Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5406949" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think the key here is not to ignore what the players build into their PCs. Instead of the players being obliged to bite the GM's plot hooks, even at the expense of backstory/characterisation, the GM can &quot;bite&quot; the hooks that the players have offered, by offering up encounters and adventures that engage those hooks. Like in the example offered in the OP.I agree that the players in a D&amp;D game should build their backstories keeping in mind (i) the need for party play and (ii) the fact that adventuring will be the focus of play.In my experience this is fine, provided that the player puts some other elements into their fighter also. One of my players had a fighter who just wanted to settle down and be a weaponsmith - but he was also the younger cousin in a fallen family in the process of reestablishing itself, and thus was obliged to follow his more senior cousin into adventure. At the end of the campaign, he was finally able to settle down (as a 27th level fighter/blacksmith). His desire for stability and a quiet family life ended up being a crucial character trait in the resolution of the campaign. The same player now has a wizard who used to be a pastry chef. But he is also a devotee of the Raven Queen seeking vengeance for his town that was sacked by goblins. So again, it is not hard to create adventures that he has a motivation for going into, even though they take him away from his kitchen work.In my experience party play is also viable even when there are deep tensions or conflicts between the PCs, provided that the situations the GM is throwing at the players at least make it feasible for the rival/enemy PCs to keep working together. Organisational loyalties or other in-character reasons for cooperating despite hostility can also work for this.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5406949, member: 42582"] I think the key here is [I]not[/I] to ignore what the players build into their PCs. Instead of the players being obliged to bite the GM's plot hooks, even at the expense of backstory/characterisation, the GM can "bite" the hooks that the players have offered, by offering up encounters and adventures that engage those hooks. Like in the example offered in the OP. I agree that the players in a D&D game should build their backstories keeping in mind (i) the need for party play and (ii) the fact that adventuring will be the focus of play. In my experience this is fine, [I]provided that[/I] the player puts some other elements into their fighter also. One of my players had a fighter who just wanted to settle down and be a weaponsmith - but he was also the younger cousin in a fallen family in the process of reestablishing itself, and thus was obliged to follow his more senior cousin into adventure. At the end of the campaign, he was finally able to settle down (as a 27th level fighter/blacksmith). His desire for stability and a quiet family life ended up being a crucial character trait in the resolution of the campaign. The same player now has a wizard who used to be a pastry chef. But he is also a devotee of the Raven Queen seeking vengeance for his town that was sacked by goblins. So again, it is not hard to create adventures that he has a motivation for going into, even though they take him away from his kitchen work. In my experience party play is also viable even when there are deep tensions or conflicts between the PCs, provided that the situations the GM is throwing at the players at least make it feasible for the rival/enemy PCs to keep working together. Organisational loyalties or other in-character reasons for cooperating despite hostility can also work for this. [/QUOTE]

Verification