Why we like plot: Our Job as DMs

[Janx]

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.



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.

If your PCs are not young at 1st level, you are an exception and obviously my statement about an 18 year old does not apply.

For 18 year olds, most don't have far reaching plans because as Dr. Phil says, they're brains ain't finished growing yet.

Such statements of "I want to be a god" or "I want to rule this empire" or "I want to be a necromancer lich" are the statements of the player's long term goal. For a PC, such statements for most people would be out of character.

To me, it's more plausible to develop into such a goal through game events, rather than declaring pre-game that he has this high and lofty goal to pursue in a game world he hasn't even seen.

 

[The Ghost]

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.

Perhaps "may" is a better word than "would"?

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

If your PCs are not young at 1st level, you are an exception and obviously my statement about an 18 year old does not apply.

For his character to be an exception, there must be a rule. Where did you find such rule? In the table of suggested starting ages of various editions of D&D?

For 18 year olds, most don't have far reaching plans because as Dr. Phil says, they're brains ain't finished growing yet.

[Emphasis mine.] And most don't run off to become professional adventurers. Besides, stating a goal doesn't mean you will achieve it or even pursue it. A 4-year-old can have a goal to be a fireman when he grows up. Some kids stick with that goal and achieve it, others change their minds and become accountants.

Such statements of "I want to be a god" or "I want to rule this empire" or "I want to be a necromancer lich" are the statements of the player's long term goal. For a PC, such statements for most people would be out of character.

This is a case of railroading IMO. The only person that can tell you whether a character is being played out of character is the player that created the character.

To me, it's more plausible to develop into such a goal through game events, rather than declaring pre-game that he has this high and lofty goal to pursue in a game world he hasn't even seen.

But see, this is out of character thinking to me. Your character has seen the game world before you created him. Why couldn't he have goals within the world before your created him?

 

[Raven Crowking]

[Emphasis mine.] And most don't run off to become professional adventurers. Besides, stating a goal doesn't mean you will achieve it or even pursue it. A 4-year-old can have a goal to be a fireman when he grows up. Some kids stick with that goal and achieve it, others change their minds and become accountants.

Indeed.

"Sorry, Bob, your character has the will and focus to learn to manipulate magic, but not to have any goals in doing so. Sorry, Clarissa, but your cleric may already be old enough to dedicate herself to a deity, but she isn't old enough to dedicate herself to wanting to found a temple one day."

I can just see how this goes over at the table.

This is a case of railroading IMO. The only person that can tell you whether a character is being played out of character is the player that created the character.

Agreed.

Having a goal and attaining the goal are two seperate things.

Moreover, I have yet to see an example of how a reasonable background does anything other than enhance the game. Would anyone care to provide one or two that we can examine?

NOTE: As a GM, I firmly support your right to run any kind of game you want, so long as you can get people to sit at your table. I have no objection to your running a "no backgrounds" game. I do, however, object to the implication that such a game is somehow superior....unless, of course, you can show me why you believe it to be true, and your reasoning makes sense.

RC

 

[Ariosto]

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.

One encounter hardly constitutes "an evening of gaming" in any version of D&D I want to play!

You encounter what you encounter -- it need not follow that you fight it. In the dungeons, encounter distances are pretty close ... and wandering monsters are keyed to dungeon level. In the wilderness, you tend to spot critters further away, with more chance to evade them ... and type and number encountered depend on the region.

If you choose to go to a country mired in anarchy and civil war, then just how "accidental" is your run-in with a warlord's army? If you choose to delve deeper in quest of richer treasures, then it's your responsibility to be mindful of greater risks -- and "know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em; know when to walk away, and know when to run!"

 

[fuzzlewump]

Player input is definitely the best thing to happen to my D&D games. Putting in character backgrounds is not creating hooks, it's (to make a fishing analogy) telling the DM what bait they like to eat.

The DM still creates all the hooks, all the story, everything. But instead of say "GO TO HOMMLET AND KILL ELEMENTAL EVILS" he instead says "GO TO HOMMLET AND KILL THE ELEMENTAL EVILS THAT KILLED YOUR PARENTS." Assumedly, the player said that his or her parents were killed by demons in this case. Either way, they're going to The Temple of Elemental Evil; but in the latter, the player gave you a great reason to motivate him or her and you used it, increasing the fun for all.

Saying that the 'DM knows best' might have been true for me about 10 years ago when the DM was the most mature person in the group. Now that everyone is an adult that sentiment has never been more wrong.

 

[The Shaman]

What does this have to do with background?

Not a thing. I wasn't talking about background at all until after the next quoted section of VB's post.

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

And I never said it did.

Holmes Basic? Gary Gygax's 1e?

Dragonlance. Ravenloft. Forgotten Realms.

Eighties, not Seventies, as I talked about upthread.

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

As have I.

Somebody once told me the moon landings were faked, too. That doesn't make it true, though.

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.

Setting material is open equally to all of the players during the course of the game. Character background describes events that take place wholly out of the game.

Not the same thing.

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?

Reductio ad absurdum, RC? Really?

I don't expect that from you.

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.

Agreed.

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.

I'm going to come back to this at a later time; too many distractions right now.

 

[The Ghost]

If your PCs are not young at 1st level, you are an exception and obviously my statement about an 18 year old does not apply.

For his character to be an exception, there must be a rule. Where did you find such rule? In the table of suggested starting ages of various editions of D&D?

And in this particular case the rule is on Page 109 of the 3.5 Player's Handbook. "AGE ~ You can choose or randomly generate your character's age." (emphasis mine)

With the groups that I have played with it is quite common to create characters who are much older than the minimum. In 3.5 that is 16 or 17 depending on starting class.

For 18 year olds, most don't have far reaching plans because as Dr. Phil says, they're brains ain't finished growing yet.

Certainly - goals, dreams, plans, etc. are subject to change as a person grows older. I don't dispute that. However, that does not mean that they did not have goals at that age nor does it mean that they did not make decisions based on those goals.

Such statements of "I want to be a god" or "I want to rule this empire" or "I want to be a necromancer lich" are the statements of the player's long term goal. For a PC, such statements for most people would be out of character.

And yet in the real world young people often say things like "I want to be President" or "I want to be a famous golfer" or "I want to..." and it is often considered perfectly within their character to say. How is it out of character for a 1st level PC to state the equivalent?

Most characters will fail at achieving their goals just as most people in real life do not live up to their goals. Having the ability to achieve ones goals does not mean that they do not have the desire though.

To me, it's more plausible to develop into such a goal through game events, rather than declaring pre-game that he has this high and lofty goal to pursue in a game world he hasn't even seen.

But see, this is out of character thinking to me. Your character has seen the game world before you created him. Why couldn't he have goals within the world before your created him?

What Vyvyan Basterd said.

 

[Ariosto]

But, what if I want a more specific storyline.

Then that's what you want. I'm still not seeing how it follows that everyone who wants a wide world to explore instead "lacks depth".

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.

But by assuming that it's up to the DM to "tell a story" and the players to go along, we get ...

The DM still creates all the hooks, all the story, everything. ... Either way, they're going to The Temple of Elemental Evil ...

and

Saying that the 'DM knows best' might have been true for me about 10 years ago when the DM was the most mature person in the group. Now that everyone is an adult that sentiment has never been more wrong.

Some of us, though, have been adults for a long time -- and for a long time enjoyed the original saying that it is up to the players to choose what their characters undertake, to act as self-determining protagonists rather than like fish being played..

 

[The Shaman]

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.

Y'know, I can't tell who this is in response to, because it has nothing at all to do with what either Janx or I wrote.

Players can pursue whatever they want for their characters during the game. They can change whatever is in their power to change in the game-world, limited only by their imagination, skill, and luck. "Just along for the ride" is more a problem of would-be storytellers, in my experience.

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.

For me, characters feel more like real people when their backgrounds are largely unexceptional; it's what they do at the table that makes them exceptional, not pre-game fiction exercises.