Should the DM accommodate characters, or characters accommodate DMs?

[Hussar]

It's probably a mistake to keep this thread alive, but nevertheless . . .

This thread has made me interested in what you mean by "story driven" or "non-status quo". And in particular, who drives the story - players or GM?

I've got a couple of players in my current group who seem to enjoy the story, and to enjoy the story elements that I (as GM) introduce into the game (history of wars/empires, demonic pacts that have turned on the civilizations that made them, useful fantasy tropes etc etc) but are not very quick to take up those elements themselves and make them their own. At least to me, it feels like they are (somewhat passively) waiting for me to insert more of that sort of stuff into the next adventure, so they can enjoy seeing the plot built up. I'd rather them participate a bit more in shaping the plot.

The raw material is there - one of the PCs is (as per the background written by the player) one of the last survivors of a city sacked by humanoids, and the other is a tiefling paladin of the Raven Queen. So I guess I'm looking for any ideas/experiences about how to tip the balance just a bit towards player protagonism - any techniques you think might work, ideas for encounters/situations that might bring to the surface this thematic stuff that's lurking just below it.

Honestly, for the last little while of GMing, I've been pretty ham fisted. I guess from my limited understanding of GNS theory, my games have been heavily narrative - play focuses on particular themes/concepts and the actual events of the game are somewhat secondary to that focus.

But, I know what you are saying. There are all sorts of players out there that want you to back up the plot wagon and spoon feed the plot to the players baby bird style and that's going too far IMO. I'm not 100% sure how to motivate players like this to be honest. But, there are a few ideas:

1. This has to be done during character generation. Do chargen as a group activity. No one comes to the table with a fully formed PC. You set things up so that each player gives you at least few ideas about where that character came from AND how that character relates to at least two other characters in the group. I've found that some players don't want to step up and push the party in one direction because they don't want to step on anyone else's toes. They have their goal, sure, but, so does everyone else, and no one's goals are really compatible or related. Make sure that the PC's goals, at least at the outset, are related to each other. This pushes the party forward since everyone is going in at least the same general direction.

2. Ground the players in the setting. Don't hand them a setting bible and expect them to read it. Make the setting matter in the game. Each session should hammer home some element of the setting. Do this enough times and the players start to get a sense of posibilities and might start being pro-active.

3. Let them succeed. Well, don't let them, but don't obstruct them every time they try to do something. If they want to buy an inn, don't make them jump through fifteen hoops to do so. They've shown some initiative, don't crush it by turning every little thing into an epic quest. If that means you wear kid gloves for a little while, so be it. Carrot and stick works best if you let them have the carrot first. (Then you can crush their dreams later for your edification. )

That might help.

 

[pemerton]

Thanks for the reply.

It's a bit late for (1) - campaign is ongoing (level 6) and some of that was done but perhaps not enough. (3) is not an issue, at least at present. But it's helpful to be reminded of (2).

I think I might take this to a new thread.

 

[Reynard]

I agree. The PCs are the characters in the story. They need to fit the story, and the story needs to fit them.

I'd say the characters need to go where the story is. More broadly, as it relates to the topic at hand, if players have created characters that are good at, say, dungeon delving, they should find some dungeons to delve (search/replace for any general campaign and/or adventure type).

I think this what was meant early on about railroading: players and there characters should have freedom to seek out the "stories" in which they are the heroes/protagonists/whatever, where their skills and talents shine. If they can't, that's on the DM. If they don't, that's on the players.

 

[Hussar]

I'd say the characters need to go where the story is. More broadly, as it relates to the topic at hand, if players have created characters that are good at, say, dungeon delving, they should find some dungeons to delve (search/replace for any general campaign and/or adventure type).

I think this what was meant early on about railroading: players and there characters should have freedom to seek out the "stories" in which they are the heroes/protagonists/whatever, where their skills and talents shine. If they can't, that's on the DM. If they don't, that's on the players.

I can agree with that to an extent Reynard. My problem with this particular example is you have one character whose concept has limited mobility. I'm not sure if the group would choose stories based on his limitations. If they don't, there's a very good chance that he will very rarely get to shine, not because the DM isn't giving him the possibilities, but, because his particular concept is difficult to cater to.

 

[Jhaelen]

My problem with this particular example is you have one character whose concept has limited mobility. I'm not sure if the group would choose stories based on his limitations. If they don't, there's a very good chance that he will very rarely get to shine, not because the DM isn't giving him the possibilities, but, because his particular concept is difficult to cater to.

Yeah, but isn't that the player's problem and only the player's problem?

This is like the player who chose to characterize his pc as a 'Lone Wolf', i.e. someone 'extremely introverted, typically only giving single-word answers or not reacting towards others at all' and later complains that he didn't feel like he was sufficiently involved in the roleplaying.

If a player willingly chooses a concept that will marginalize him, that's the player's problem!

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, but isn't that the player's problem and only the player's problem?

This is like the player who chose to characterize his pc as a 'Lone Wolf', i.e. someone 'extremely introverted, typically only giving single-word answers or not reacting towards others at all' and later complains that he didn't feel like he was sufficiently involved in the roleplaying.

If a player willingly chooses a concept that will marginalize him, that's the player's problem!

I suppose. I'm not a big fan of the "tough noogies" approach that seems to get advocated. If the player is not happy, it's not going to help my game any.

Really, IMO, I'd probably just say no to this concept simply because it would cause more problems at the table than it was worth. Or at least try to get the player to amend the concept so that "mounted knight" isn't his sole focus. Unless I could somehow know beforehand that this concept was going to work well in the campaign (which is possible - if the campaign is focused on wide open plains, mounted knight is a GREAT concept) I'd probably strongly advise against it.

It all comes down to creating a group template at the beginning of the campaign. If everyone is on board with the idea of the campaign having a fair bit of open terrain, then, great. But, I'd rather deal with this before the first session than three months down the line when Mr. Mountie is actively trying to suicide his PC because he's not having fun with it.

 

[Dausuul]

I suppose. I'm not a big fan of the "tough noogies" approach that seems to get advocated. If the player is not happy, it's not going to help my game any.

That's a fair point, but at the same time... as DM, I have plenty to do without holding the players' hands. The only exception IMO is the case where my campaign has an unusual feature which makes normally-reliable abilities ineffective (e.g., a rogue in a 3E undead-centric campaign).

It really is on the players to figure out how to build characters they'll enjoy playing. For all I know, the mounted combat guy may just like the idea of having a knight in shining armor who rides a noble steed, and doesn't care that his mounted combat feats never see use in-game.

If the player is a newbie, some guidance may be in order, but experienced players ought to be able to figure this stuff out for themselves and not depend on me to do it for them. (Or figure it out for each other. One of the advantages of group character creation is that when one player has an idea that probably won't work, the other players are apt to say so.)

 

[The Shaman]

It really is on the players to figure out how to build characters they'll enjoy playing. For all I know, the mounted combat guy may just like the idea of having a knight in shining armor who rides a noble steed, and doesn't care that his mounted combat feats never see use in-game.

If the player is a newbie, some guidance may be in order, but experienced players ought to be able to figure this stuff out for themselves and not depend on me to do it for them. (Or figure it out for each other. One of the advantages of group character creation is that when one player has an idea that probably won't work, the other players are apt to say so.)

This. Plus one. Agreed. W00+!!oneone. Quot'd fo' troof. And all that.

 

[Hussar]

That's a fair point, but at the same time... as DM, I have plenty to do without holding the players' hands. The only exception IMO is the case where my campaign has an unusual feature which makes normally-reliable abilities ineffective (e.g., a rogue in a 3E undead-centric campaign).

It really is on the players to figure out how to build characters they'll enjoy playing. For all I know, the mounted combat guy may just like the idea of having a knight in shining armor who rides a noble steed, and doesn't care that his mounted combat feats never see use in-game.

If the player is a newbie, some guidance may be in order, but experienced players ought to be able to figure this stuff out for themselves and not depend on me to do it for them. (Or figure it out for each other. One of the advantages of group character creation is that when one player has an idea that probably won't work, the other players are apt to say so.)

Yeah, I'd agree with that. And, you're 100% right. If the player's concept doesn't include actually using the mount in combat, then fantastic. That's easy to include.

I've been reading the Chronica Feudalis system of late. Interesting game. They have one trait in chargen system called Background. Now, this doesn't mean where your character comes from. What it means is you pick a particular element and that element is put into the background of the game. You don't have to roll, you always succeed at it. It could be narrated from time to time, but, it's never really detailed.

For example, you could have a background Romantic Lothario. Which means in the background of the game, you're getting your groove on all the time. But, it's not meant to be played out during the session. Could be done one on one maybe, or just taken as written.

A similar thing could be used here. Mounted Knight is taken as written. You always have your trusty steed on hand, you don't have to piddle about worrying about guards for it when you go into the dungeon and whatnot. But, on the occasions when you want the horse, you have it.

 

[pemerton]

Yeah, I'd agree with that. And, you're 100% right. If the player's concept doesn't include actually using the mount in combat, then fantastic. That's easy to include.

One thing you'd have to be careful about in a game like 3E or Rolemaster - if the player doesn't want to buy the relevant skills & feats (given that no use will be had from them) but still wants to describe his/her PC as a powerful mounted knight, the GM has to be prepared to allow this. That is, you have to depart a little bit from a hardcore simulationist approach to character building.

I guess the alternative is as Dausuul said, that the feats are purchased but not used. But a player wouldn't have to be very much of a power gamer to think that this is a bit unfair.