Players: it's your responsibility to carry a story.

[The Shaman]

No because the campaign starts at the same time for all of them. Are there prequels that I do not know about?

I think that's a silly way of looking at it, in my humble opinion, but that's neither here nor there. The idea that a character must have pre-existing connections to npcs as a pre-requisite for engaging the adventurer with the game-world doesn't hold up, in my experience.

D'Artagnan is only one example; Diogenes, from Baroness Orzcy's The Laughing Cavalier and The First Sir Percy, begins the story as a mercenary with no connections to useful npcs in the setting; by the end of the first story he's routed a rebel leader, gained a fortune, and won the girl. The events of the story, of Diogenes' adventure, are what matter.

Players can - and at least in the games I run must - make connections in the game-world. Non-player characters need to be assessed constantly - can this person help me or hurt me? how do I gain favor, or at least avoid ire (assuming attracting ire is not the goal at the moment - finding enemies is pretty much the easiest thing to do, after all)? I provide the players with a 'target-rich environment' of npcs to facilitate this, but I have no preconceptions about what the players and their characters will do with these building blocks. You create the adventure by your choices.

 

[Nameless1]

The fact that some characters have no connections does not counter the fact that most do. I am not opposed to ever having a character with no roots. I just find them contirved, harder to GM for, and not as interesting.

As you said above, D'Artagnan actually has at least one connection. I think that you might also be overlooking the fact that he has a connection to the Musketeers. He wants to be one. I may be wrong, as I have not read The Three Musketeers since I was 9 (for those curious, that was 24 years ago), but the character D'Artagnan is definitely entrenched in the situation from the beginning. He is not completely rootless. I cannot speak to the other characters from other stories that you cite.

You also ignore that there are 4 main characters in The Three Musketeers, and even if you ignore the 2 connections that I suggest for D'Artagnan, he is only 25% of the protagonists. The rest have significantly more connections. D'Artagnan is kinda the exception.

 

[The Shaman]

There have been studies that show that people in general say they want more choices, but once they have those extra choices they have a harder time making a decision than when they had fewer choices.

In ancient Rome there was a poem
About a dog who found two bones
He picked at one, he licked the other
He went in circles, he dropped dead

Yes, I'm familiar with the concept.

Putting me in a bar with no direction at all, just "You're in a bar," is like giving me an infinite number of wallpapers to choose from.

When you create your character, do you set any sort of goals for your character? If so, how do you see your character achieving those goals? If not, why not?

Does that help you understand the "I don't know what do do in a bar" mentality?

It does, and I really appreciate you taking the time to spell it out.

Not trying to convince you that my way is the "right" way (there is no single right way to play), just trying to help you grok why some gamers might not know how to look for plot hooks the way you want them to.

The thing is, I don't present the adventurers with plot hooks since I don't have plots or adventurers per se. There's stuff going on in the background, but whether or not the adventurers engage with it, and how they go about dealing with their world, is up to them.

 

[TarionzCousin]

In ancient Rome there was a poem
About a dog who found two bones
He picked at one, he licked the other
He went in circles, he dropped dead

A poem rhymes
--at least, sometimes.
This thing doesn't;
so: it wasn't.

 

[The Shaman]

The fact that some characters have no connections does not counter the fact that most do. I am not opposed to ever having a character with no roots. I just find them contirved, harder to GM for, and not as interesting.

Remember, this isn't a literary critique here - we're talking about what works in a roleplaying game. Or at least I am, which is why I think you're reading way more into this than is necessary.

As you said above, D'Artagnan actually has at least one connection. I think that you might also be overlooking the fact that he has a connection to the Musketeers.

A connection who tells him he can't help D'Artagnan to join the Musketeers, until the Gascon first proves his worth.

His aid is limited in scope. D'Artagnan must adventure successfully in order to become a Muskteer.

I may be wrong, as I have not read The Three Musketeers since I was 9 (for those curious, that was 24 years ago), but the character D'Artagnan is definitely entrenched in the situation from the beginning.

I would say that yes, you're wrong.

He is not completely rootless.

No, he's "not completely rootless" - he's a character of his time and place, as I would expect most roleplaying game characters to be - but he's not connected to the other characters save one at the start of the tale, and that one connection plays only a peripheral role in all that follows.

You also ignore that there are 4 main characters in The Three Musketeers, and even if you ignore the 2 connections that I suggest for D'Artagnan, he is only 25% of the protagonists.

There is an argument to be made that the eponymous musketeers of the story are not protagonists, but rather supporting characters of the lone protagonist, D'Artagnan. But bringing in the other musketeers, or insisting that the tale is all that exists, is an attempt to avoid the implications relevant to roleplaying games, that a lengthy backstory and ties to the npc community are not a pre-requisite to engaging with the setting.

I think a good character background should follow the advice of a funeral announcement - "No flowers, by request" - and I prefer that the players focus their attention on what we do around the table together; let the events of the game become your character's history. Make friends, make enemies, get blooded, intrigue, connive, and do it in actual play, together, all of us, as a shared experience.

 

[Nameless1]

Remember, this isn't a literary critique here - we're talking about what works in a roleplaying game. Or at least I am, which is why I think you're reading way more into this than is necessary.

You are right to a degree. These connections are not necessary. RPGs can work without them. And have . For years. But they are useful. And take very little time. They actually help to combat the complaint that the original OP outlined. Just an optional technique for most games, but one with results.

I actually agree with you about lengthy back stories. Not into them. I just want my character to be involved from the get go, in some form. It is the pre-established friends/enemies/goals of the characters that allow me to do this. Rootless characters can work, but you spend time at the table getting there. I just like to get to the point quicker.

This getting to the good parts quickly is facilitated by characters who care about something from the outset. These things don't have to be relationships, but I find the most compelling things in life are the relationships that we have. Consider someone threatening your relationships. Your mother. Your wife. Your children. Your friends. Nothing ignites fire like threats to things you care about, and often people care more about people than things or status.

 

[The Shaman]

You are right to a degree. These connections are not necessary. RPGs can work without them. And have . For years.

That's been my experience.

But they are useful. And take very little time. They actually help to combat the complaint that the original OP outlined. Just an optional technique for most games, but one with results.

Also true.

My personal preference is simply to keep the amount of out-of-game character creation to the absolute minimum necessary, and focus on actual play. Then again, I'm not in a Big Damn Hurry for the Big Damn Heroes to get to the Big Damn Action! either, so I'm sure that plays a role.

I actually agree with you about lengthy back stories. Not into them. I just want my character to be involved from the get go, in some form. It is the pre-established friends/enemies/goals of the characters that allow me to do this. Rootless characters can work, but you spend time at the table getting there. I just like to get to the point quicker.

This getting to the good parts quickly is facilitated by characters who care about something from the outset. These things don't have to be relationships, but I find the most compelling things in life are the relationships that we have. Consider someone threatening your relationships. Your mother. Your wife. Your children. Your friends. Nothing ignites fire like threats to things you care about, and often people care more about people than things or status.

Please note that I'm in no way attributing this to you, but I think that last bit can be, and often is, totally overdone, as Barastrondo noted upthread.

 

[Merkuri]

When you create your character, do you set any sort of goals for your character? If so, how do you see your character achieving those goals? If not, why not?

Sometimes I create goals. It depends on my mood and the campaign I'm in. Usually the more background I know about a campaign world the more detailed backstories I create.

In a 3.5e Eberron campaign a while ago I created a lawful neutral knight who had started her life as a scoundrel, had a run-in with the Silver Flame (the actual Flame - she was sneaking into the temple where it "lives") and was cursed into becoming ill whenever she did something she thought was evil. She was told the curse could only be lifted until she became "pure" enough to join the Flame. Her goal was to break that curse, and she thought that she needed to do so by basically racking up good karma, so she was driven to do good deeds whenever she got the chance, but she did so in a very "sigh, here we go again" manner.

So she did have a goal, but it was pretty nebulous and I left it up to the DM to put situations in front of her to give her the opportunity to do a good deed. Of course, the campaign was set up so that all PCs were members of the Citadel in Breland, so we were given missions (which my PC saw as chances to do good) on a regular basis.

My current character, however, doesn't really have a goal at the moment, but this is a different type of campaign. Our group decided to round-robin DM in a shared world that we're making up as we go. Because the world is not really well defined my character started off not really well defined. She didn't even have a personality to start with, but she developed one pretty quickly. I'm imagining that she'll probably develop some goals and a background as well as we go, but since the campaign is so schizophrenic with the DM changing all the time, who knows.

 

[Lanefan]

I think that our games just differ on the fact that I skip the find-the-fun step and say that we already did that. I situate the PCs in the situation. No bars needed.

You're forcing your players to accept your definition of 'fun', then.

What you call "find-the-fun" is to others the very necessary (and fun) step of exploring; during which both characters and players can learn many things about the game world and the DM respectively.

Exploration also adds depth to the world, and thus the game, from the players' perspective. I've seen DMs who ignore this, instead rushing their party from one combat to the next, then from one adventure to the next - and sure, the PCs gain lots of ExP and get real rich real quick, but the game world has all the depth of a Hollywood blonde...it's nothing more than window dressing.

And obviously, if the players aren't interested in exploring you likely have a need for new players.

Lan-"my reaction to the stray cat would be to cast Find Familiar at the first opportunity"-efan

 

[Nameless1]

I am actually not forcing anything. And my players have expresed that my games are better since I have begun using these techniques.

Exploration also adds depth to the world, and thus the game, from the players' perspective. I've seen DMs who ignore this, instead rushing their party from one combat to the next, then from one adventure to the next - and sure, the PCs gain lots of ExP and get real rich real quick, but the game world has all the depth of a Hollywood blonde...it's nothing more than window dressing.

I want to address this actually. Combat is not at all the only thing that happens in my games. Character directed scenes are. So I make each scene pertinent to the character in it, or as much as possible. It is not about pushing minis around a grid. It is about giving players choices that are meanigful to their characters. It is about allowing the players the choices to define their characters and their role within the world. The depth of my games is not at all what would be considered "a Hollywood blonde."And I have no problems with player retention.

I find it funny that the OP had a problem with the fact that players never engage with the fiction unless the GM railroads them, many people agreed, and yet when techniques are suggested that can help you to engage the players interests through their characters, without a railroad, they are blown off as producing shallow games without time to develope character. That accusation is just not true. Many fine games advocate this type of GMing explicitly in the rules, and many other games thrive off of it, even if not made explicit. I found the complaints of the OP to be very true until I learned some tricks from other games. Not everyone will like them. Many people use these tricks without knowing that they use them. Telling me that they are a bad idea is silly. They are techniques with wide acceptance, and have produced good results for me and many others. Ignore them if you will, but it is not like these are untried or even all that controversial.

If you would like, we could discuss how different games use exactly the techniques that I have advocated, and to good effect and overall huge success (for non D&D games).