Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7334173" data-attributes="member: 16814">I have the same issue with players being shy about generating content, and, to me, it appears to be a fear that such generation will be turned against them in some unexpected way.  Essentially, they worry that if they present something that they now have a stake in, that the DM will abuse that stake and use it to punish them.  I've noticed a high correlation between players that balk at providing content when prompted to be the same that generate character backstories devoid of any hooks -- orphan, loner, no ties to anything, etc.  That said, I don't think this is necessarily bad.  By doing this, that player is indicating that they don't want emotional attachment to things -- that they want to play a game in a space that doesn't threaten their emotional states.  Sometimes this is because they've been subjected to bad DMs that do abuse their hooks, other times it's because that's not what their looking for in their leisure activities.And that kind of player is fine.  I have one (maybe two) in my current game:  they don't want things to be about them and things they've indicated they like.  They don't want drama in game about things they've come to care about that the other players or the DM might endanger.  They don't like feeling like they don't have control over their content.  I always take anything they provide as something I don't threaten without permission.  If I get my one player to actually not be an orphan, then his parents in game are only a source of positive things -- they're never kidnapped or threatened unless as part of a collective threatening (the world is going to be destroyed kind of thing).  Nothing negative is directed at them.  On the other hand, I have a player that enjoys having their hooks pulled.  I have no fear in putting his hooks in danger or under threat and even applying bad consequences to them as a result of play.  I don't go out of my way, and often his hooks are positive interactions (because universal negatives are bad), but I am not concerned if play brings his hooks into conflict.And this issue, actually, is one of the main reasons I run a secret backstory game -- I have some control over the content that's provided and the things threatened.  I don't have a group of players willing to engage and have that engagement threatened to truely play a player-driven game with my current group.  I don't have a problem with it (I put glaring hooks in  all of my characters, regardless of game and I push them within the confines of the kind of game I'm playing in -- ie, I don't try to monopolize play with my hooks, but I do make sure they're visible).  But, when I run, I have to run for my players, and that includes picking a set of play conventions that best matches the group.  And player-driven isn't it.**We tried Fiasco a few times as an icebreaker/trial of player driven games.  Fiasco is great because everyone understands that the point is conflict, but the roles and vignette style keep things in small doses and non-personal.  Half of my group had a blast.  On the other side, there were 2 that were ambivalent -- they thought it was fun but not something they really liked, and one that didn't make the second game because they didn't like the first.  Of course, they like games where they have a clear concept of 'winning', which they define in D&D as surviving and being good at their chosen niche.  Fiasco didn't have a way for him to understand how to do better that he could latch onto.  For me, I loved the evolution of the story and didn't care who got the most dice.</blockquote>

Verification