Why we like plot: Our Job as DMs

[fuzzlewump]

I've hashed this out in other threads, but I think it's safe to say there is more than one way to approach this. Are a character's actions based on who they are, or is who they are based on their actions? Why can't you discover a the character your playing is a loudmouth over the course of play, why can't emerging patterns over the course of play define a character just as easily as setting the parameters before the start of play? You needn't claim any trait out of nowhere, it simply is.

Maybe reread my post; I'm saying that the trait doesn't appear out of nowhere. If you start realizing your character is becoming a loud-mouth, it's safe to say that he was before the session started, even if you didn't write it down. This is of course case by case. If something really traumatic happens maybe he develops a silent trait or an anger trait or some such during the session itself. Anyway, I'm saying that to realize a trait like 'loud-mouthed' over the course of a session is fine, but it's still evidence of background intruding into play. Once you realize that your character is loud-mouthed, that trait influences decisions made.

As far as do actions make the personality or does personality make the actions? It's really both. But whenever your making a character separate from your own personality, I believe it's best to set down what the personality of the character is beforehand, or else you're either only going to make decisions consistent with your own personality, which would be the case in a beer and pretzels combat oriented game mentioned toward the beginning of the thread, or make inconsistent decisions, like say switching back and forth between being good and evil erratically, with no explanation like say bipolar disorder. That said, no character is going to be completely consistent, but there should indeed be tendencies.

This is only true if you accept that characters stop developing once play starts. I do not. How do you know what a character will do? Maybe you won't until he's done it. Just remember, today's adventure, is tomorrow's background.

I agree, I'm really only talking about before the first session as "background." I'm really talking about 'prologue' here, or what happens before the story begins. Once the story begins, you can use whatever nomenclature you want, but I'm saying it's a good idea, if you want to roleplay a personality other than your own, to set down some guidelines before-hand which will help guide your character's decisions.

 

[fuzzlewump]

and 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..

I agree! But what I meant was that in a game where railroading is going to happen no matter what, you might as well use player backgrounds as bait, give them SOME tiny amount of input into your game world.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

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.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.

This was in response to both of you and it relates directly to what you wrote. Part of the game is creating the world and the other part is playing within the created world. Some people believe the former part only belongs to the DM, while I'm sure most would agree that the latter belongs to both. I believe that both parts should be open to both the DM and the players. And calling the player's attempts to add to the creation aspect of the game "mere fanwank" or telling them not to bother and "let the DM run the world" or even labelling their work as "pre-game fiction exercises" while your work was obviously something else entirely is deplorable to me. You may say that a player that wishes to create should DM. Maybe this is his attempt to participate in creating on a small scale to learn the skills or maybe he has DMed and misses that aspect of the game while he is a player.

 

[Janx]

perhaps there's a more middle of the road outlook than the extreme of what I said.

My main point was really that writing a lot of pre-game events in your back story is less valuable than defining your character in game.

Of course I do like seeing some content in character backgrounds. Its good to get a sense of the nature of the character (which thus should explain how the PC behaves in game, thus telling me if he is OUT of character).

On the other end, since a PC may or may not live to second level, it's not worth putting a lot of back story detail in until they've lived a bit and proven they can hack it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

This I can agree with.

 

[Woas]

What if defining the character's backstory in some detail determines the characters ability in the present (i.e., in game)?

perhaps there's a more middle of the road outlook than the extreme of what I said.

My main point was really that writing a lot of pre-game events in your back story is less valuable than defining your character in game.

Of course I do like seeing some content in character backgrounds. Its good to get a sense of the nature of the character (which thus should explain how the PC behaves in game, thus telling me if he is OUT of character).

On the other end, since a PC may or may not live to second level, it's not worth putting a lot of back story detail in until they've lived a bit and proven they can hack it.

 

[Janx]

What if defining the character's backstory in some detail determines the characters ability in the present (i.e., in game)?

good question. I'd have to ponder what's out of bounds and what's in bounds.

Saying, "My parents shipped me off to wizards school. I just graduated." would make sense if you were playing a wizard.

Maybe not so much if you were playing a fighter.

Saying "My parents shipped me off to wizards school. I killed the headmaster with a fireball spell that I learned from his secret library." would probably be out of bounds.

Aside from having an event of dubious nature (really, a 1st level killing a presumably high level...) it also is trying to claim the PC used a spell they can't cast.

Assuming the back story for a 1st level PC is supposed to be a true document of the PC's background for the GM to read, rather than "what the PC is telling others", then whatever's written should make sense within the scope of what a 1st level PC should be able to do.

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.

Plus, as we know, I'm wary of the PC introducing major pre-game events. Kicking a head master's butt sounds like something that'd be cooler in play (and require proving in play).

Did I answer the question, or did I miss?

 

[Raven Crowking]

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 is exactly it. IMHO, at least.


RC

 

[Woas]

You answered but I'm not sure you realize it Janx.

As a player, creating a player-character claiming "My parents shipped me off to wizards school. I just graduated." means as a player you have just created part of the fiction. Everyone else playing including the GM agrees and understands that somewhere in the fictional world that the characters are part of there is 1) A school of wizardry, 2) that it accepts students and isn't say, an invite only secret society, 3) people graduate from it so thus are taught magic in some regimented way and isn't say, some ritual or inborn ability only the seventh sons of seventh sons can learn, 4) that there are other graduates out there.

What if a player had written, "My character is a veteran of the defeated side of the recent Civil War". By civil war I don't necessarily mean the American Civil War or any other real world historic civil wars but a fictitious, world altering event in the fictitious game we are all playing. (Say the Wood vs High Elf civil war)
That player has just introduced a pre-game event and we can imply, just like the sentence about being a graduate from wizard school a number of game setting info, plus info about the character.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

perhaps there's a more middle of the road outlook than the extreme of what I said.

My main point was really that writing a lot of pre-game events in your back story is less valuable than defining your character in game.

I can agree with this. In-game events are more valuable but they don't totally negate the value of a good background.

good question. I'd have to ponder what's out of bounds and what's in bounds.

Saying, "My parents shipped me off to wizards school. I just graduated." would make sense if you were playing a wizard.

Maybe not so much if you were playing a fighter.

Saying "My parents shipped me off to wizards school. I killed the headmaster with a fireball spell that I learned from his secret library." would probably be out of bounds.

Aside from having an event of dubious nature (really, a 1st level killing a presumably high level...) it also is trying to claim the PC used a spell they can't cast.

They could have shipped him there and he failed because he spent too much time somehow learning swordplay. Or the character could just be a liar. Definitely so in the case of the headmaster murderer. Because by the mere stipulation those of us advocating backgrounds have placed a 1st-level wizard could not start the game knowing fireball. The background cannot give the character a rules-breaking advantage.

Assuming the back story for a 1st level PC is supposed to be a true document of the PC's background for the GM to read, rather than "what the PC is telling others", then whatever's written should make sense within the scope of what a 1st level PC should be able to do.

With that assumption, yes. I try not to assume. But then again I don't have players that deliberately try to break the rules of the game through backstory. They have tried to gain roleplaying advantage and when I believe they are being too greedy I usually twist their story in ways they don't expect. Like the King who thinks his nephew is a whiny git.

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.

Agreed.

Plus, as we know, I'm wary of the PC introducing major pre-game events. Kicking a head master's butt sounds like something that'd be cooler in play (and require proving in play).

I'm wary of such backgrounds, but more likely to roll with them. It could be fun having a low-level wizard roaming about claiming that he killed the very-much-alive headmaster of the local wizard's college.