You're doing what? Surprising the DM

[Hussar]

I'm in the camp that believes it doesn't matter how much the players know because they are expect to roleplay their character, not themselves. I can read over the entire adventure before the DM runs it and have zero problem roleplaying my character and not my metagame knowledge. I failed my perception check against the gelatinous cube? Well okay then, since my character doesn't see it, he continues walking through the room and right into the center of the cube. Oh crap, I'm getting killed by a cube. Roleplaying. That's what I find enjoyable.

If another player wants to keep secrets from the rest of the group, then he can keep those secrets out of the game because he's playing a different game than the rest of us. If his character has secrets and he wants to keep those secrets from the rest of the party, then we roleplay that we don't know. The same way we roleplay that we don't know that the blue dragon breaths lightning, even though we've all read the monster manual.

If a player wants to hijack the game, they can sit out a session and I'll summarize what happened when I get a chance. I'm not running individual players off on their own. It creates imbalance in the group and is no fun. I play in an orchestra not a duet.

As I get older I find I much prefer a collaborative game than a competitive one and I find that players who focus only on their own objectives much less fun to play with and run games for. I also don't roll dice for players or hide my results anymore. It never successfully created the atmosphere I was looking for and I find it discouraged active roleplaying. I don't need to help the players roleplay by keeping information from them. I find it much more enjoyable when they actively work against their metagame knowledge. It also gives players an opportunity to enjoy and share in the experience rather than being surprised and emotional about it.

Those are just my preferences these days. I've done it the other ways for a couple of decades and now I'm doing something else. I trust my players to roleplay and they trust me not to ruin the game for them.

Cheers.

Can't posrep you, yadda yadda, but, this is, for me, very true.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

By the way, how does your system work when, in this plot/character generation process, one of your players says "I want some mystery in the game, Mr. GM. I want an unknown adversarial force that, for reasons we don't know, has targeted one or more of us." Are his wishes less valid than yours, solely because he does not wish to have the game's storyline laid out before him in advance?

You really think that can't be done in a collaborative chargen setup? But, at this point, the player has just told the DM, "I don't want to have anything to do with how this campaign is set up. I want the DM to do all the work while I passively spoon up everything that falls off the plot wagon."

Not what I want to play, nor is it something that the people I play with want to play.

Guess what? In the real world, and in adventure fiction, it's not always YOU that goes looking.

Not in the games that I want to play. I hate the DM Plot Wagon. If adventure that is in no way related to anyone at the table comes looking for us, I see this as a complete waste of time.

Perhaps Bob is tired of always playing the game that the loudest guy at character generation wants to play, and tired of other possibilities being shot down because everyone has long since learned that any suggestions they bring to the table are shot down byMr. "All About Me". I would hope that Bob's cultists are not the sole element of the game. I would, in fact, hope that elements of his background are woven into elements of the other PC's backstories, and into things that have nothing to do with anyone's backstories, because it is that kind of variety, mystery and uncertainty that makes the game exciting, interesting and engaging. I don't want to spend the first few sessions of the game BUILDING the railroad so we can all hop aboard the plot wagon as soon as play begins. It is no less a railroad simply because we built the rails more collaboratively. If I want to engage in collaborative creating writing, then I will do so. Here, I want to GAME, not write a joint story.

Ok, I've been really, really patient about not presuming bad faith on anyone in the examples. You automatically assume that chargen will be dominated by one loudmouthed guy. That's not how it works and I would hope that you would understand that. Mr. "All About Me" would hate my table since it's always "All About US". There is no real me in this. After all, every character must be linked to at least two other characters. Which means, at the very, very minimum, you're going to have two goals at the outset. What actually happens is that you generally have several outlined goals with everyone having either direct or indirect links to every goal. It's a web, with all the PC's at the outside edge of the web, interconnected to every other PC. No one is in the center of the web.

/snip

By the way, my understanding is that true "consensus decision making" is not univerally recognized as being the superior approach. From the little work I have done in the field (mainly a few CPE courses some years back), the view of the experts is that a TRUE consensus decision is extremely powerful because it holds universal buy-in. However, it is also an extremely slow and labour-intensive process, with about a 1/3 chance of ever actually resulting in a decision being reached. Claims that "consensus" is significantly more successful in various instances are commonly debunked on further analysis that shows there was no actual consensus, only a large serving of acquiescence. Much like I describe above.

I never said it was a superior approach. I said it was a superior approach for me. And that has been the difference between our points throughout this thread. You are trying to tell me how the game should work. I keep telling you how the game works for me, and why your style of game doesn't work for me. Your style of game works for you and I totally get that. But, it doesn't work for me. Not because I'm the Loudmouthed Jerk who has to make things All About Me, but because I believe in a far more collaborative style game than you do.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Not necessarily. Presumably if Bob's character's cult affiliation is important enough to Bob, someone else might pick up on that thread. But, in any case, at least two other players at the table have a vested interest in Bob remaining in the group and thus anything which threatens that, obviously threatens their interests, thus generates buy in for keeping Bob around.

I'm confused, then. In your message to N'raac, you said:

In your group, Bob makes his character with a secret. He's on the run from some cult. The specifics aren't really important. During play, every so often, NPC's show up and attack the group, trying to capture Bob. Bob remains silent and doesn't reveal his secret. The other players don't have any idea what's going on, just that, from time to time, these NPC's that are completely unrelated to anything they are doing, show up and attack them.

Why would any of the other players possibly care here?

If the party is traveling together, and they are willing to help defend Bob, not drive the answer from him, and continue to defend him from lethal threats that threaten their own lives, then I have to assume that they care for Bob (PC). Why would they are? Presumably for what you just told me: "at least two other players at the table have a vested interest in Bob remaining in the group and thus anything which threatens that, obviously threatens their interests, thus generates buy in for keeping Bob around."

I mean, isn't the answer for "why do the players care?" because "[the player of Bob] cares and he's your friend, and your characters care about [Bob the PC]?" Or was that your point? Asking honestly, here. As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

@ Aenghus - sorry, couldn't posrep you either. Good stuff.

Star Wars has been brought up as an example of mystery, so, let's use Han Solo for a second. Now, Han has a backstory element - he owes money to Jabba The Hutt. But, let's presume, for the moment, that he wants to keep this secret from the rest of the group. He presents himself as a mercenary out for money with no real attachment to the Rebel cause. Note, everyone else in the group (apart from Chewie I suppose) has direct links to the Rebel Cause. This is what the campaign is going to be about.

So, just before they fly off to fight the Death Star, Han's player announces he's leaving because he has something he has to do. He's gotten paid, and he flies off. Luke's acid comments about "That's all you are good for" ring pretty true. Han comes back in the nick of time, so, everything is still good. Note, nothing, at this point in the campaign, has actually happened that connects Han's background to the events in the game. Apart from a very short bit with Greedo I suppose, but, since Han is alone at that time, no one actually knows about that because it was done away from the table to maintain Han's secret.

So, forward to Empire Strikes Back. Again, Han announces he's leaving because he's got to go see a man about a horse. The other players, by this point, are asking him why he's leaving, but, he remains mum about it. The in game situation, which everyone else is directly invested in, interrupts Han's plans (frustrating Han's player to no end) but, he keeps playing through it because he's at a N'raac style table and he's not allowed to voice any disagreement with the group.

Finally, The Big Reveal. Han is caught by Vader and given to the bounty hunters. Before the rescue, he gets frozen in carbonite (removed from the game - a direct consequence of his own actions) and carted away. Everyone else finishes up the storyline and moves on.

Now it's Return of the Jedi. There is a huge galactic war going on. A new Death Star is being constructed. There's death and chaos everywhere and things look hopeless for our PC's.

Han's player pipes up, "Uh, guys, aren't you going to come and rescue me?"

Now, why would they? They have no investment in this. This is entirely Han's player's thing. At no point was the rest of the group every consulted about this, nor did they ever have any real chance of fixing this. Had Han's player simply turned to Leia and asked her to use her spy network to forward the money to Jabba, or, considering this is an SF setting, had he just used some sort of banking service, he'd be in the clear. But, no, he kept it secret.

So, now the entire group is expected to drop whatever they are actually invested in, so that they can retrieve Han's character from a situation that none of them are even remotely invested in. The only reason is because Han's character has a glowing PC halo above him, so that makes him important. Things like the Princess doing her duty to her people, Jedi ethics about the greater good, all that kind of stuff? Don't matter. We are presented with this plot and we must follow it to its conclusion.

Yeah, as a player in this game, I'd have booted the Han PC from the group after Hoth and gotten someone we could actually trust and who actually wanted to play the same game as the rest of us.

 

[Hussar]

I'm confused, then. In your message to N'raac, you said:

If the party is traveling together, and they are willing to help defend Bob, not drive the answer from him, and continue to defend him from lethal threats that threaten their own lives, then I have to assume that they care for Bob (PC). Why would they are? Presumably for what you just told me: "at least two other players at the table have a vested interest in Bob remaining in the group and thus anything which threatens that, obviously threatens their interests, thus generates buy in for keeping Bob around."

I mean, isn't the answer for "why do the players care?" because "[the player of Bob] cares and he's your friend, and your characters care about [Bob the PC]?" Or was that your point? Asking honestly, here. As always, play what you like

You are confusing two examples. In my game, Bob's secret would be known by everyone at the table and at least two of the PC's would have a vested interest in Bob's character. Thus, there is a built in reason for keeping Bob around.

In N'raac's game, the only reason to keep Bob around is because he has a PC halo. None of the other characters have any investment in keeping him around. They don't drive the answer out of him because players are obligated to play out any complication that is presented to them. There is no investment, no buy in. Only obligation.

 

[JamesonCourage]

You are confusing two examples.

I don't think I am, though.

In my game, Bob's secret would be known by everyone at the table and at least two of the PC's would have a vested interest in Bob's character. Thus, there is a built in reason for keeping Bob around.

Right.

In N'raac's game, the only reason to keep Bob around is because he has a PC halo. None of the other characters have any investment in keeping him around. They don't drive the answer out of him because players are obligated to play out any complication that is presented to them. There is no investment, no buy in. Only obligation.

I don't think this follows. I assume the party still has a reason to be together, thus my reasoning of "they're willing to protect him, even if it puts them in harm's way." Additionally, since N'raac seems to want to keep player knowledge separate from PC knowledge, I assume that he has a reason that his PC is with Bob's PC (and that Bob's PC has a reason to be with the party). Even if they don't know about the cult, they'd have a reason to protect Bob.

But, I'm not sure what N'raac's party dynamic truly looks like. I do imagine that it's a lot less meta-based than "PC halo", though. Maybe he can clear that up, because I think my assumption of his play style is where my confusion with your posts comes from. As always, play what you like

 

[JamesonCourage]

Han's player pipes up, "Uh, guys, aren't you going to come and rescue me?"

Now, why would they? They have no investment in this.

Generally speaking, if a friend is in trouble, and I can help, I will probably try to help. This follows doubly if I have a life debt (Chewie), special connections that make it easier (Leia), we're very old friends and I'm trying to redeem myself (Lando), or I have magic powers (Luke).

Why would they help him? Wow. That one baffles me. Because the characters care about Han? It's the same reason that Han was helping the other characters even though he wanted to get his debt taken care of.*

*As an aside, just about the time that Jabba put the price on Han's head, the debt was just about forgotten. It was too late; you pay too late, and Jabba makes an example out of you. Han was just hoping he could get enough money to pay the debt back and that Jabba would go for it (if he offered enough, Jabba might have). But, as of the point the bounty is big enough to lure Boba Fett? No, you're done. Anyways, end of aside; back to our regularly scheduled discussion.

Yeah, as a player in this game, I'd have booted the Han PC from the group after Hoth and gotten someone we could actually trust and who actually wanted to play the same game as the rest of us.

Good thing you weren't in charge of Star Wars, then. As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

Leia has massive political obligations which she completely ignores to go off and save Han. Luke has an entire code that would tell him not to save Han. Chewie, I'll give you.

"Because he's my friend" is a bit much when we're talking about leaders of the Rebellion. Luke is a Commander and thus subject to a chain of command. Leia is one of the leaders of the rebellion. Both completely ignore their obligations to go save a "friend". And, they get to do so without any consequence too. Convenient that.

---------

I assume the party still has a reason to be together,

Why do you make this assumption? Nothing N'raac has said has shown this. To the contrary, in his examples, the group has very little reason to be together - the Wizard and the Cleric and the Fighter have mutually exclusive goals, for example. N'raac is all about "Story Now", so there is no linking of backstories in his games. So, beyond, "Well, we're all PC's", there is no real reason to help Bob.

----------

I look at the Bob example like this. Bob's player wants to inject a complication into the game without doing any of the work of actually getting any buy-in from the other players. Additionally, the players are now obligated to play out Bob's complication, despite zero buy-in. And, it's now up to the DM to somehow gain buy-in from the other players, despite the fact that the complication has nothing to do with those players and is pretty much solely Bob's complication.

In a group where everyone is obligated to play whatever complication is presented at the table, this works. I don't want to play at that table though. No one at my table is ever obligated to play anything. If I, as a player or a DM, want to introduce a complication, I have to do the leg work to make sure that that complication is acceptable to the table. Sometimes that's very easy - dangle some juicy carrot and it's not too hard to get players to do something. Sometimes it's hard - you have to invest a lot of time at the table to get people to do something. Sometimes it's impossible and the complication I want to introduce just doesn't gain any traction and it dies stillborn.

But, in any case, without buy in, I am never going to drop things on the group, nor do I particularly want to play in games where the level of buy in is forced by obligation. If we as a group are going to play, say, Shackled City, and Bob gets the DM to introduce the secret cult thing, then I don't really want to play. I'm there to play Shackled City, not Bob's Cult Game. Bob's Cult Game might be tons of fun. Sure. But, that's not what I signed up to play. It's bait and switch and I really don't enjoy that.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Leia has massive political obligations which she completely ignores to go off and save Han. Luke has an entire code that would tell him not to save Han. Chewie, I'll give you.

"Because he's my friend" is a bit much when we're talking about leaders of the Rebellion. Luke is a Commander and thus subject to a chain of command. Leia is one of the leaders of the rebellion. Both completely ignore their obligations to go save a "friend". And, they get to do so without any consequence too. Convenient that.

Well, to be fair, Han was also higher up in the command structure of the Rebellion as of that point, and him being rescued helped the Rebellion more than it hurt it.

But, this also relates back to the "why would they help him" thing. Because they care about him / love him. Sometimes when people are making decisions, that trumps other responsibilities. That's both real life and fiction since forever.

Why do you make this assumption? Nothing N'raac has said has shown this. To the contrary, in his examples, the group has very little reason to be together - the Wizard and the Cleric and the Fighter have mutually exclusive goals, for example. N'raac is all about "Story Now", so there is no linking of backstories in his games. So, beyond, "Well, we're all PC's", there is no real reason to help Bob.

How does "Story Now" preclude linking backstories? And, why do backstories need to be linked in order for the party to want to travel together?

Anyways, I assume he has a reason because of his expressed wish to keep what he knows as a player as much in line with his PC as possible. He wants to know what his PC knows, and not much beyond that, since it helps him roleplay his character. To that end, I imagine that he had a reason to be with these people in-character, since staying with them probably needs to be a roleplaying decision for the style it sounds like he has. Again, maybe he can clear this assumption of mine up.

I look at the Bob example like this. Bob's player wants to inject a complication into the game without doing any of the work of actually getting any buy-in from the other players. Additionally, the players are now obligated to play out Bob's complication, despite zero buy-in. And, it's now up to the DM to somehow gain buy-in from the other players, despite the fact that the complication has nothing to do with those players and is pretty much solely Bob's complication.

In a group where everyone is obligated to play whatever complication is presented at the table, this works. I don't want to play at that table though. No one at my table is ever obligated to play anything. If I, as a player or a DM, want to introduce a complication, I have to do the leg work to make sure that that complication is acceptable to the table. Sometimes that's very easy - dangle some juicy carrot and it's not too hard to get players to do something. Sometimes it's hard - you have to invest a lot of time at the table to get people to do something. Sometimes it's impossible and the complication I want to introduce just doesn't gain any traction and it dies stillborn.

But, in any case, without buy in, I am never going to drop things on the group, nor do I particularly want to play in games where the level of buy in is forced by obligation. If we as a group are going to play, say, Shackled City, and Bob gets the DM to introduce the secret cult thing, then I don't really want to play. I'm there to play Shackled City, not Bob's Cult Game. Bob's Cult Game might be tons of fun. Sure. But, that's not what I signed up to play. It's bait and switch and I really don't enjoy that.

While I disagree with how you word things, I get your style, and it's perfectly fine as a play style. I get where you're coming from, I think. As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

Well, to be fair, Han was also higher up in the command structure of the Rebellion as of that point, and him being rescued helped the Rebellion more than it hurt it.

Han Solo, by the end of Empire was a captain. So, why isn't the Rebellion rescuing him? Why are they sending an ambassador to do it?

But, this also relates back to the "why would they help him" thing. Because they care about him / love him. Sometimes when people are making decisions, that trumps other responsibilities. That's both real life and fiction since forever.

True. But, the decision isn't even questioned. We send a General, an Ambassador and a Commander on a rescue mission to pick up a Captain? Really? But, of course, you're also ignoring the entire point of my little example. Han Solo's player keeps everything secret, but, now wants the rest of the group to completely drop their own in-game responsibilities to rescue Han. The only justification for it is really, Because Han has a PC halo.

How does "Story Now" preclude linking backstories? And, why do backstories need to be linked in order for the party to want to travel together?

Because N'raac has spent considerable effort to tell us that he has no interest in spending time during character generation beyond the bare minimum to generate a character. Without linked backstories, why would the characters want to travel together? The whole random group of strangers meet at the Color/Animal Inn to receive a job isn't really a reason.

Anyways, I assume he has a reason because of his expressed wish to keep what he knows as a player as much in line with his PC as possible. He wants to know what his PC knows, and not much beyond that, since it helps him roleplay his character. To that end, I imagine that he had a reason to be with these people in-character, since staying with them probably needs to be a roleplaying decision for the style it sounds like he has. Again, maybe he can clear this assumption of mine up.

While I disagree with how you word things, I get your style, and it's perfectly fine as a play style. I get where you're coming from, I think. As always, play what you like

He might have a reason for adventuring with the rest. But, there's no reason for them to keep adventuring with him and pretty good reasons to cut him loose. Since there's no backstory actually tying the characters together, the only thing that really ties them is whatever goals they are pursuing at the moment.

But, Bob's character has goals which are actively interfering with those goals that are tying the group together. And the other players are not allowed to simply cut him loose because Bob's character has a PC halo. They have no real ties, but, we're obligated to play out every complication brought to the table.

I'm mostly reacting to N'raac's characterization that any playstyle other than his is obviously doomed to failure as one scene hog forces the rest of the group to play what he wants to play. The problem I'm having here is that his Bob character is a scene hog who is forcing the rest of the group to play what he wants to play and doesn't even have to get the rest of the group to buy into it first.