". I don't do any replacing and rewriting. I keep exactly what you write, and build from there. Yet another false.

Your conclusions are mostly all false, as are many of the claims about my playstyle. You sound like someone with a particular ax to grind against the playstyle, frankly, because you keep falling back on conclusions based on some bad game you had in the past that have no bearing on anything I've described so far in this thread at all.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Lots of folks like being surprised. That is, after all, why thrillers, suspenses and mysteries are popular genres.

I would just like to point out that these genres rely upon foreshadowing, and a thriller/suspense/mystery that fails to foreshadow the surprise will be rejected by editors. And for good reason.



RC

 

[Desdichado]

I would just like to point out that these genres rely upon foreshadowing, and a thriller/suspense/mystery that fails to foreshadow the surprise will be rejected by editors. And for good reason.

For the record, I never once disagreed that foreshadowing wouldn't make this kind of surprise a much better one. Neonchameleon seems to think that I have, but I'm in perfect agreement there. Foreshadowing would greatly improve this.

Also for the record, this was foreshadowed, if by nothing else, then by the bitter and angry attitude of the mother that the character herself wrote (again with the using what the character wrote instead of "rewriting"--see how that works?) If the conversation with the sister who had become a cleric of another god added to the foreshadowing, then all the better.

We are not, however, really talking about how to pull this off well, we're talking about whether it should be "fair game" to pull something like this off at all. That's another "whole 'nother question".