Plots behind the plot

[Kid Charlemagne]

The thing about backstory is that it eventually becomes the main story - as in the Darth Vader example.

I think it's vital to drop lots of hints about story elements that aren't currently in the foreground. It's also a good idea to reintroduce that backstory element in the same session that it later becomes relevant, to refresh the player's memories. If you rely on the PC's to try and uncover things, you will often be dissappointed. One rule of thumb is that you need 4 ways for a PC to discover a clue. Players have an amazing way of ignoring things that the DM thinks are obvious - or perhaps that DM's have an amazing way of being shocked when they find that what they think is obvious, isn't to other people.

Be liberal with hints, but don't just tell the players. Mysteries are fun, but only if consistent, constant progress is being made.

 

[silentspace]

One of the main things that defines fantasy fiction, as opposed to stories of adventure or intrigue that happen to have sorcerers or orcs, is the immanence of the past as a thing not forgotten or even remembered but experienced continually or periodically in the present via what John Clute called time abyss. The modern world where the backstory doesn't matter is Tolkien's Sixth (or whichever one) Age, not a world of epic fantasy or sword & sorcery.

I'll have to look him up, he sounds very interesting. I would say, though, that the 'immanence of the past' is not a characteristic of "fantasy fiction" as much as it is a characteristic of "good fiction". "Pulp fiction", or easy to read, quick diversions, don't have this trait, while great works of fiction of all kinds do.

I completely agree, 'immanence of the past' is crucial. So it shouldn't be a mystery, but as you say "experienced continually or periodically in the present". Hence, the DM shouldn't hide this information, but give it freely. My two cents anyway. There are plenty of mysteries the DM should hold back on, but the backstory should be known, so it can enhance the adventure.

 

[Savage Wombat]

It's more or less traditional in our games to answer questions like this with a phrase such as "That's an excellent question!" - sort of as a signal that says "yes, this is important" without explaining anything.

 

[Quasqueton]

My use of the term "plots" was perhaps inaccurate. I'm not even really talking specifically about "backstory". I'm talking about "reasons" and "logic" within the campaign world.

For instance, using the Star Wars analogy. . .

Princes Leia noted how easily they escaped the Death Star, "They must be tracking this ship. . . . They let us go, it's the only way to explain the ease of our escape." Some Players would just think that was the way the game was supposed to progress. Or the DM went easy on them to avoid a TPK.

Or in Empire Strikes Back. . .

When they brought Han back from the torture chamber, "They never even asked me any questions." Some Players would never notice that. They'd think the torture was just a DM device to make the PCs hate the bad guys.

Or in Return of the Jedi. . .

When Lando commented on why the Imperial Fleet was not coming to engage the rebel fleet as they headed for the Death Star II. Too many Players would have smashed themselves against the DS shield. "The DM is holding back to make an interesting fight and not wipe us out immediately." Fortunately, Lando's Player was thinking within the campagin world, instead of in the game.


So, I'm not really/necessarily talking about figuring out plot elements or backstory. But realizing the adventure works logically in the game world, and if something seems odd, there's probably a reason in the campaign world.

Quasqueton

 

[random user]

I encourage players to question any inconsistancy, as long as they do it *in character*.

Don't know why a wizard hasn't gone and looted all the treasure? Go ask him, or maybe find a bard and ask the bard to see if they know.

Don't know why all of a sudden the sky is red when it used to be blue? Go ask a sage, or their mentor or contact or whatever.

Why does the caravan leader keep taking the caravan down a route that he knows always gets attacked by orcs? Ask the caravan leader. Or if he's dead, ask the person he's working for. Or maybe another caravan leader.

It can sometimes get frustrating though I know. I just ran my players through a session which consisted of a giant puzzle, knowing they would fail it. My players are frustrated because they didn't solve it (their characters are mostly ok with it though) and it seemed totally out of context and inconsequential. And unfortunately for me, they aren't going to see how it fits in (and it fits in very well, I think) for many many more sessions (or possibly never if they choose certain paths). But after the session, I just asked that they trust me that I'm not going to run them through something totally random.

 

[Tonguez]

Players:"Why doesn't the baron just send some troops to take out the bandits, instead of sending us out to do it?"
DM: "Well you'll just have to go and find out wont you?" <Evil grin>
Players: "ah so theres a conspiracy going on huh?"
DM: quick reflex save! - (to self): ' eek now I've gotta go make something up!'

Which is to say if the players asks questions are plot don't tell them the back plot but do tell them that there is a plot hook somewhere and then when they go to the next adventure (even if it is unrelated) tie your Plot hook in to that too

Back Plots shouldn't be site/adventure related they should be part of the very game setting upon which adventures can be developed...

 

[nopantsyet]

Real DM's never reveal the whole story.

The players have to figure it out. I actually put a lot of work into creating a consistent, living world. And I do it specifically so that incongruity will stand out and attract the players' attention. They still don't always catch it. But I feel good knowing it's there. Besides, players will remember the oddest things at the oddest times, and I love it when it's a pertinent detail they didn't pick up on earlier.

 

[Olive]

When they brought Han back from the torture chamber, "They never even asked me any questions." Some Players would never notice that. They'd think the torture was just a DM device to make the PCs hate the bad guys.

Unless I'm missing somethign here, it was a DM (or script writer) device to make the PCs (or movie goers) hate the bad guys. Or at elast t demonstrate the callous/sadistic/eviiiiil nature of the bad guys.

And that's ok.

The rest of the examples were good though!

 

[Quasqueton]

Unless I'm missing somethign here, it was a DM (or script writer) device to make the PCs (or movie goers) hate the bad guys. Or at elast t demonstrate the callous/sadistic/eviiiiil nature of the bad guys.

The torture was to get Luke's attention and bring him to Cloud City. Remember Luke telling Yoda he saw his friends, and they were in pain. There *was* a reason to the torture besides just making the heroes hate the bad guys.

Quasqueton

 

[Gnimish88]

The torture was to get Luke's attention and bring him to Cloud City. Remember Luke telling Yoda he saw his friends, and they were in pain. There *was* a reason to the torture besides just making the heroes hate the bad guys.

Quasqueton

Heck, I always figured he was still peeved at Han for his part in the Battle of Yavin, same reason he cut off Luke's hand.