Why we like plot: Our Job as DMs

[The Ghost]

So a PC can't write in stuff to start the game with that the PC can't start the game with. I expect the backstory to JUSTIFY the PC as is.

This I agree with.

However, there one question I am left with; what about a character's goals and ambitions? Take your average first-level fighter. He was conscripted into the army, served in various posts, and is now out to make a name for himself as an adventurer. His goal is to one day become a lord of his own manor. Is this acceptable? What if instead his goal was to become a legendary warrior whose tales are told by bards throughout all the lands? What I wonder is where exactly is the dividing line between acceptable and unacceptable?

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

What I wonder is where exactly is the dividing line between acceptable and unacceptable?

In the mind of each DM.

Just from the small set of examples provided here you can see that.

 

[The Ghost]

In the mind of each DM.

Just from the small set of examples provided here you can see that.

Oh, I agree! I am just curious as to where Janx sets his. I consider it an important part of my growth as a DM to learn how others do things.

 

[Janx]

This I agree with.

However, there one question I am left with; what about a character's goals and ambitions? Take your average first-level fighter. He was conscripted into the army, served in various posts, and is now out to make a name for himself as an adventurer. His goal is to one day become a lord of his own manor. Is this acceptable? What if instead his goal was to become a legendary warrior whose tales are told by bards throughout all the lands? What I wonder is where exactly is the dividing line between acceptable and unacceptable?

That's a good question too, and I find this line of questiong to be more fruitful to getting answers than either of us making broad statements.

I do suspect that VB hit in on the head that it's in the mind of the DM. A subjective, rather objective decision. Some players have some really stupid backstory ideas. Primarily because you gotta write a backstory the DM likes. If he doesn't like it, you've already annoyed the DM and the game hasn't even started. Supposedly impartial DM or not, them's the breaks.


Now I tend to expect a 1st level to be young (regardless of what the current ruleset may say, that's what happens when old people play new editions). As such, I don't tend to expect a lot of accomplishments out of PCs pre-game.

Having run a military campaign where the PCs WERE in the military, it might not be applicable for the PC to have quit the army. But then I'd communicate that starting point information before character creation.


Let me morph those 2 stories into back story paragraphs:

Joe was conscripted into the army, served in various posts, and is now out to make a name for himself as an adventurer. His goal is to one day become a lord of his own manor.

Bill's goal is to become a legendary warrior whose tales are told by bards throughout all the lands?

I probably don't have a problem with either of them (assuming there was an applicable army in the region for Joe to have joined).

What tends to bug me are the megalomaniac goals for 1st level PCs who shouldn't even know if such a thing exists or is possible.

While many players have goals for their PC to become a god, such a thought is likely not even possible in the small un-exposed mind of a 1st level PC. Give them some power and clues that godhood and greater power and possible, and NOW it's plausible that the idea of achieving godhood is a rational goal for your PC.

Certain backstory ideas bug the heck out of me. Odds are good, in the hands of a good writer, the same idea could pass my desk and not even make me twitch.

But in general, pre-game, I don't really want more than a paragraph of backstory. There's no point in making heavy investment until you've proven yourself, and you've seen how the game is actually going to go. Then it'll be worth adding on or re-writing (with out conflicting anything that's gone on before).

Perhaps my thinking is shaped by a wait and see attitude. As a player, I tend to start the game with that initial paragraph which at most says where I'm from and how I learned my PC class. After that, I need to see what the actual game world is going to be, and what opportunities there are. If the first session has us accidentally letting out a plague of rust monsters on the land, or being framed and wanted criminals (happened in the same 1st game session and not in that order) then we're going to be playing a survival game and whatever grandiose plans for a lord's manor or bard's fame are going to be quite irrelevant.

A lot of times, all I need to do as a PC is spot a problem, start fixing it, and opportunies will open up, and that's where goals start shaping.

That and it's my general experience that the player doesn't know the world well enough to craft detailed material before the game starts. Playing a session usually explains way more about the enviroment than any hand-out ever does. I've played in plenty of games where there's not a hand-out or briefing, so it's roll it up and welcome to the world.

From that, you might be able to see why I don't think a player is qualified to make much of a background before the game has started. They just don't know what makes sense until they see it for themselves.

 

[Raven Crowking]

What tends to bug me are the megalomaniac goals for 1st level PCs who shouldn't even know if such a thing exists or is possible.

While many players have goals for their PC to become a god, such a thought is likely not even possible in the small un-exposed mind of a 1st level PC. Give them some power and clues that godhood and greater power and possible, and NOW it's plausible that the idea of achieving godhood is a rational goal for your PC.

I always assume that PCs have access to the folklore of the region they are in. I also assume that most players will set reasonable goals for the milieu (at least, once the milieu was understood).

Those who want to start out as the "Chosen of Thor" are simply told "No".

I am also willing to play a "That's what your PC believes" game if necessary, and if I think it will be fun.

Example: "My PC totally kicked his master's arse with a fireball before the game even started!" might turn out to mean "My master totally duped me into believing that I cast a fireball, while he stood by chuckling at his illusory demise. He then used my apparent power to set me up into thinking I could take on his enemies. While I destracted them by getting pounded, he nipped in and took what he wanted. Then he made sure to let me know what a fool I had been by showing me what a fireball actually looks like."

Of course, everything after "My master totally duped me into believing that I cast a fireball, while he stood by chuckling at his illusory demise." takes place in-game. So, perhaps, the player (or his comrades) catch on before it is too late.

Does the player come back? Meh.

In a not-so-distant game, in a campaign where the PCs were told (1) there are no good dragons, and (2) demons and devils pretend to be gods to dupe the foolish into doing their bidding, a player brought in a paladin of a hitherto-unknown "good dragon god". Can you guess what the reality was?

That and it's my general experience that the player doesn't know the world well enough to craft detailed material before the game starts. Playing a session usually explains way more about the enviroment than any hand-out ever does.

What about replacement characters, after the players presumably have some information to go on? It is, IME, usually when the players know something about the campaign milieu that they have become invested enough to care who, and what, they are related to.


RC

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Some players have some really stupid backstory ideas.

Like: "My half-orc was made fun of by the other children in town. They threw biscuits at him and called him names. He gathered up the lobbed biscuits to help feed his poor family. He took the nickname "Biscuit" to remind him of his shameful youth."

I allowed this one, strange as it was. Maybe because it wasn't the usual "my parents are dead" trope.

Now I tend to expect a 1st level to be young (regardless of what the current ruleset may say, that's what happens when old people play new editions). As such, I don't tend to expect a lot of accomplishments out of PCs pre-game.

IME, players feel the same and usually don't write grand accomplishments for their PCs. I would consider a background containing a major accomplishment though and think of fun ways to incorporate it into the game.

Having run a military campaign where the PCs WERE in the military, it might not be applicable for the PC to have quit the army. But then I'd communicate that starting point information before character creation.

Setting up the starting point is, IMO, key to helping players springboard a good background. Even if the starting point is the town where you plan to start the campaign or more detailed like your military campaign.

What tends to bug me are the megalomaniac goals for 1st level PCs who shouldn't even know if such a thing exists or is possible.
While many players have goals for their PC to become a god, such a thought is likely not even possible in the small un-exposed mind of a 1st level PC. Give them some power and clues that godhood and greater power and possible, and NOW it's plausible that the idea of achieving godhood is a rational goal for your PC.

If they don't know something exists, then yes I could see a slight problem, although the character could just be delusional. Not knowing if it's possible shouldn't stop anyone from wanting to be something. Who says a goal has to be rational? I mean wanting to delve into the bowels of the earth to fight deadly creatures isn't a very rational thought for the average person.

But in general, pre-game, I don't really want more than a paragraph of backstory. There's no point in making heavy investment until you've proven yourself, and you've seen how the game is actually going to go. Then it'll be worth adding on or re-writing (with out conflicting anything that's gone on before).

I don't usually appreciate multiple paragraphs of backstory either. I would rather prefer the relevant points.

That and it's my general experience that the player doesn't know the world well enough to craft detailed material before the game starts. Playing a session usually explains way more about the enviroment than any hand-out ever does. I've played in plenty of games where there's not a hand-out or briefing, so it's roll it up and welcome to the world.

From that, you might be able to see why I don't think a player is qualified to make much of a background before the game has started. They just don't know what makes sense until they see it for themselves.

I ask for a short background with vague reference points. Then I will help the player link his idea to the world.

Those who want to start out as the "Chosen of Thor" are simply told "No".

And I love to "Say Yes!" I try to feel the player out on why he was motivated to write a background as the "Chosen of Thor." If his intent was to just be extremely dedicated to his deity, no issues. If it was to try to gain an advantage, lets just say that gods are demanding of their chosen and expect more out them than the average mortal.

Example: "My PC totally kicked his master's arse with a fireball before the game even started!" might turn out to mean "My master totally duped me into believing that I cast a fireball, while he stood by chuckling at his illusory demise. He then used my apparent power to set me up into thinking I could take on his enemies. While I destracted them by getting pounded, he nipped in and took what he wanted. Then he made sure to let me know what a fool I had been by showing me what a fireball actually looks like." Of course, everything after "My master totally duped me into believing that I cast a fireball, while he stood by chuckling at his illusory demise." takes place in-game. So, perhaps, the player (or his comrades) catch on before it is too late.

In a not-so-distant game, in a campaign where the PCs were told (1) there are no good dragons, and (2) demons and devils pretend to be gods to dupe the foolish into doing their bidding, a player brought in a paladin of a hitherto-unknown "good dragon god". Can you guess what the reality was?

I like these.

Does the player come back? Meh.

Mine do and they've known for a long time what a Basterd I am.

 

[Janx]

What about replacement characters, after the players presumably have some information to go on? It is, IME, usually when the players know something about the campaign milieu that they have become invested enough to care who, and what, they are related to.


RC

This is also a good question.

One of the things I find is that I tend to play core rules, and when I start a new campaign, it's usually pretty basic. I've figured out where elves come from, some fluff for all the main classes, etc. As a result, I tend to not like new campaigns with new rulebooks (that I haven't seen before).

In the same vein, I don't tend to like wierd races and such, because I haven't heard of them to consider where they fit into my world.

At least in an initial campaign. Once the game's been going for a bit, everyone's got the hang of what makes sense, a new book comes out, and I have time to ponder incorporating elements, then when Joe the fighter dies, and you need to make a new PC, it may make perfect sense for it to be a Lizardman SpellChaser from that lizardman country you just became allies with.

I tend to GM with the mindset that it doesn't exist until I figure out where it fits and how. Whereas my friend and fellow GM (of which I've played in numerous and lengthy campaigns) tends to let anything published into the game and doesn't tend to worry about fitting it in first. Different approaches.

Consider that one of the fluff bits I wrote for my campaign was an entire martial arts style and dojo with history, just to cover "where monks come from" It's in my blog, somewhere.

During world building, I'll figure out where each race comes from, what the clerics worship, and since clerics get so much attention, I'll take a look at making sure the other classes make sense, unless they are "socially self-explanatory." Thus, a monk dojo or two, a wizard's guild or tower or some such, etc. These in turn let PCs tie into the game world (because I try to give them something to hook into).

 

[KidSnide]

That and it's my general experience that the player doesn't know the world well enough to craft detailed material before the game starts. Playing a session usually explains way more about the enviroment than any hand-out ever does. I've played in plenty of games where there's not a hand-out or briefing, so it's roll it up and welcome to the world.

In my experience, the GM and player need to sit down and talk for 2-3 hours before the player is ready to make a character in the GM's world. Expecting a player to hand a GM a background that fits the GMs world is pretty unrealistic (unless you're using a well-understood setting), but it's definitely possible for a player and GM to work out a background together without any of the player background disfunction described up-thread.

Or, at least it's possible if both the player and GM are willing to put the work into it...

-KS

 

[Woas]

I do suspect that VB hit in on the head that it's in the mind of the DM.

You believe then that the fictional world or space the game takes place in is in the sole hands of the GM then, yes?

Now I tend to expect a 1st level to be young (regardless of what the current ruleset may say, that's what happens when old people play new editions). As such, I don't tend to expect a lot of accomplishments out of PCs pre-game

What if you are not playing a game where you start at a higher level, or does not uses levels at all?

 

[Raven Crowking]

And I love to "Say Yes!" I try to feel the player out on why he was motivated to write a background as the "Chosen of Thor." If his intent was to just be extremely dedicated to his deity, no issues. If it was to try to gain an advantage, lets just say that gods are demanding of their chosen and expect more out them than the average mortal.

My intent was that his intent was to gain an advantage.

I like these.

Thanks.

Mine do and they've known for a long time what a Basterd I am.

I didn't mean to imply that mine do not. I meant to imply that, if they do not, I'm fine with that. It does not change my DMing method. There are lots of people who would like to play in games I run that I don't have a seat for, so I've got no worries about a player here or there deciding that they would prefer a different style of gaming.



RC