Why we like plot: Our Job as DMs

[The Shaman]

This is what I've understood to be the (somewhat) negative definition of a sandbox.

Whereas I understand it to be a positive example of a status quo setting.

One thing makes me curious though. I've experienced both first and second hand the horror stories of low-level PCs stumbling upon a dragon and suffering a TPK. Has anyone ever heard of sessions where high-level PCs stumble upon the band of orcs? I haven't experienced that flip-side of the coin. Would you find such a non-challenge of an evening of gaming fun? I know I wouldn't, just as I wouldn't find being slaughtered by a dragon that we "accidentally" found being very fun.

First, in my experience a group of high-level characters showing off their awesomeness on weaker but still deserving foes tends to make for a fun encounter.

A group of mid-high level characters in my 3e campaign were confronted by a swarm of first level bandits while travelling; the players talked about that encounter for weeks afterward, of the many ways they sliced and diced and fricaseed the hapless would-be brigands. And they received accolades from a neaby villagers for clearing the road of the menace to the settlement; the players reveled in the rock star treatment for quite a while, actually.

Second, a status quo setting (I'm getting tired of the ways 'sandbox' is being misused in this thread, so I'm going to go back to the older, pre-video game descriptive phrase) isn't challenge after challenge after challenge served up my a complaisant game master. If you eliminate a threat in an area, then you need to go looking for trouble instead of waiting around for it to find you (while expecting it to be level-appropriate at the same time).

Adventurers in status quo settings must be proactive. Adventure is out there, and if you're bored by the local offerings, you need to dig deeper, or sail further, to find it.

I find this odd. RC's use of the character's backgrounds to me is awesome.

Of course it is. It's what you, and a whole lot of other gamers, grew up expecting from roleplaying games because that's what the designers served up.

I understand wantig the focus to be on the characters current accomplishments. But why would you ignore the history of the character? The player took the time to immerse himself in your world by writing a background tied to your setting. When he goes to Spooky Castle it seems like it would be more exciting to discover a twist than to just experience exactly what the player wrote. "He died there. Yep, there's his body. Hrm." By turning the character's father into an involved NPC you now have hooked that player into your word and given him even more reason to be invested.

Because background is, to me, mere fanwank that no one experiences in play.

What I tell my players is a good background explains your character's motivation for not staying home and being a tradesman or an accountant or a courtier, and then stops. A background sets up the game; it doesn't intrude upon it.

Some examples of what I mean will help.

• "My character hates orcs because they killed his family when he was a boy!" versus "My character hates orcs because they killed half our party, including my best mate, in those caverns we were exploring near the keep."
• "My character has sworn vengeance against the baron de Bauchery for abducting Princess Pinkflower, my teenage love!" versus "My character has sworn vengeance against the baron de Bauchery for abducting my mistress, Princess Pinkflower, while we were on a diplomatic mission for the king."
• "Oh noes, the wight is my long-lost father!" versus "Oh noes, the wight is our former cleric!"

See the difference? One belongs to no one but the player; the other is part of the collective experience of everyone playing the game.

What happens around the table should always be more interesting and more exciting and more troublesome and more glorious to the players and their characters than stuff that never happened except in one person's imagination.

This goes back to the idea that status quo settings 'lack depth,' where depth is defined as how much 'background' the players and the game master force into play. The depth in a status quo setting comes from the relationships the adventurers build during the game. Again, it requires proactive players who understand that the game-world is wide open to their machinations, that friendships and rivalries result from what the characters do, not who they are, in particular not who they are based on what the player wrote down on the character sheet before the first die was thrown with real consequences on the line.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm getting tired of the ways 'sandbox' is being misused in this thread

Adventurers in status quo settings must be proactive. Adventure is out there, and if you're bored by the local offerings, you need to dig deeper, or sail further, to find it.

What does this have to do with background?

If Castle Spooky contains 10 ghouls, one of which is Bobby Sue's dad, when those ghouls are dead, the party needs to move on. If Castle Spooky contains 10 ghouls, none of which is Bobby Sue's dad, when those ghouls are dead, the party needs to move on.

Whether or not PC background penetrates setting background has nothing to do with it.

Of course it is. It's what you, and a whole lot of other gamers, grew up expecting from roleplaying games because that's what the designers served up.

Holmes Basic? Gary Gygax's 1e?

Yes, they suggested the creation of a character. Gary went so far as to include tables (secondary skills in the 1e DMG, more in UA) to help develop who your character was before he became Joe Swordsman.

Because background is, to me, mere fanwank that no one experiences in play.

Do you have any idea how often I've heard the same said about the creation of setting materials?

The value of any generated material is based upon how it is used in play. This is true of setting materials; it is true of PC background.

The history one creates when detailing a setting may not be experienced directly in play, but it is experienced indirectly in the way it influences what is experienced. It enriches the setting.

I find it odd that, on one hand, you say

What I tell my players is a good background explains your character's motivation for not staying home and being a tradesman or an accountant or a courtier, and then stops. A background sets up the game; it doesn't intrude upon it.​

and on the other, you say

What happens around the table should always be more interesting and more exciting and more troublesome and more glorious to the players and their characters than stuff that never happened except in one person's imagination.​

You apparently object to background becoming part of what happens around the table. Why bother with any background at all, if it has no bearing on what happens around the table? Why know who built the town, or where the dungeon came from? Why bother with anything?

Don't get mired in the past? That I can agree with. Don't get mired in the past to the detriment of what's happening now? Yup. Double yup.

"Depth" (IMHO) is not defined by "how much 'background' the players and the game master force into play", but rather by the level of emotional investment the game generates, regardless of source. Allowing the PCs to have backgrounds that penetrate the setting does not, in any way, shape, or form, damage the depth that comes from the relationships the adventurers build during the game. It didn't in 1979; it doesn't today.

(And that doesn't mean that a PC can make up any background either; it must be approved by the GM. Setting-damaging backgrounds are right out.)

Upthread, I suggested that the "status quo" setting Hussar described may well be impossible. This is because I do not believe that it is possible, ever, to fully detail a world prior to play beginning. Sooner or later, the GM will have to build more, and to extrapolate from what is known about the setting. There is, IMHO, no way to avoid this.

As a result, I do not believe that there is any problem whatsoever with logical extrapolation on the basis of character backgrounds or whathaveyou. If a character background is intended as a showhog, ("I am pursued by the agents of SPECTRE!") or to give some advantage ("I am the nephew of the King!") then it should be vetoed. If the character background is intended to tie the character to the world, and to further invest the player in what is happening at the tabletop, then I am all for it.

YMMV, and obviously does.



RC

 

[Hussar]

I have to admit that my understanding of a "sandbox" is far closer to The Shaman's that Raven Crowking's. So, I guess I've always thought of Sandbox as a Status Quo setting. First time I've heard that term, so, cool. I like learning new things.

Like all things, I suppose, it becomes a spectrum. RC's sandbox leans considerably closer to Status Quo that what I'm proposing.

See, I disagree that backgrounds amount to fanwank. They can, and I've certainly seen that, but, they don't have to. The best way to get away from backgrounds that are divorced from what's going on in the campaign is to create parties as a group exercise rather than a solo thing. The entire group works together to create backgrounds that are linked both to each other and to the setting as well. Out of those backgrounds, the campaign goals are defined (or it could be the other way around as well - campaign goals define backgrounds) and a Limited Scenario is born.

Ariosto - hrm. What is meant by character depth. Well... I'd say character depth comes from connections between the main characters and between the main characters and NPC's. Depth also comes from the characters having a sense of history and a sense of direction and purpose as well. It's a bit nebulous I'll admit.

The problem I see with the sandbox that RC is talking about, is the individual character's are pretty much replaceable. That's fine, if you want that, but, that's not always the case. I just watched Star Wars for the umpteenth time a few days ago. Now, if we were to do a Star Wars sandbox, based on the movie, then it shouldn't matter if Guido shoots Han. Han dies, Han's player rolls up a new character and maybe Luke teams up with Chewie and flies the Falcon away.

But, what if I want a more specific storyline. What if I WANT those particular characters in the game? A couple more character death's and suddenly the storyline is pretty much in the garbage compactor. Luke gets killed in the Mos Eisley Cantina, thus the rest of the plotline for the next three movies goes down the tubes.

Now, I'm pretty sure that RC would say, so what? Who cares? The new story, based on the replacement characters is just as compelling and just as interesting. And he's right. Or rather he can be right. That story with Leia becoming the Jedi Master could be every bit as interesting as the original one.

But, it's not the story or the game I want to play. At least, not this time. Maybe next time. I want to play out the story of Luke Skywalker, teamed up with Han Solo. Sometimes, it's not a bad thing to have a more specific storyline in mind, so long as the players are on board before hand.

Anyway, it's late, I'm rambling. This probably makes no sense. Gnite all.

 

[Hussar]

Sigh, just one more post.

"Depth" (IMHO) is not defined by "how much 'background' the players and the game master force into play", but rather by the level of emotional investment the game generates, regardless of source. Allowing the PCs to have backgrounds that penetrate the setting does not, in any way, shape, or form, damage the depth that comes from the relationships the adventurers build during the game. It didn't in 1979; it doesn't today.

Well said. Totally agree.

(And that doesn't mean that a PC can make up any background either; it must be approved by the GM. Setting-damaging backgrounds are right out.)

This of course, presumes that the GM must create a setting before the campaign is played. If, OTOH, the setting is based on the character backgrounds, then this problem goes away.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The problem I see with the sandbox that RC is talking about, is the individual character's are pretty much replaceable. That's fine, if you want that, but, that's not always the case.

It is always the case to me. If I wanted to do a specific storyline, I would write a story. (Check out my website. It's true.)

But, what if I want a more specific storyline. What if I WANT those particular characters in the game? A couple more character death's and suddenly the storyline is pretty much in the garbage compactor.

Yup. Sandbox doesn't do railroad. The more the GM wants to impose "what should happen" or "what will happen", the less sandbox can accomodate him. For that matter, the less player choice can accomodate him.

Now, I'm pretty sure that RC would say, so what? Who cares? The new story, based on the replacement characters is just as compelling and just as interesting. And he's right. Or rather he can be right. That story with Leia becoming the Jedi Master could be every bit as interesting as the original one.

He would go even farther and say that there is no story until after the events have occurred.

Well said. Totally agree.

Careful. That could become a habit.

This of course, presumes that the GM must create a setting before the campaign is played. If, OTOH, the setting is based on the character backgrounds, then this problem goes away.

What problem?



RC

 

[Janx]

What I tell my players is a good background explains your character's motivation for not staying home and being a tradesman or an accountant or a courtier, and then stops. A background sets up the game; it doesn't intrude upon it.

Some examples of what I mean will help.

• "My character hates orcs because they killed his family when he was a boy!" versus "My character hates orcs because they killed half our party, including my best mate, in those caverns we were exploring near the keep."
• "My character has sworn vengeance against the baron de Bauchery for abducting Princess Pinkflower, my teenage love!" versus "My character has sworn vengeance against the baron de Bauchery for abducting my mistress, Princess Pinkflower, while we were on a diplomatic mission for the king."
• "Oh noes, the wight is my long-lost father!" versus "Oh noes, the wight is our former cleric!"

See the difference? One belongs to no one but the player; the other is part of the collective experience of everyone playing the game.

What happens around the table should always be more interesting and more exciting and more troublesome and more glorious to the players and their characters than stuff that never happened except in one person's imagination.

I agree with this. All I want for a PC background is a simple justification for why you're a fighter and not a farmer, and maybe some names of NPCs you know (ie. family members).

Too many times I see backgrounds trying to introduce a plot hook for the PC, or build some long term goal like "I want to be a necromancer" or setup the PC as some sort of bad ass.

The problem is, the PC is 18 years old. Compared to what's coming, nothing interesting has ever happened in that character's life. And 18 year olds don't know what they want to be when they're older, let alone "become an evil necromancer". And at 1st level, the PC is hardly a bad ass, so stop trying to write what your stats don't support.

Your character will be cooler and you'll have more feeling for your character when all the drama happens IN game. When your backstory at 10th level is all the stuff that happened in the last 9 levels.

Basically, skip trying to write melodrama that your parents were killed when you were young and your sister was kidnapped before your were 1st level. Instead, let the DM run the world, you actually meet and interact with your parents and sister in a few sessions, then he kills your parents and kidnaps your sister.

If you though having a hook of something bad happening to your PC pre-game was good and dramatic, having something bad happening to your PC in-game will have far more weight and impact and drama.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Because background is, to me, mere fanwank.

Basically, skip trying to write melodrama that your parents were killed when you were young and your sister was kidnapped before your were 1st level. Instead, let the DM run the world.

This is an attitude I can personally do without. "Mere fanwank" and "let the DM run the world" were positions I once held, passed down from those who taught me the game. Over time I realized I enjoyed having the input of my players and that they enjoyed the game more because they felt they were a part of it, not just along for the ride.

What I tell my players is a good background explains your character's motivation for not staying home and being a tradesman or an accountant or a courtier, and then stops.

See, this type of character doesn't feel like a real person to me. It feels more like an artificial construct that only came into being when it started adventuring. Characters are artificial constructs, but part of what makes RPGs different than other forms of games is that they should feel like real people (relative to their world) to the greatest extent that you can achieve.

The problem is, the PC is 18 years old. Compared to what's coming, nothing interesting has ever happened in that character's life. And 18 year olds don't know what they want to be when they're older, let alone "become an evil necromancer". And at 1st level, the PC is hardly a bad ass, so stop trying to write what your stats don't support.

Who says so? You? The books? My starting PC has no requirement to be 18 years old. The events to come may be more interesting to the general public, but the events that shaped my character's life before adventuring are not only interesting to him but deeply personal. Some 18-year-ols do know exactly what they want to be and even if they don't why can't they aspire? It doesn't mean they won't change their aspirations later. And if you're writing a background that make you sound like a badass, it could be because the character thinks he is a badass and will have the opportunity in-game to discover whether he truly is or whether he will be shown his true place.

 

[The Ghost]

I agree with this. All I want for a PC background is a simple justification for why you're a fighter and not a farmer, and maybe some names of NPCs you know (ie. family members).

Too many times I see backgrounds trying to introduce a plot hook for the PC, or build some long term goal like "I want to be a necromancer" or setup the PC as some sort of bad ass.

What, exactly, is wrong with having long-term goals? It is one thing for a first level character to state "I want to be a powerful necromancer" it is another to state "I am a powerful necromancer." I have no problem with the first but I would with the second.

The problem is, the PC is 18 years old. Compared to what's coming, nothing interesting has ever happened in that character's life. And 18 year olds don't know what they want to be when they're older, let alone "become an evil necromancer". And at 1st level, the PC is hardly a bad ass, so stop trying to write what your stats don't support.

Are all PCs 18 years old when a campaign starts? They sure are not in my games. My current character (the one I referenced a few pages back) was 45 at the start of the campaign.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

What, exactly, is wrong with having long-term goals? It is one thing for a first level character to state "I want to be a powerful necromancer" it is another to state "I am a powerful necromancer." I have no problem with the first but I would with the second.

I tend to be more open and let the player write what he wants. I stipulate that no one is allowed to garner anything for their character beyond what a normal starting character is allowed.

"I am a powerful necromancer." - You think you are, others will prove you wrong.

"I'm the nephew of the King." - Sure. And he thinks you're a whiny little git and leaves you to fend for yourself. A commoner in his court probably has a better chance of gaining the King's favor because he at least doesn't have an opinion about them yet.

Players have tried to use their background to their advantage in my games for years. Instead of vetoing their background I like to meet their loaded background with the likes of a cursed wish. Players who have learned this the hard way in my games tend to write much more reasonable backgrounds.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Too many times I see backgrounds trying to introduce a plot hook for the PC

Is this a "plot hook" like "My grandfather had the +27 Sword of Doom, which was lost in my garden"? Or a "plot hook" like "My character wants to kill orcs"? Because I can't see the problem with the second plot hook.

or build some long term goal like "I want to be a necromancer"

Which is a problem why?

Why build a setting that encourages player choices without wanting the player characters to have long term goals? Having a long term goal doesn't mean you succeed in achieving it.

or setup the PC as some sort of bad ass.

Is the player trying to gain some undue advantage? Or does he just want to be a member in good standing in the local Thieves' Guild? In the former case, as has already been suggested, tell him "No". In the latter case, if this is a replacement PC, and the players already know enough about the local Thieves' Guild to allow the player to assume the role, why not?

The problem is, the PC is 18 years old. Compared to what's coming, nothing interesting has ever happened in that character's life.

If the GM is a good one, this will be true no matter what the player wrote for his background, so long as the background isn't setting-breaking or allowing an undue advantage.

And 18 year olds don't know what they want to be when they're older, let alone "become an evil necromancer". And at 1st level, the PC is hardly a bad ass, so stop trying to write what your stats don't support.

I would suspect that anyone who becomes an adventurer at 18 probably has a much better idea what he wishes to do than most. Otherwise, why not become a grocer? That risk-taking is because the character is driven to be more than those around him.

As for being a "bad ass", how many 18-year-olds do you know? Lots of younger folks think that they are bad asses, or present themselves that way. The kid in Unforgiven is a perfect example of a "bad ass" character whose veneer gets stripped away over the course of the film.

The proper response, IMHO, to a player who thinks that his PC is a bad ass is "Prove it".

Your character will be cooler and you'll have more feeling for your character when all the drama happens IN game. When your backstory at 10th level is all the stuff that happened in the last 9 levels.

If you were forced to have just one or the other, I would agree with you. However, the nifty thing about RPGs (for some of us, at least) is that you are not. So, if a background gives a "cool factor" of 1, and the stuff that happens in the game gives a "cool factor" of 100, then 101 is still more than 100.

The only problem, of course, is if your GM is unable/unwilling to give that "cool factor" of 1, or if giving that "cool factor" or 1 makes the GM unable/unwilling to dish out the 100.

A reasonable background that fits into the world gets rewarded. A craptacular background, seeking position or advantage, gets vetoed or ignored.

If you though having a hook of something bad happening to your PC pre-game was good and dramatic, having something bad happening to your PC in-game will have far more weight and impact and drama.

These things are not mutually exclusive.



RC