Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7083570" data-attributes="member: 6778044">Well, there's a big difference between not asking the player at the table during the session, and not knowing anything at all. The players and I work together on backstories and backgrounds. I give them as much freedom as possible, usually only reigning in things that don't work within the world (particularly around things they don't know) or rules, so for the most part I'm just setting boundaries. Sometimes, if appropriate, I add my own elements, like the character who is an orphan and doesn't know anything about their prior family.In addition, I listen while we're playing. A great many of the story elements I provide, through the goals and history of the NPCs, events, and such, come from ideas and thoughts the players have during the course of the game. The main difference is that instead of allowing them to write the fiction of others themselves, while the game is progressing, I incorporate it into the fiction of others to show up later in the game. It ties them into the story very well, although most of the time they don't pick up on the fact that many of the ideas come from them. Another reason I use this approach is that it makes it more likely that they'll be able to unravel the various mysteries and schemes since they are exactly the sort of things that they would come up with.In your Star Wars example, there is basically one thing that has to happen - the droids need to get to Luke. It could be as simple as the pod crashing on their farm. Or it can be as complex as the movie. None of that requires knowing the motivations or the dramatic concerns of the players. We don't know the motivations of the droids, other than R2 is on a mission. All we know about the jawas is that they collect, repair, and sell droids among other things. Owen's motivation is to keep the farm running and the family fed. Luke's motivation at this point has nothing to do with the rest of his story.In an RPG context one could see this all as a railroad, and Luke's story in particular. The DM holds out a carrot, "Hey, you don't have to go to the university to be with your friends, you can hang out with this crazy hermit and save the world." He even pushes it with stories of the father he never met.Luke declines. "Yeah, right, I think I'll stick with trying to get Uncle Owen to let me go to the university."So the DM insists - "The stormtroopers inexplicably kill his aunt and uncle, who are the type that probably told the stormtroopers that they were happy to have the droids as soon as my nephew gets back with them."In fact, much (most) of the Star Wars story arc has little to do with any but the most basic character motivations. At least anything of depth. Leia must try to save the rebels and destroy the empire. Because she's the princess, obviously. Obi-Wan is somehow willing to be drawn into all of this, and Luke's motivation is one of revenge, primarily. Han is just in it for the money, then gets stuck with them because they can't escape the tractor beam. Chewie goes with Han, and R2 and 3PO are there because they're Luke's now.Act 1: Establish the characters and get them together.Act 2: Get captured by tractor beam while attempting to find the Princess. Free the Princess and escape.Act 3: Destroy the Death Star.The biggest character development of the movie was Han returning to save Luke. It was brushed off with comedy, but it was a moment of growth.I'll also point out that when the original Star Wars was released, Luke was not the Jedi heir, he was just another guy. At that point in the saga literally anybody could be Obi-Wan's padawan. It wasn't until George Lucas wrote The Empire Strikes Back that family connections were made. The reality is, movies and TV series typically function more like what I'm used to - the DM (director, writer) provides the world, and the characters react to it. The DM (or audience) knows the characters by their actions and what they say, not by what's going on in their head. There are exceptions, of course.On the other hand, novels typically have a lot of "in-the-character's head" experiences. We often get a much clearer understanding of who they are and what motivates them. None of that is necessary for the rest of the world to respond. The world and the activities in it continue no matter what the protagonist is thinking. Naturally, in the real world, the world also has no idea what's going on in anybody's head. It's not thinking - hey a hurricane here would make an interesting event for the characters to overcome. And what about a thug botching a hit job and killing an innocent bystander? That would fit with this person's story particularly well. That's just not the way it works.And yet, there are certain people that make something more of their life. That have a story worth telling. By default, the PCs have a very high likelihood of being those people. And the players can increase their likelihood of that by paying attention to the hooks the DM throws their way. Because they are typically interested in an interesting story too.A certain type of story, or feel, might be more likely using a certain game or rule system, and a certain approach to running the game. For me, a person who likes things to have a certain internal consistency, and loves to see how the players and their characters will tackle whatever challenge or puzzle that comes their way, a more traditional division between DM and players works well.For others, giving the players more freedom in developing the world around them, and the stories of others, provides for a different and preferred experience. I've run dozens of games in the past, particularly up through the early '90s. I admit that for many of them they were a diversion, something different for us. But ultimately we all agreed that we liked our regular AD&D game and approach better. The games that gave the players the most freedom to control events and things outside of their character, the less they liked it. I'm not implying at all that they are bad games, or that it's not a valid approach. It just didn't work well for us.I do agree that a good DM will tie (at least some) of the events and actions of NPCs and such into the story threads. I do that all the time. The more that you utilize the players own ideas and the character motivations, the more involved they will be in the story. But I don't think it's essential (think James Bond), nor do I think you have to break immersion in the middle of the game to get it.</blockquote>

Verification