Why we like plot: Our Job as DMs

[Vyvyan Basterd]

What if a player were to write in that their character was the son or daughter of somebody important because they legitametly want to explore that possibility and have those resources (more starting money... 'favors', as quick examples). Is it any different writing that than a player writing in they are a graduate from a wizard school to legitimize the fact they can cast spells?

It is different than justifying their magical training if the rules of the game have no way for the character to access more starting money or favors* without adequate payback. That type of background could justify a 1E Shadowrun PC that chose Tech as their highest priority. It could also justify a 3E D&D PC that chose a feat that granted them more starting resources. If your background is meant to grant your character something they normally couldn't start with inside the rules, then there is definitely a difference.

*I'd be more lenient on favors as that is more vague and as DM I can limit those favors appropriately. The same favors could arise from the wizard school background anyway.

 

[Janx]

An interesting point of view.

part of me interprets that as invisibly suffixed with " that Woas doesn't subscribe to". I think that would thereby prove my point. Have your group fire you and hire me to run the game. Instantly different tone and style. Then after 3 sessions fire me and hire Ariosto. Once again hugely different.

DMs aren't hot-swappable. That reason is because of the differences in how we approach DMing.

What about games that do not have this metric? For example: Classic (or the more recent Mongoose version) of Traveller?

That lack of level is what I hate about traveller. THough traveller also having the built in mechanic for creating PCs with varying experience "levels". When I say I like levels, it is solely as a mechanic for building NPCs. If the party is 5th level,that tells me something about its strength and capability, its experience. If the party has been playing for 10 sessions, what does that mean in regards to the skill level? I'd have to reverse engineer how many skill points they've earned, or look at their "combat" skills.

When a player writes something down as backstory or as a note about their character you feel they are writing that as a way to 'get one over' the DM? What if a player is writing those things because that is the topics/themes/meme/goals they want to pursue with the character and are completely innocent requests?

I sense a recurring concept of "players pursuing/exploring themes" in this and the next point by you. The folks I play with don't consider things from this perspective. The world is a theme unto itself. You build your PC to fit in that world and explore the interaction.

I suppose this connects with your belief that first level/new characters need to be young, inexperienced, and have access to only the bare minimum of equipment. What if a player were to write in that their character was the son or daughter of somebody important because they legitametly want to explore that possibility and have those resources (more starting money... 'favors', as quick examples). Is it any different writing that than a player writing in they are a graduate from a wizard school to legitimize the fact they can cast spells?

If the char-gen rules don't give you more than 100GP starting gold, then you can't have it. If you can't have it, your background can't say you have it.

Which then gets to you can't "explore playing a rich kid" because the game we're playing doesn't let you make a rich kid.


As a general rule, we don't build a PC to "explore" a theme. We make a PC that would plausibly fit in the world's starting conditions and stuff happens and we deal with it. The characters with "angst" and "baggage" accued it and the players felt it because it happened in game, not because they made up some drama on their char sheet.

Thus, the themes we explore are spontaneous/organic. Not planned out pre-gamestart.

I don't realize that the monk might become an alcoholic until after some sessions where he's disgraced himself, lost his girlfriend who's brother in the rival clan and drinking heavily. None of those events were stuff I planned as a DM, they were the outcome of player choices during the sessions. So I talk to the player about it, and he decides that'd be a cool problem, namely because it'll add "chaacter" and be a bit of nuisance challenge for the other players.

Themes happen. The best ones are because of character growth, which happens in game. Much like an author discovers as his main character changes within the book.

 

[The Shaman]

Don't D&D PCs have to be exceptional?

Exceptional is relative.

Some gamers assume that their characters are the adventurers in the setting, in which case, yes, they are most exceptional. But some gamers treat the player characters as largely unexceptional, in a world where adventurer is a recognized profession, just another a trade with its own guilds, for example.

You can see the latter view in other games as well. In Traveller, the pilot of a merchant starship is about as unexceptional as a pilot for a communter airline in our real world existence. It's an interesting job, but it isn't wildly exceptional.

They have to be prepared to go down monster-infested holes and kill what lives there. And they can't stop after their first big score, they have to keep doing it, so great is their lust for gold and/or monster killin'. These are in no way ordinary people, they're greedy psychopaths.

Does that view apply to a paladin? Or a lawful good cleric?

I think that's a pretty narrow interpretation of the motivations for adventurers in games like D&D.

Also even at 1st level they possess monster killin' talents beyond those of the typical peasant farmer who presumably makes up 90% of the population.

In this I agree that this separates player characters in some games from non-player characters - this is not universal across roleplaying games, however.

The degree to which characters are exceptional in terms of abilities varies considerably as well. Boot Hill, for example, gives player characters a slight bump on their starting attribute scores, and that's it. It's possible to start with a character who is average in every way; what a player character won't be is below average.

In a sandbox the PCs have to be 'self starters', more highly motivated than in a plotted game where one can expect the adventure to come to the PCs.

I agree very strongly with this.

 

[The Shaman]

What the characters do should be based on who they are, which should be based on what they wrote down. If you write down that you're character has a very strong defensive nature, he defends his friends when insulted by a drunkard in the tavern. It also can mean he opens his mouth to the duke when the duke calls his friend a 'street rat' or whatever. Yes, you can develop a personality while playing, but you won't claim you became "loud-mouthed" or "defensive" out of nowhere. Most people would claim that trait had been around for awhile, and thus, have a background beyond motivation as you strive for.

Or, as Oni suggested, the personality that comes out in play can define the character instead.

In my experience, characters with lots of personality built into their background tend to follow one of two routes: either they are hidebound, one-note characters who never change with their circumstances are in the game, or the way they are actually played has little or nothing to do with what's on the sheet.

That's not true of all gamers, but it is something I've seen often enough.

The point is, not allowing background to intrude into the game means that the players are just trying to find the path of least resistance.

I don't think that's true at all.

 

[Woas]

part of me interprets that as invisibly suffixed with " that Woas doesn't subscribe to". I think that would thereby prove my point. Have your group fire you and hire me to run the game. Instantly different tone and style. Then after 3 sessions fire me and hire Ariosto. Once again hugely different.

DMs aren't hot-swappable. That reason is because of the differences in how we approach DMing.

Not at all. Simply enjoying the conversation an expressing me feelings. I am legitimately interested in the way you see the role of GM. For myself and the main group I play with, GMs are in essence hot-swappable because we see them as basically just another player at the table, albeit with a different job to preform, but "equal" in say to all the other players in terms of game themes and such.

I don't deny that each GM has their own quirks and style. But the scenario I described, where someone thought of a fun game scenario and then someone else offered to GM has happened, a few times in fact with my group. So the thought process of "Only Janx can DM this game until completion because it was Janx's idea." is not one that I've ever thought of it that way. The way I fathom it is more like, "Janx would be good at running this game because he's read all those books/seen all those movies/went to college and got a Masters Degree in this field which is related to the game so would be the best bet for DM. Even though the base idea for the game was mine."

f the party is 5th level,that tells me something about its strength and capability, its experience. If the party has been playing for 10 sessions, what does that mean in regards to the skill level?

Although I don't agree with you on this, I won't press the issue (unless you want to fork it) because I feel it's getting off topic. I only went down with this example --well because I didn't see a D&D specific tag on this post so I thought maybe looking at it from a different angles/games might be appropriate.

If the char-gen rules don't give you more than 100GP starting gold, then you can't have it. If you can't have it, your background can't say you have it.

Which then gets to you can't "explore playing a rich kid" because the game we're playing doesn't let you make a rich kid.

Yes, in a game of D&D this is true. But also by the rules of D&D a DM could ask a player for the backstory of their character and they could simply shrug or flip the DM off and say "No way!" and that would be legitamte since the game of D&D does not care. How D&D establishes the avatars in which the players explore the game with is completely divorced of what a player claims their character actually was or is.

Thus, the themes we explore are spontaneous/organic. Not planned out pre-gamestart.

You can't have both? Or even yet, you can't have pre-game start drama turn into spontaneous/organic present-game drama?

What reason does the monk disgrace himself in the first place? Player whim? It's a perfectly acceptable answer. Maybe because he is the Prince and heir to the throne and has a lot of extra spending money so the weight of all this expendable funds and favors pushes him to spend it all?

Themes happen. The best ones are because of character growth, which happens in game. Much like an author discovers as his main character changes within the book.

No doubt about it. Agree 100%.

 

[Woas]

Then do you feel the true arbiter of backstory a player creates is the game system itself?
"That guy" can be a warforged and pick a special race because technically it is in game. But my character can't have a signet ring that might... get me out of jail if I flash it around or other perks like free room and board at Inns or entrance to speak with VIP NPCs because it's not codified by the rules?
Again, I'm not trying to instigate or hark on your personal rulings here. Just using your example from before as it's recent on our minds.

It is different than justifying their magical training if the rules of the game have no way for the character to access more starting money or favors* without adequate payback. That type of background could justify a 1E Shadowrun PC that chose Tech as their highest priority. It could also justify a 3E D&D PC that chose a feat that granted them more starting resources. If your background is meant to grant your character something they normally couldn't start with inside the rules, then there is definitely a difference.

*I'd be more lenient on favors as that is more vague and as DM I can limit those favors appropriately. The same favors could arise from the wizard school background anyway.

 

[Janx]

Not at all. Simply enjoying the conversation an expressing me feelings. I am legitimately interested in the way you see the role of GM. For myself and the main group I play with, GMs are in essence hot-swappable because we see them as basically just another player at the table, albeit with a different job to preform, but "equal" in say to all the other players in terms of game themes and such.

All these seperate quoted topic fragments is getting tricky to manage...

I think this method is going better than previous methods for trying to explain/justify a methodology. To much arguing/strawmanning, not enough simple question asking.

I definitely tend to think the DM is the guy in charge, he does all the work, he decides tons of stuff. It's a different methodology.

I don't deny that each GM has their own quirks and style. But the scenario I described, where someone thought of a fun game scenario and then someone else offered to GM has happened, a few times in fact with my group. So the thought process of "Only Janx can DM this game until completion because it was Janx's idea." is not one that I've ever thought of it that way. The way I fathom it is more like, "Janx would be good at running this game because he's read all those books/seen all those movies/went to college and got a Masters Degree in this field which is related to the game so would be the best bet for DM. Even though the base idea for the game was mine."

I'm definitely not used to that idea. Your way is foreign to me, though I think I can envision how it would work successfully. For me it's an ownership->passion->quality. The guy who truly owns the idea will be most passionate about making it work. That could have side-effects...

Although I don't agree with you on this, I won't press the issue (unless you want to fork it) because I feel it's getting off topic. I only went down with this example --well because I didn't see a D&D specific tag on this post so I thought maybe looking at it from a different angles/games might be appropriate.

Not a problem. It's not a big deal anyway, just something that has bugged me and my friends when we switch to other rules systems for some campaigns.

Yes, in a game of D&D this is true. But also by the rules of D&D a DM could ask a player for the backstory of their character and they could simply shrug or flip the DM off and say "No way!" and that would be legitamte since the game of D&D does not care. How D&D establishes the avatars in which the players explore the game with is completely divorced of what a player claims their character actually was or is.

I tend to not seperate them. But I also have the philosophy of "if you're going to have fun playing BattleTech, stop finding scientific reasons as to why a 100 ton atlas couldn't walk without sinking into the ground and getting stuck." Basically, make your fluff fit the rules, or you will never be happy with the fluff.

You can't have both? Or even yet, you can't have pre-game start drama turn into spontaneous/organic present-game drama?

What reason does the monk disgrace himself in the first place? Player whim? It's a perfectly acceptable answer. Maybe because he is the Prince and heir to the throne and has a lot of extra spending money so the weight of all this expendable funds and favors pushes him to spend it all?

You're right that you could, but as you agree below, the best drama is stuff that happens in game. If your default assumption is a 1st level PC who is young, he should have "less" drama pre-game, and that will encourage in-game drama to be the high-point.

In the monk example, in 2 actual play sessions, the monk failed to achieve some goals. Failed as in can't retreat and try again, the girl is dead. So while I've written about planning a probable PC party path through my adventure that also assumes success, I am more than happy to let things change as the party makes serious mistakes. The monk is from a pseudo-japanese culture, is very Honor and Giri based. All it took was in-game failure at very personal goals/tasks to disgrace him. It wasn't like he failed in a mission he was ordered on as a Marine. He failed at doing some stuff during his shore leave that was Honor related. For our group, it wasn't some made up before-game reason. The monk player entered the game, tried to do some "monk" personal side-quest stuff, and failed. The nature of the side-quests was directly honor related (for him). He did not want to fail, he didn't decide ahead of time, you know, it'd be fun exploring losing my girl-friend so I think I'll fail this mission.

That's what made it all the more richer. The player failed. He felt that failure. And that failure was then reflected in the PC. And yes, as DM, I had a hand in presenting the opportunity for failing...but then, that's the point of taking on a challenge.

I could have just made some combat encounters for him to get monky on. Instead, I made encounters that had meaning for the PC. The player, being invested in the PC, felt what the PC felt. The failure hurt, because it had in-game and out of game impact.


Or I could have done the monk as a Prince who blows his money. I like the outcome of my method. Getting an emotional reaction out of a player that is relayed back into the PC is priceless.

When I talk about using story elements. That's what I mean and why I use them.

No doubt about it. Agree 100%.

I think that if a DM let the player put in backstory drama, the value would be to use it to drive IN-GAME drama. Basically, go ahead and have a little pre-game drama, I'll use it to twist the fork and build you some real drama.

My main focus is, the in-game drama is where the money-shot is.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Then do you feel the true arbiter of backstory a player creates is the game system itself?
"That guy" can be a warforged and pick a special race because technically it is in game. But my character can't have a signet ring that might... get me out of jail if I flash it around or other perks like free room and board at Inns or entrance to speak with VIP NPCs because it's not codified by the rules?
Again, I'm not trying to instigate or hark on your personal rulings here. Just using your example from before as it's recent on our minds.

Your signet ring example falls under the favors category, IMO. I would expect your character with the signet ring to have skills to back up his background of having connections and clout. And in-game your background could give you a discretionary bonus to get you out of jail, gain free room and board, or gain entrance to speak with VIPs. You've got my outlook turned around. If there is a rule to cover "it" you can't use your background to circumvent the rule. The portions of the game that aren't directly covered by the rules, such as gaining the above favors, can be influenced by a well-presented background.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

If the char-gen rules don't give you more than 100GP starting gold, then you can't have it. If you can't have it, your background can't say you have it.

Which then gets to you can't "explore playing a rich kid" because the game we're playing doesn't let you make a rich kid.

I get your point, but I disagree with the example. Each character can have their 100 gp worth of gear for entirely different reasons. 100 gp is ALOT of money. You could be the rich kid who has all the shiny new stuff, while the barbarian could have scavenged his dirty old gear from the pile of orc gear his clan claimed in their past victories. Same mechanical outcome, different methods of appropriation. As long as the "rich kid" isn't trying to start with more than 100 gp of gear there isn't a problem, IMO.

 

[Hussar]

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

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..

It lacks depth because, at the time of character generation, the PC's have almost no connection to the campaign. While, as has been mentioned earlier, that depth may be achieved over time, that presumes that the campaign will last that long AND that the player will be playing the same character long enough to achieve that depth.

Which gets back to my point with RC about character death. If characters are replaceable, why would I, as the player, bother achieving any depth? If it makes absolutely no difference when I go to Giant Land whether I play a paladin or an assassin - we'll meet exactly the same things, in the keyed adventure (to use your words) - how can depth be achieved?

It's like saying that half way through a movie, you whack the protagonist, replace him with a totally new character with no previous interaction with the story and it will be as equally emotionally resonating as a movie where the protagonist actually continues throughout the entire story.

So, again, I'm going to ask, other than "over time" how do you achieve emotional resonance within the game?

This of course, presumes that emotional resonance, or depth is a goal of play. If it's not, then who cares? If I'm doing nothing but dungeon crawls, killing and looting with my buddies, then no worries. I LOVE that kind of gaming too. It's a blast. But, it's about as deep as the average rain puddle. Sometimes I want a campaign with a bit more meat to it. A more emotional experience. So, if I want to run a sandbox, or a "status quo" campaign, how can I achieve that resonance?