# How much back story do you allow/expect at the start of the game?



## Mort (Nov 11, 2017)

My answer used to be - as much as the player is willing to write, but that's changed.

Now I ask for no more than a short paragraph.

Thoughts? 

Sent from my SM-G930V using EN World mobile app


----------



## ccs (Nov 11, 2017)

At least a short paragraph or two.  And if a character is joining at higher than 1st lv. I expect a paragraph concerning each lv.  Likewise if you're starting with any unique equipment.


----------



## Blue (Nov 11, 2017)

I go in the opposite direction - we always do a session 0 for party/character creation.  During this we work out at least thumbnail background as well as connection to multiple other characters.  

As a DM, I want hooks.  More things both overt and subtle that I can tie your character into adventures.  Generic "I'm here to kill things and loot their bodies" need not apply.  Here's an article about making a good number of usable hooks.

https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/775caq/my_friends_and_i_have_something_called_knife/

I also enjoy player input on the setting.  "Hey, the rogue just gave me a bunch about the guild he was in and the guard organization of the major city he was front.  Fantastic!".  "The barbarian just fleshed out details of his tribes beliefs and ancestor worship".  These aren't directly backstory, but is details from players for me to incorporate which may touch on the question.


----------



## Mort (Nov 11, 2017)

Blue said:


> I go in the opposite direction - we always do a session 0 for party/character creation.  During this we work out at least thumbnail background as well as connection to multiple other characters.
> 
> As a DM, I want hooks.  More things both overt and subtle that I can tie your character into adventures.  Generic "I'm here to kill things and loot their bodies" need not apply.  Here's an article about making a good number of usable hooks.
> 
> ...



That's one reason I actually only want a paragraph or less. Any more is generally done as a group.

I encourage the players to come up with a theme to tie the group together and help push the initial adventures forward. 

Sent from my SM-G930V using EN World mobile app


----------



## Caliban (Nov 11, 2017)

I play AL - few people care about your backstory if it takes longer than 30 seconds to tell them.

The few home games I've played in over the last 5 years or so...the DM's haven't really cared much about the backstories.  They have a predetermined series of events for the campaign and that's what is happening. 

That doesn't stop me from writing backstories that range from a couple of paragraphs to a couple of pages.   I just don't expect anyone else to care about it. 

As a DM, I like the players to come up with a backstory for their character as long as it fits within the context of the campaign world (no being responsible for world shaking events or deific interventions in your backstory).   I'll try to use their backstory to create a personalized story arc for that character in the game, and tie it into the greater campaign story if I can.   Sometimes it works better than others.


----------



## Blue (Nov 11, 2017)

Mort said:


> That's one reason I actually only want a paragraph or less. Any more is generally done as a group.
> 
> I encourage the players to come up with a theme to tie the group together and help push the initial adventures forward.




I go more for things that push the ending adventures forward.  I run multi year campaign (last two completed were 5 and 7 years, current is 3.5 and going strong).  To fill something like that I need to both have arcs for every character where they get spotlight - and backstory hooks are a useful tool for that - and multiple campaign arcs.  The campaign arcs by the end don't look like anything from when they started*, but they are partially seeded from those hooks of the backstory.  I usually start with about three or four campaign arcs, and by the end of the campaign I've figured out how to tie them together.

* "Started" - nothing I plan is "true" until it hits the table.  So I revise what's the "big picture" as player interests are revealed and character actions occur.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Nov 11, 2017)

Allow? Anything short of a novella, I suppose, would be tolerable. 

Expect? Nothing - some players just want to see how the character developes, its backstory discovered as it comes up in play or player is inspired - others just don't care, the implications of chargen are enough, they may even expect the GM to fill it in at times ("oh, hey, where're we from, anyway?)...


----------



## Legatus Legionis (Nov 11, 2017)

.


----------



## Arilyn (Nov 11, 2017)

Blue said:


> I go in the opposite direction - we always do a session 0 for party/character creation.  During this we work out at least thumbnail background as well as connection to multiple other characters.
> 
> As a DM, I want hooks.  More things both overt and subtle that I can tie your character into adventures.  Generic "I'm here to kill things and loot their bodies" need not apply.  Here's an article about making a good number of usable hooks.
> 
> ...




I like this approach as well. I find a session 0 often gets players pumped for the following week. Also, taking some time with character creation to establish ties and hooks just makes the game better.

On the other hand, sometimes players with a sketchy or no background develop into the deepest characters, and others who arrive with a novella don't actually play to what was written. One of the longest and best campaigns we had was thrown together quickly. We were just going to use the characters for quickie, more shallow adventures as a break from our more "serious" group. They took over....The campaign was long, detailed, not at all shallow. We were planning on using published modules and adventures from Dragon magazine. I think we used two. The characters clicked, stories took off. It's still remembered fondly, and that was about 14 years ago. 

That's what I love about this hobby. You never know how things will unfold.


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 11, 2017)

My players are free to write as much as they want.  I on the other hand am under no obligation to _read_ any of it.

All I ask my players to provide me is 5 important elements of their past, present and future.  Just a simple list, so for example:
Past: (things they had that they still value)
Parents
Home
Sibling(s)
Pets
Farming

Present: (things they _have_ that they have learned to value)
Loyalty
Honesty
Good Beer
Adventure
Pumpkin Spice

Future: (things that they want to obtain)
Wealth
Home
Family
Chickens
Clocks

They can be singular words as above, or short sentences.  Such as "I want to obtain the special clock my Grandfather made."
This tells me WORLDS about your background without pages of fluff.  Your grandfather made clocks.  There was one clock that was "special" in some regard.  You no longer have this clock.  You may or may not know who has the clock or how to obtain it.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Nov 12, 2017)

The preferred limits of a backstory depend on the game at hand. If there's going to be a lot of violence in the game, then I recommend a player to not get too invested in figuring out a backstory, or else it may be discouraging when they die to some goofball crit.


----------



## fjw70 (Nov 12, 2017)

I expect to see zero backstory. I expect the stories to be made at the table.

I am fine with a page or two at most. If it's more than that I am not reading it.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Nov 12, 2017)

None-- _in media res_, baby!

Oh, you meant PCs? A 400-page novel gets you a place at the table.

Actually, in all seriousness, I _require_ nothing.  I usually encouraged players to provide some backstory by offering 100 bonus XP for it (or 1 hero point), up to 500 words. Carrots, not sticks.


----------



## Blue (Nov 12, 2017)

fjw70 said:


> I expect to see zero backstory. I expect the stories to be made at the table.
> 
> I am fine with a page or two at most. If it's more than that I am not reading it.




If the player cares that much about their character, and gives you all of these hooks to use, why wouldn't you read it.  A few pages of reading and jotting down some things to hook them in at a later point is less work then preparing for a single session but can pay dividends for the entire campaign.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 12, 2017)

Generally, I need enough backstory to know what to do as a GM.

Some systems deliver backstory by way of PC-gen (eg Classic Traveller, Burning Wheel). Others require layering it over the suggestions that might be implicit in mechanical elements of the PC (eg 4e D&D, Cortex Heroic Fantasy Hack).


----------



## Herosmith14 (Nov 12, 2017)

Arilyn said:


> I like this approach as well. I find a session 0 often gets players pumped for the following week. Also, taking some time with character creation to establish ties and hooks just makes the game better.
> 
> On the other hand, sometimes players with a sketchy or no background develop into the deepest characters, and others who arrive with a novella don't actually play to what was written. One of the longest and best campaigns we had was thrown together quickly. We were just going to use the characters for quickie, more shallow adventures as a break from our more "serious" group. They took over....The campaign was long, detailed, not at all shallow. We were planning on using published modules and adventures from Dragon magazine. I think we used two. The characters clicked, stories took off. It's still remembered fondly, and that was about 14 years ago.
> 
> That's what I love about this hobby. You never know how things will unfold.




I agree with the statement that sketchy back stories can make the most narratively pleasing characters. Heck, Vargach, my lizardfolk barbarian, started with a back story that was literally "He was the champion of his tribe, and one day he woke up and they were all gone." As I played (and am still playing) this backstory developed to flesh out his inner personality and turmoil. He started out a very hollow, 2D character, but know, he's still hollow, but he's hollow from loneliness, and he's internally obsessing over what could have happened to his tribe, the people who were the closest to helping the lizardfolk feel the emotion of love, feel like he was apart of a family.

Basically, let them write what they want and how much they want. If it's shallow , but the player thinks on it over time, than you might have a fully 3D, fleshed out, and broken character that makes the campaign worth playing for them.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app


----------



## fjw70 (Nov 12, 2017)

Blue said:


> If the player cares that much about their character, and gives you all of these hooks to use, why wouldn't you read it.  A few pages of reading and jotting down some things to hook them in at a later point is less work then preparing for a single session but can pay dividends for the entire campaign.




A few pages is fine. The page or two was a slight exaggeration (slight). But 10 or 20 pages is excessive IMO and that I won't read.


----------



## PrometheanVigil (Nov 12, 2017)

Mort said:


> My answer used to be - as much as the player is willing to write, but that's changed.
> 
> Now I ask for no more than a short paragraph.
> 
> ...




A paragraph. This ain't a novel and I'm not your editor. I learned that lesson early on (but have broken it on occasion for my closest players because I'm not completely cold -- I hope...).

The amount of horrible fan-fictiony short stories I've seen in my time GM'ing... Vampire's the worst for this, that's 100% real-talk right there, we will rip people for it at the club. I don't want to _read_, I want to see what we play out become the backstory itself!


----------



## Blue (Nov 12, 2017)

fjw70 said:


> A few pages is fine. The page or two was a slight exaggeration (slight). But 10 or 20 pages is excessive IMO and that I won't read.




Question still stands from the post you quoted:  If the player cares that much about their character, and gives you all of these hooks to use, why wouldn't you read it?


----------



## fjw70 (Nov 12, 2017)

Blue said:


> Question still stands from the post you quoted:  If the player cares that much about their character, and gives you all of these hooks to use, why wouldn't you read it?





Because I am not that interested in their amateur fiction.


----------



## cmad1977 (Nov 12, 2017)

The story we tell is the back story. Don’t give me your fan fic history of your character. We’re doing X, why is your character interested in X? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Blue (Nov 12, 2017)

fjw70 said:


> Because I am not that interested in their amateur fiction.




Good thing you never want to build stories with them.

Oh wait, those are the players whom you want to DM.

Luckily no player who has invested enough in their character to come up a long background ever wants any of those details to come up in play.  I am sure they will be happy to know that their work has been discarded unread.


----------



## Mort (Nov 12, 2017)

Blue said:


> Good thing you never want to build stories with them.
> 
> Oh wait, those are the players whom you want to DM.
> 
> Luckily no player who has invested enough in their character to come up a long background ever wants any of those details to come up in play.  I am sure they will be happy to know that their work has been discarded unread.



Rather,  maybe ask the question:

Does a single PCs long initial backstory benefit the collective story building of the group moving forward? 

Sent from my SM-G930V using EN World mobile app


----------



## Blue (Nov 12, 2017)

Mort said:


> Rather,  maybe ask the question:
> 
> Does a single PCs long initial backstory benefit the collective story building of the group moving forward?




Nope, not the question I'd ask.  If a player is engaged enough to give me that level of detail, I'll work it in.  Why would I want to discourage player buy-in?

Anyway, I usually have an arc for each character as well as campaign arcs going on, and usually manage to twine them together by later in the campaign - that player A was part of a cult but left it and player B has an estranged father and player C is the disinherited black sheep of a noble family who's now found religion which has moved him off a self-destructive course - these can all give hooks and not be mutually exclusive.  I've found that players often enjoy more when they are fighting for something they care about, and if they bothered to write it up in a background then they care about it.


----------



## Mort (Nov 12, 2017)

Blue said:


> Nope, not the question I'd ask.  If a player is engaged enough to give me that level of detail, I'll work it in.  Why would I want to discourage player buy-in?




Player buyin is great. The question stands though, does a large backstory tend to encourage spotlight hogging? Which takes away from the evolving story of the party as a whole? 



Blue said:


> Anyway, I usually have an arc for each character as well as campaign arcs going on, and usually manage to twine them together by later in the campaign - that player A was part of a cult but left it and player B has an estranged father and player C is the disinherited black sheep of a noble family who's now found religion which has moved him off a self-destructive course - these can all give hooks and not be mutually exclusive. .




All great, none require more than a paragraph from any given player. 




Blue said:


> I've found that players often enjoy more when they are fighting for something they care about, and if they bothered to write it up in a background then they care about it.




I 100% agree that players are more engaged when it's something they care about. But, I've found that applies even better when it's the whole party that has shared in experience. That's better done at the table as opposed to a backstory. 


Sent from my SM-G930V using EN World mobile app


----------



## Caliban (Nov 12, 2017)

Different people want different things from the game. 

 Sometimes the game is about the players, sometime it is about what the DM has planned.  

Either way can be fun, neither way is wrong.  As long as everyone is on board it's fine.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using EN World mobile app


----------



## Mort (Nov 12, 2017)

Caliban said:


> Different people want different things from the game.
> 
> Sometimes the game is about the players, sometime it is about what the DM has planned.
> 
> ...



As with most things in gaming, communication between DM and players is the key. Though it's, as always, the DM that must balance the wants of the various players. 

Sent from my SM-G930V using EN World mobile app


----------



## Phion (Nov 12, 2017)

I am in the middle of doing a long backstory of my character but I have bullet pointed the important parts of the story for the DM and would not expect them to read as they tend to have enough going on already (although I would appreciate it if they did). I mostly started writing because my console is broke and its a fun way to pass time, my writing style has improved a lot over the course and I will have to go back to the beginning once finished to make it more enjoyable for people to read. I was conscious to make the story not sound like fan fiction/ glorification of my character, it would make my eyes bleed reading some else's back story if it was like that throughout; a bit of empathy goes a long way.

On a side note, does anyone know of a respectable website that I could upload the story later? (Really not clued up on this kind of stuff)


----------



## Blue (Nov 12, 2017)

Mort said:


> Player buyin is great. The question stands though, does a large backstory tend to encourage spotlight hogging? Which takes away from the evolving story of the party as a whole?




So you're saying that if the player gives me more hooks, it's not under my control how many I use so a player grabs more spotlight?

Please, I don't really understand your point.  How does more backstory force me to give them more spotlight time?



Mort said:


> All great, none require more than a paragraph from any given player.




The point under discussion isn't how concisely small examples that I picked to fit several in a sentence can be written.  It's about a DM refusing to read a character's background if it's too long.  That super-simplified examples can be written shortly is besides the point.  



Mort said:


> I 100% agree that players are more engaged when it's something they care about. But, I've found that applies even better when it's the whole party that has shared in experience. That's better done at the table as opposed to a backstory.




And then you should admit that it's even better when you do both - have things that tie in character backstory and while-adventuring points.

Unless you're saying that any given scene can only have a single influence - which I'll respectfully disagree.


----------



## Mort (Nov 12, 2017)

Blue said:


> So you're saying that if the player gives me more hooks, it's not under my control how many I use so a player grabs more spotlight?
> 
> Please, I don't really understand your point.  How does more backstory force me to give them more spotlight time?




You're not "forced" but it's hard not to be influenced. Which is fine if that's the way you want to go, but then you should be careful to not, "spotlight" a PC vs. others. Unless, of course, the players are all fine with that - hence communication being key. 





Blue said:


> The point under discussion isn't how concisely small examples that I picked to fit several in a sentence can be written.  It's about a DM refusing to read a character's background if it's too long.  That super-simplified examples can be written shortly is besides the point.




If the DM specifies a paragraph and you give her 10 pages, that's not OK either. If the DM does not specify, well, I still think it's best to check before giving a long backstory. As said before, communication is key. 





Blue said:


> And then you should admit that it's even better when you do both - have things that tie in character backstory and while-adventuring points.
> 
> Unless you're saying that any given scene can only have a single influence - which I'll respectfully disagree.




Multiple influences are fine, seems I just prefer mine more concise than you do. That's ok. 



Sent from my SM-G930V using EN World mobile app


----------



## pemerton (Nov 12, 2017)

Why should the GM's many pages of amateur fiction count for more than the players'?


----------



## fjw70 (Nov 12, 2017)

pemerton said:


> Why should the GM's many pages of amateur fiction count for more than the players'?




I don’t think the GM should give the players dozens of pages of backstory to read either. Both should work to create a shared story at the table.


----------



## Phion (Nov 12, 2017)

pemerton said:


> Why should the GM's many pages of amateur fiction count for more than the players'?




I mean to be fair, the players/characters are/ will have been affected by that lore in some shape or form. Also if 4 players give  a novella worth of backstory its a bit much to expect GM to 
A) read each one
B) remember the details
C) make a list of hooks while going along

Whereas all the players can read one writing of fiction and be on same wave length


----------



## pemerton (Nov 12, 2017)

fjw70 said:


> I don’t think the GM should give the players dozens of pages of backstory to read either. Both should work to create a shared story at the table.



Sure.

But it doesn't become a "shared story", nor cease to be the GM's many pages of amateur fiction, just because it is dispensed over time rather than presented all at once.



Phion said:


> I mean to be fair, the players/characters are/ will have been affected by that lore in some shape or form.



Well, the converse could equally be true: all the players/characters, including the characters etc managed by the GM, might be affected by the lore written by a player.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Nov 12, 2017)

Blue said:


> Question still stands from the post you quoted:  If the player cares that much about their character, and gives you all of these hooks to use, why wouldn't you read it?



The obvious answer is because you want to avoid the temptation to meta-game. It's the same reason why a player would avoid reading the Monster Manual.

Unless I'm specifically working with the player to run a campaign centered around that PC and their family, it's unlikely that any random element from their past will make an appearance during the course of the game. Even during the pre-game character generation, players don't have enough influence on the world to author anything that would significantly change the setting. And given the unlikelihood that any of it is going to show up during play, whether or not I read it is irrelevant.

(I'm not saying that _I_ wouldn't read it. Personally, I would read it just so I can understand the character better. I'm just saying that _this_ is one reason why a GM might want to _not_ read it.)


----------



## Phion (Nov 13, 2017)

pemerton said:


> Sure.
> 
> 
> Well, the converse could equally be true: all the players/characters, including the characters etc managed by the GM, might be affected by the lore written by a player.




It could. But it is the GM who will be describing what the players see as the game progresses so its probably best that they have an idea of how the world works. I would argue the game literally can not function (or reach levels of high satisfaction for all people involved atleast) if the GM doesn't have a solid bullet point notes of important areas. Whereas the player backstory is a really good bonus to the world as long as it complies to the GM's established lore.


----------



## fjw70 (Nov 13, 2017)

pemerton said:


> Sure.
> 
> But it doesn't become a "shared story", nor cease to be the GM's many pages of amateur fiction, just because it is dispensed over time rather than presented all at once.




I meant to say I am not interested in reading the amateur fiction. I am fine with Gms and players injecting amateur fiction during play.


----------



## Lanefan (Nov 13, 2017)

As a DM: I expect zero backstory beyond what your character generation rolls and-or choices (age, secondary skill/past profession, race/culture, class, languages spoken, etc.) might provide.  If someone wants to do up an elaborate backstory that's fine, but there's still every possibility the character's going to die two sessions in; so my usual advice is don't waste yer time until the character has survived long enough to make such effort worthwhile.  I'm certainly not going to listen to complaints about said wasted effort. 

As a player: I'll use the info given from the choices/rolls above to put together a possible backstory* in my own mind, which - if it ever becomes relevant - I'll reveal in character as the game goes along.  I do it this way to leave it a bit malleable to incorporate things I learn about the game world along the way.

* - anything that would give me undue advantage or knowledge (as either player or character) obviously either gets cleared with the DM or doesn't happen.

An example: I've an active character - a magic user - who is from a Roman-like society.  Didn't bother with much of a background for ages, but on learning more about how this Roman-like society worked I decided she had done a tour or two with the Legions as a staff mage and (what amounts to) officer cadet, and with the DM's permission invented some of her ex-commanders and some backstory involving them...and why she left the Legions.  The other players/characters know very few specifics and not many generalities, yet this backstory largely makes her what she is and drives how she relates to others in the party.

Lan-"and sometimes I don't even bother doing this much, but instead just let the character's backstory define itself during play"-efan


----------



## Blue (Nov 13, 2017)

[MENTION=762]Mort[/MENTION], the discussion was for a DM who just tossed out character backgrounds unread if they were too long.  So my whole point here is players who are engaged to write vs. DM discarding with no warning.

Sure, if the DM has put guidelines out there that's a different story.  I don't understand them but it's your table.  But throwing caveats on afterward does not change the initial discussion point - just throwing out a player's 10+ page backstory unread is a di-dastardly move.


----------



## Lord Mhoram (Nov 13, 2017)

Depends on the game.

If I'm running a zero to Hero D&D or Pathfinder game - a paragraph and some bullet points will do.
If I'm running a superhero game, I want a page or so; origin, organizations in background that could be problematic, archnemesis (I insist on one of those), code to live by. Basically think a "why do I have this disad" for HERO.
For a SF game somewhere in between.

I tend to do "session Zero" although we don't call it that - that is "getting the characters ready for play" session.


----------



## Shasarak (Nov 13, 2017)

Speaking as a Player, I find it difficult to come up with a lot of Backstory while at the same time still being a 1st level Character.  I do prefer to try and create my character as a result of game play.


----------



## Bawylie (Nov 13, 2017)

Encouraged: 1 tweet's worth of backstory.

Most I'll read: 3 sentences. 

One of those three must include some reason your character became and adventurer. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ccs (Nov 13, 2017)

Bawylie said:


> Encouraged: 1 tweet's worth of backstory.
> 
> Most I'll read: 3 sentences.
> 
> *One of those three must include some reason your character became and adventurer.*




"Hi, my name is: (something Elvish sounding)
I'm an Elf from the woods.
I'm an adventurer because that's how this game works - you're either the DM or you're playing an adventurer, & since I'm not the DM...."


----------



## Jhaelen (Nov 13, 2017)

I don't expect any back story, but I approve if a player provides one.
What I _do_ expect is a list of personality traits and personal motivations/goals.

What my players actually provide for their characters varies wildly:
One player really enjoys writing short-story length backgrounds for his characters - something I'm not entirely happy about. It's just too much information; it's too restricting when I want to create a side-story onvolving the character's background.
Another player (who's also a professional writer) usually supplies 1-2 pages of background that are always a fun read and usually full of plot hooks that I can make use of.
Then I have a player who prefers to provide no background info. He prefers to develop it over time, as he develops a better idea about the character through roleplay.
Most players only have two or three sentences describing their characters.

Myself, I typically only prepare a list of bullet points with important details about the character.

I've found it isn't the amount of back-story that is important. It's how well it's suited for use within play. 
Motivations and goals are way more important than background details.


----------



## Imaculata (Nov 13, 2017)

I'm currently playing in a sci-fi campaign, in which I provided the DM with not just a backstory, but also a list of contacts and business partners of my character, and descriptions of all of them. In a way, these side-characters say more about my character than the backstory, which I thought was an interesting way to write a character for a change.

I've noticed that quite often when players write a backstory for their characters, these characters don't seem to have any life, friends or family. And as such, they don't feel like real characters to me. Why are all PC's orphans with no friends and no family? Why don't they have a job, and other people that have a role in their lives?


----------



## Bawylie (Nov 13, 2017)

ccs said:


> "Hi, my name is: (something Elvish sounding)
> I'm an Elf from the woods.
> I'm an adventurer because that's how this game works - you're either the DM or you're playing an adventurer, & since I'm not the DM...."




That's plenty good enough to start playing!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jacob Marley (Nov 13, 2017)

Quite frankly, I'd rather a player be explicit about what hooks their character than tease that information out of a multi-page backstory. Give me three-to-five sentences that explicitly express a belief, a goal, a motivation, a rival, a plot-line, whatever, and fill in the details as they emerge in play.


----------



## Caliban (Nov 13, 2017)

If the player gives me more than a non-verbal grunt or knowing look for their backstory,  it's too much.  I kill their character and have them make a knew one.

They are in my world now, I will provide all the story they need.  If they have earned the privilege of a personal history for their character I will provide it for them.


----------



## Arilyn (Nov 13, 2017)

All these complaints about 10 page backstories, but does this actually happen? Players, in my experience, are usually kind of lazy. I think a player handing me a backstory that was more than a few paragraphs would be such a shock, I would definitely read it, while celebrating having such an enthusiastic participant.


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 13, 2017)

Imaculata said:


> I'm currently playing in a sci-fi campaign, in which I provided the DM with not just a backstory, but also a list of contacts and business partners of my character, and descriptions of all of them. In a way, these side-characters say more about my character than the backstory, which I thought was an interesting way to write a character for a change.
> 
> I've noticed that quite often when players write a backstory for their characters, these characters don't seem to have any life, friends or family. And as such, they don't feel like real characters to me. Why are all PC's orphans with no friends and no family? Why don't they have a job, and other people that have a role in their lives?




Because of:
A: the player things it makes them edgier to be a lone wolf abandoned by their parents living live on the edge with no connection to anyone or any thing!
or
B: the DM tends to kill these people.


----------



## Caliban (Nov 13, 2017)

Arilyn said:


> All these complaints about 10 page backstories, but does this actually happen? Players, in my experience, are usually kind of lazy. I think a player handing me a backstory that was more than a few paragraphs would be such a shock, I would definitely read it, while celebrating having such an enthusiastic participant.




I've done a 7 page backstory for a character (most of it covered only a single day in his past - the event that led to him becoming a warlock).   

I've also done a 1 paragraph backstory, or characters with where the name and class gives you most of their backstory.  (Cletus the half-orc pig farmer druid)

Writing up the backstory is mainly for my benefit.   I don't expect anyone else to really care about it.


----------



## Caliban (Nov 13, 2017)

Imaculata said:


> I've noticed that quite often when players write a backstory for their characters, these characters don't seem to have any life, friends or family. And as such, they don't feel like real characters to me. Why are all PC's orphans with no friends and no family? Why don't they have a job, and other people that have a role in their lives?




Why would you become a wandering mercenary adventurer if you had a stable job, a caring family, and a social network of friends?   

Besides, all that is boring.  You don't become Batman by having a happy family life - you need angst, you need revenge motives, you need a flimsy reason to justify your casual fantasy racism (all orcs must die!).


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 14, 2017)

Caliban said:


> I've done a 7 page backstory for a character (most of it covered only a single day in his past - the event that led to him becoming a warlock)




This is how I typically write my backstories.  "An important day in the life." sort of deal.  

And they're almost all 4 pages+.

But they're not really homework for the Table, they're for me.  If the DM _wants_ to read it, then he gets a copy.  But he doesn't get to whine about the length if he asks for it later and never specified anything.


----------



## Lylandra (Nov 14, 2017)

Arilyn said:


> All these complaints about 10 page backstories, but does this actually happen? Players, in my experience, are usually kind of lazy. I think a player handing me a backstory that was more than a few paragraphs would be such a shock, I would definitely read it, while celebrating having such an enthusiastic participant.




I did so some lengthy backstories, I admit it 

Usually, my written story + NPC + description are somwhat from 4 to 6 pages. My latest char hit the magical 10, but I wrote some excerpts of the story in prose and I took some time to describe her stances towards various factions. And the older the char, the longer the story can get. One of the other longer ones was a 46 years old ex-resistance fighter who had been an acedemic before...

As DM, I kind of expect to have characters that are at least as fleshed out as my major NPC, which can usually be covered in 1/3 to 1/2 page. They don't have to write it all down, but I don't want replacable cardbord fighters.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Nov 15, 2017)

I posted on this subject just a few days ago at GitP forums I think.

I guess I react badly to DM's placing participation requirements upon players beyond simply bringing dice, their character sheet, a PH, and their own snacks.  And I can generally provide dice and a PH if they need.  I encourage players to think about SOME kind of background that their character comes from.  Something with more imagination than, "He was an orphan, lived uneventfully until now, and is now a murderhobo."  Come up with elements about your character that can and will affect how they interact with the game world and people in it (PC or NPC).  I _encourage _that because it helps bring a character to life BEFORE play actually begins and provides an initial direction for players to take their character other than, "SHOW ME THE MONEY!"

But all that is ultimately for the player themselves.  I _require_ nothing in the way of background.  In particular, some players are gifted in creating backstory and enjoy the process of that.  Others are utterly uninterested in that as a creative exercise, or lack any ability to WRITE creatively even if they want to.  I once did, but will no longer seek to put players in a position where a creative author gets lots of plot hooks and attention devoted to their character because they can write a great backstory, while another player, who may even want more hooks and attention for their PC gets vastly less simply because they lack the skill to set it up with written backstory.  I don't want to set myself up as DM to fall into that kind of favoritism.

Furthermore, I DO NOT NEED your backstory plot hooks to get your PC involved in the game world.  If I did I would not be a very good DM and I feel like _I_ would be a worse one for _choosing_ to lean on the creativity of the players to make up for it.  If _you_ can stay above that as a DM, more power to you.  Guess you're just better than I.  I will rely on MY OWN ideas for how to involve ALL player characters in the plots and adventures that I present.  If I can't do that without your PC's detailed backstory then the campaign was likely doomed in the first place to be fairly uninteresting.  If I CAN do that without your backstories then... I don't need your backstories.

I've played in enough games where one PC was some kind of chosen one, or inheritor of a rich and powerful noble title/estate, or simply was made into the focus of the game because the DM fell in love with one or two characters in particular and made them the focus of the game as a result.  I've played and run PLENTY of games with gamers who simply DO NOT HAVE THE ROLEPLAYING SKILLS to support more than limited attention to their PC.  Are they unworthy of attention?  Because other players are better roleplayers are they to be given all the attention and glory at the cost of always relegating other PC's to token importance and easily replaced by any other disposable character?

I play AD&D.  Ultimately ALL characters are disposable.  I can't guarantee their importance or survival and don't want to.  If I make one character overly important to events in my game then I can't be as neutral as a DM SHOULD be - the PC becomes critical to my ongoing plots and adventures and if they die those plot and adventures suffer or die along with the PC in question.  Not at all fair or desirable.

Lastly, I've also occasionally seen players take the opportunity of required background to give their PC's wealth, titles, skills, contacts, knowledge, and more requiring myself to then become a hatchet man, to edit their wishlist down to an acceptable level.  Regardless of the time it takes to do that, it isn't supposed to be the POINT of asking for background to be presented with a pre-game wishlist or pumped up character build by backstory fiat.  And then there's the player who decides they're going to create the game world for me, inventing cities, organizations, historical events, important NPC's, artifacts, deities, yada yada yada.  I appreciate the creativity of that - I DO - but that's MY job, not the players job, and I again don't want to have to be in the position of red penciling half of a players backstory because it won't fit the game world _I_ am supposed to be creating to provide TO THEM.

Backstories are useful and as a player can be an incredibly fun and creative ADDITION to the fun of actual gameplay.  But they need to be kept in their place.  If a DM actually desires, as a creative exercise for _themselves_, to craft an entire campaign from the individual backstories made up by players for their PC's, go for it and enjoy.  But as a rule for the vast majority of general game play they should not be made a requirement for a player's participation.

JMO

Addendum: I haven't actually been a player in a long time so it's been even longer since a DM actually asked for a backstory for a character of mine.  If a DM were to make anything more than a simple paragraph of basic description/introduction a requirement then I'd immediately begin to question whether I want to be a player in that game or not and would have to talk to the DM at length about just what it is they think they want from me before the game even begins and what they expect to do with (or more likely TO...) my character backstory after the game begins.  My knee-jerk reaction would be to simply provide no more than the aforementioned simple, superficial paragraph, or just refuse altogether.  ...And then I'd go home and write 10 pages of backstory, bring it to the next game, wave it around and tell the DM that he'll NEVER be permitted to read it.  Just for spite.


----------



## Lylandra (Nov 15, 2017)

So I guess it depends on DM and play style. 

For example, our group discusses their character ideas and whether they fit into the whole campaign or not with the DM before the campaign starts. Playing a pirate in an underdark campaign wouldn't make too much sense. 

So generally the DM provides the setting, the campaign ideas and the possible starting points and the players expand on that. Sometimes a player wants to play a certain character and asks the DM whether the campaign could be tweaked a bit to incorporate the char, but that doesn't happen too often. 

The players then pick a location and maybee some NPC and form their backstory with the help of the material the DM gave them. Which means adding more NPC, maybe integrating certain events into the campaign etc. This way the DM can use the already integrated backstory and expand on it. Tie the characters together. And to me, this more collaborative "session 0" planning makes the campaign much more immersive than "oh here's my cool world, play whatever you want (bus don't expect me to mind), go along with this awesome story". 

Campaigns where the DM has his story and the players can bring the characters that don't have to be rooted in anything can work just fine. But in my experience, this often leads to player characters being irrelevant, replacable variables where only (the DM's) story and not its actors become the focal point. 

And I can totally understand that "DM's favourite" fear. I have experienced that as well and it hurts even more when you're as interactive, interested and invested as the favourite, but don't get all the spotlight. But there are players who simply don't mind. Players who take all thir fun out of combat situations. Or who really love to solve puzzles. But this doesn't mean you should cut all story ties to your story investors so that the other crowd isn't hurt. 
I've once had a player whom I really tried to get and spill more hooks for me. I told him I wanted to do more with his char, but I needed info for that as the campaign was only starting. And I also told him that I had some twists planned for the other characters and wanted to do the same for him. But he just didn't mind. He only wanted to play the story and his character's quirks. So this was okay for all of us. It wouldn't have been benificial for the remaining players or me to cut down my backstory hooks just because this one player didn't want it for his char.

Edit: And to me, "our approach" is maybe more vital when you're using APs or modules. Because you can always change your homebrew campaign to your players, but scripted modules are harder to adapt.


----------



## Nytmare (Nov 15, 2017)

shidaku said:


> Because of:
> A: the player things it makes them edgier to be a lone wolf abandoned by their parents living live on the edge with no connection to anyone or any thing!




TANGENT: I've also run into numerous players who argue that having a character who has friends and/or relatives is a glaring Achilles' heel that only stupid people agree to having.


----------



## Michael Silverbane (Nov 15, 2017)

Nytmare said:


> TANGENT: I've also run into numerous players who argue that having a character who has friends and/or relatives is a glaring Achilles' heel that only stupid people agree to having.




This is sometimes a reaction to having a previous DM go immediately for the old, "Your brother/mother/spouse has been kidnapped by the bad guy. Now you have to do what they say!" or the, "elements of your backstory are naught but grist for the mill."

For instance, I played briefly in a campaign where, upon being asked about family, I said, "sure, I live on the crappy side of town near the docks with my mother and sister. I've never met my father, but sometimes spin stories about him being a famous pirate." during the first in-game day, a horde of orcs invaded the city and murdered and ate my mother and sister, and a dragon swooped over and burned my crappy house down. I shrugged, said, "its the sailor's life for me." and sailed away and out of that campaign forever.


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 15, 2017)

Nytmare said:


> TANGENT: I've also run into numerous players who argue that having a character who has friends and/or relatives is a glaring Achilles' heel that only stupid people agree to having.




That was kinda my Part B.  I've never had a DM use family as really anything other than a plot to get me to care about a given slice of the world (ex: People are poor in your home town, you want to help!), but I've certainly heard tell of DMs who relentlessly slaughtered family and friends until the PCs did what the bad-guy wanted. (aka: followed the DMs railroad)


----------



## Imaculata (Nov 15, 2017)

shidaku said:


> That was kinda my Part B.  I've never had a DM use family as really anything other than a plot to get me to care about a given slice of the world (ex: People are poor in your home town, you want to help!), but I've certainly heard tell of DMs who relentlessly slaughtered family and friends until the PCs did what the bad-guy wanted. (aka: followed the DMs railroad)




Sounds like a lot of people have experiences with terrible DM's.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 15, 2017)

Blue said:


> [MENTION=762]Mort[/MENTION], the discussion was for a DM who just tossed out character backgrounds unread if they were too long.  So my whole point here is players who are engaged to write vs. DM discarding with no warning.
> 
> Sure, if the DM has put guidelines out there that's a different story.  I don't understand them but it's your table.  But throwing caveats on afterward does not change the initial discussion point - just throwing out a player's 10+ page backstory unread is a di-dastardly move.




Do you really need to understand it?  Can you not just accept the fact that the way you play isn't the OneTrueWay™ and that if you have a different preferred playstyle and can't be flexible enough to work with the needs of some other gamer, that it's OK just to not play with them?

I require no backstory, but what I prefer to see isn't backstory anyway—I'd prefer to know something about what your character did in the last 24-48 hours or so before play starts than what his childhood was like.  Also; I like little one-paragraph vignettes that players can come up with together wherein their characters had some kind of past interaction and actually know each other.  This can be as formal as the Phase Trio minigame from FATE (which I like MUCH better than "backstory"), or more informal, but either way, it's likely to be more useful to both the player himself and the GM than a character biographical short story.


----------



## Blue (Nov 15, 2017)

Hobo said:


> Do you really need to understand it?  Can you not just accept the fact that the way you play isn't the OneTrueWay™ and that if you have a different preferred playstyle and can't be flexible enough to work with the needs of some other gamer, that it's OK just to not play with them?




Wow, nice personal attacks.  When you need to attack the poster instead of discussing the ideas, it doesn't provide a lot of support for your viewpoint.

Especially when you don't actually address the point you quoted.  Let me try it again:  *Player goes through the trouble to write a backstory.  DM throws it away unread.*

Please address that.  Or, well, please address that if you can keep it civil and not do personal attacks.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 15, 2017)

Blue said:


> Wow, nice personal attacks.  When you need to attack the poster instead of discussing the ideas, it doesn't provide a lot of support for your viewpoint.
> 
> Especially when you don't actually address the point you quoted.  Let me try it again:  *Player goes through the trouble to write a backstory.  DM throws it away unread.*
> 
> Please address that.  Or, well, please address that if you can keep it civil and not do personal attacks.




Don't be absurd.  That is in no way a personal attack, and calling it one doesn't change reality.  And if you can't tell that I did absolutely address exactly your point, and in a civil manner too, then you're not tall enough for this ride.  You're acting too emotionally incontinent to have this discussion; you clearly are too emotionally invested in doing things your way to be respectful of anyone else's playstyle.

Your post is reported.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Nov 15, 2017)

[MENTION=2205]Hobo[/MENTION]!  How's tricks!  Cantankerous and lovable as always.


----------



## ART! (Nov 15, 2017)

I never ask or expect my players to read more than one page of normal-sized text in a standard font, so I would ask that they give me no more than that, or if they do to not expect me to read it all at once or soon. My players don't write up much of that sort of thing, so I'm safe for now!


----------



## Mort (Nov 15, 2017)

Hobo said:


> I require no backstory, but what I prefer to see isn't backstory anyway—I'd prefer to know something about what your character did in the last 24-48 hours or so before play starts than what his childhood was like.  Also; I like little one-paragraph vignettes that players can come up with together wherein their characters had some kind of past interaction and actually know each other.  This can be as formal as the Phase Trio minigame from FATE (which I like MUCH better than "backstory"), or more informal, but either way, it's likely to be more useful to both the player himself and the GM than a character biographical short story.




This is a good approach and one I gravitate to more and more myself. I haven't done one paragraph vignettes, but the players do come up with a shared history. In our current campaign and just happened right before the first session, but it has had a nice effect of adding to group cohesion.


----------



## Nytmare (Nov 15, 2017)

I've recently fallen in love with Blades in the Dark, and part of the idea for the game is that your character's backstory isn't something you deal with beyond a one word answer as to where your family is from, a 3 or 4 word answer as to what you used to do before you became a no good scoundrel, and descriptions of 3 NPCs from your past (a friend, a rival, and a purveyor of whatever your bad habit is).  Beyond that, everybody (players and GM alike) paint a picture of each character as the game progresses and you answer more and more questions about why, what, and who they are by roleplaying flashbacks.

Beyond that, and what I usually prefer to do when I'm running a D&D campaign is to have a lengthier, but broad-strokes conversation about a character's background while a person is making said character; but if anything, to only have a written, paragraph-length Cliff's notes snippet of what the other characters would know.  Basically what you'd expect a person to have if they were playing a character in a one-shot game.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 15, 2017)

Ovinomancer said:


> [MENTION=2205]Hobo[/MENTION]!  How's tricks!  Cantankerous and lovable as always.




Some things never change.  And shouldn't.  

Can't complain.  I don't frequent these parts all that often anymore, but an unrelated search brought me to a page here, and I thought I'd pop in and see what people are talking about briefly.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 15, 2017)

Nytmare said:


> I've recently fallen in love with Blades in the Dark, and part of the idea for the game is that your character's backstory isn't something you deal with beyond a one word answer as to where your family is from, a 3 or 4 word answer as to what you used to do before you became a no good scoundrel, and descriptions of 3 NPCs from your past (a friend, a rival, and a purveyor of whatever your bad habit is).  Beyond that, everybody (players and GM alike) paint a picture of each character as the game progresses and you answer more and more questions about why, what, and who they are by roleplaying flashbacks.




That's not terribly different than the White Star serials idea; which is another one I like.  The way that they do it is randomized and comes with modest mechanical implications, but I still like the notion of a simple form-fill background creator.  Each line gets little more than a sentence or even sentence fragment.  

Home(world)—White Star is space opera, so it has options like "high gravity world" or "Between the stars" for people born in mobile star fleet environments rather than a "world" per se.  But the idea can be easily adapted to fantasy.
Family—ranges from "You have a strong relationship with your family" down to "You have an antagonistic relationship with your family" and at the end "You have no idea who your family is and were raised as an orphan."
Youth—presumes that you had a more adventurous than normal childhood; ranging from "You were sold into slavery as a child" to "You are a graduate of a military boarding school."
First Adventure—everything from "Captured by Outlaws"; "Your home planet was destroyed" to "Hired as an assistant"
Adversaries—I _love_ this one; a built in nemesis who can show up (or have minions who do so) to try and thwart your plans during the campaign.  The flipside of this is...
Allies—everything from a loyal street rat who can give you information to a wise old space wizard (Old Ben Kenobi) who pops in and checks on you every so often.
Critical Event—a more risky proposition (from both the player and GM's perspective); everything from "You won a starship in a game of chance" to "Your character died during chargen a la Traveller.  Start over!"
I'm not suggesting that this exact method is desirable, but I do think that both that and the Fate Phase Trio systems are optimized for coming up with stuff that's _actually useful and interesting in game_ and tends to avoid the drawn out fan-fiction-like nature of character backgrounds that, honestly, both players and GMs aren't quite sure what to do with.

All that said; I'm not against players writing up lengthy character bios if they want to.  Like some posters have said here earlier, though—I can't guarantee that I'll read them, and even if I do, that I'll remember anything substantive from it after the fact.  And don't come crying to me if you put all that work into it and your character gets killed by a flubbed roll half an hour into the first session (honestly; that isn't very likely.  But it _could_ happen.)  I just prefer backgrounds that are more useful and interesting than a short story.  While in general, I'm not necessarily a fan of coming up with more rules, I have seen a few systems that actually work very well to create character backgrounds that are useful.  The Phase Trio works great at generating role-playing opportunities between players, and the White Star system is chock-full of actual, usable things that a GM can really sink his teeth into to create interesting, character-specific campaign elements.


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 15, 2017)

Imaculata said:


> Sounds like a lot of people have experiences with terrible DM's.




Not surprising, there are plenty of terrible DMs.

I don't mind putting friends and family in peril, directly, indrectly and so forth, but only if the adventurers are people worthy of note.  Sure, the bad-guy might slaughter your home town, but not because of _you_ and even then only because he's the sort of type to do that anyway, and the town was in his path.

But really if I can't motivate players with my plot hooks, killing their friends won't help any.


----------



## Nytmare (Nov 15, 2017)

shidaku said:


> But really if I can't motivate players with my plot hooks, killing their friends won't help any.




I'd imagine that when it happens at the bad end of the spectrum, it's usually less as a means of motivation and more just knee jerk trope usage. 

I wouldn't want to venture a guess as to what the percentages are, but how many movies have you seen where if they bothered to write a character as having a parent or a child or a loved one or a pet, you can be almost certain that said loved one is going to be threatened with death or killed in the last act of the movie.


----------



## Salamandyr (Nov 15, 2017)

I've done a lot of different ways of doing backstories over the years.  Now I just say...a player can have as much back story as they want, and I promise not to pay attention to it.


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 16, 2017)

Nytmare said:


> I'd imagine that when it happens at the bad end of the spectrum, it's usually less as a means of motivation and more just knee jerk trope usage.
> 
> I wouldn't want to venture a guess as to what the percentages are, but how many movies have you seen where if they bothered to write a character as having a parent or a child or a loved one or a pet, you can be almost certain that said loved one is going to be threatened with death or killed in the last act of the movie.




Maybe.  I mean Luke went and joined the Rebellion because the Empire burned his family to death.  I mean, the Empire is cruel...but that feels a lot more like the DM (George Lucas) being unnecessarily cruel to one of his players just to get them to go down the railroad.

Or like when Saruman burns down the Shire.  It doesn't serve any real compelling story purpose.  It's just kinda mean.


----------



## Nytmare (Nov 16, 2017)

shidaku said:


> Maybe.  I mean Luke went and joined the Rebellion because the Empire burned his family to death.  I mean, the Empire is cruel...but that feels a lot more like the DM (George Lucas) being unnecessarily cruel to one of his players just to get them to go down the railroad.




Yeah, but there's a difference between an author having a bad thing happen to a character in a novel or screenplay and a DM interpreting that as "Killing every NPC that is loved by a player character makes for good story telling!"


----------



## Caliban (Nov 16, 2017)

There is a difference between having stuff happen "off screen" and having it play out during a game.   Presumably if it happens during a gaming session, the PC's have a chance to effect the outcome, and whatever happens will have a greater significance and emotional impact because the PC is actively involved.

But it does require a certain degree of trust between the players and the DM - if it is an adversarial relationship, then the impulse is to preemptively kill off all your relatives and be an orphan so your DM can't use them against you.  (Or it may just be a lack of imagination.  You don't have to come up with a name for your mother if she's been dead for 10 years...)

If you trust the DM not to use your characters friends and family as a cheap plot device, and you know your character may become more directly involved in the campaign plot lines if you give the DM some material to work with, then that's incentive to create a more detailed background full of not-dead relatives and associates for the DM to use.   

Thats for people who enjoy that sort of thing.   Nothing is wrong with just wanting to be a morally challenged barbarian who kicks down doors, kills monsters, and takes their stuff.    Different people enjoy the game in different ways.


----------



## Shasarak (Nov 16, 2017)

shidaku said:


> Maybe.  I mean Luke went and joined the Rebellion because the Empire burned his family to death.  I mean, the Empire is cruel...but that feels a lot more like the DM (George Lucas) being unnecessarily cruel to one of his players just to get them to go down the railroad.




It gets worse then that; the DM turns the BBEG into his father and his girlfriend into his sister!


----------



## Caliban (Nov 16, 2017)

shidaku said:


> But really if I can't motivate players with my plot hooks, killing their friends won't help any.




It can be a stress reliever though.   "One shot my arch-lich during his monologue with your broken ass characters will you?  ...well little cousin Timmy's gonna pay the price...OP power gaming munchkins..."


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 16, 2017)

Caliban said:


> It can be a stress reliever though.   "One shot my arch-lich during his monologue with your broken ass characters will you?  ...well little cousin Timmy's gonna pay the price...OP power gaming munchkins..."




I've had one encounter one-shot by high-level PCs, it was quite sad.  Though I think it'd be funnier if cousin Timmy turned out to be the BBEG.



Shasarak said:


> It gets worse then that; the DM turns the BBEG into his father and his girlfriend into his sister!




Simple, time travel and a sex change.  

Actually, I misread that as turning the BBEG into his father, girlfriend AND sister.


----------



## Shasarak (Nov 16, 2017)

shidaku said:


> Simple, time travel and a sex change.
> 
> Actually, I misread that as turning the BBEG into his father, girlfriend AND sister.




Ha, that would be a story alright!  I remember one with a time traveling Pie.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Nov 16, 2017)

Caliban said:


> If you trust the DM not to use your characters friends and family as a cheap plot device, and you know your character may become more directly involved in the campaign plot lines if you give the DM some material to work with, then that's incentive to create a more detailed background full of not-dead relatives and associates for the DM to use.



Even that assumes you want the DM to contrive plot around your character, as though your character was some sort of protagonist in a story. For those of us who prefer to consider our character as an actual person living within that world, rather than a mere narrative construct, both types of intervention are equally bad. Whether my family is killed, or whether they win the lottery and gift me a +3 sword, anything that happens to them _because_ I'm a PC is equally unwanted.

Orphan PCs serve to ward off the well-meaning DMs who simply don't understand that point, as well as the malevolent DMs trying to make you suffer for the sake of art.


----------



## Jhaelen (Nov 16, 2017)

shidaku said:


> Simple, time travel and a sex change.
> 
> Actually, I misread that as turning the BBEG into his father, girlfriend AND sister.



Yup, Heinlein's been there and done that back in 1958...


----------



## Caliban (Nov 16, 2017)

Saelorn said:


> Even that assumes you want the DM to contrive plot around your character, as though your character was some sort of protagonist in a story. For those of us who prefer to consider our character as an actual person living within that world, rather than a mere narrative construct, both types of intervention are equally bad. Whether my family is killed, or whether they win the lottery and gift me a +3 sword, anything that happens to them _because_ I'm a PC is equally unwanted.
> 
> Orphan PCs serve to ward off the well-meaning DMs who simply don't understand that point, as well as the malevolent DMs trying to make you suffer for the sake of art.




I'm pretty sure you are the only person who thinks that way, but thanks for sharing.


----------



## Lylandra (Nov 16, 2017)

There's that fine line between well-written drama and cheap slaughter for the effects. And I agree that giving players the option to intervene when their loved ones are threatened does make a big difference.

As a player, I almost never kill off my whole family. And if we are in the same area, I don't mind if my DM uses them for drama when it is appropriate. Heck, sometimes I include "drama hooks" so the DM can already choose that one I'm totally okay with. 
For example, I once played a noble daughter whose brother fell ill after a trip to another country. Her reason for adventuring was to find a cure for that mysterious disease. When she returned after months of adventuring and finding out that there was no cure (other than defeating BBEG in that far off land and mind you, other people caught the disease as well), she returned home only to find that her brother had passed away. And her parents didn't want to let her go, but marry her off to another noble where she would be safe and off to another duty. This caused one of our players (the one Paladin who had become her mentor as she had become a swashbuckler/paladin) to step in and propose in front of parents and suitor while also revealing that he was a noble of higher rank in addition to being a paladin of Torm and that he wouldn't give a damn for societal conventions if they'd try to get his student off her duty. 

As a DM I once abducted the father/adoptive father of two of my PCs so they'd agree to exchange prisoners and hand them over a magic tome. The fun fact was that the villain didn't even know the NPC was the father of the PC, but he rather captured him because he was an enemy general. And they totally managed to give said villain neither of the two while still rescuing their dad.


----------



## Lanefan (Nov 16, 2017)

Caliban said:


> I'm pretty sure you are the only person who thinks that way, but thanks for sharing.



Actually, no he's not - for the most part I also prefer my character not be the protagonist in a story.  The party as a whole can be, sure, and probably should be; but my character is just one more or less temporary member of said party and both (s)he and the party are seen as actual people living in the game world.

It's a question of whether your story is the history of the Liverpool Football Club (the party) or the story of a guy who played midfield for them for their first 6 seasons (my first character).



			
				Lylandra said:
			
		

> As a player, I almost never kill off my whole family.



In context this sort of makes sense but my first thought on reading it was still "_Almost_ never?  Does that mean I should be calling the cops?". 

Lanefan


----------



## Caliban (Nov 16, 2017)

Lanefan said:


> Actually, no he's not - for the most part I also prefer my character not be the protagonist in a story.




So do you also use this as a reason to make all your characters orphans?


----------



## Imaculata (Nov 16, 2017)

Lylandra said:


> Heck, sometimes I include "drama hooks" so the DM can already choose that one I'm totally okay with.




Same for me. For my current character, I intentionally wrote in a plot hook that a business-competitor of my character died under suspicious circumstances, and that my character has a love interest on a distant planet whom he keeps at a distance for his own safety.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 16, 2017)

Imaculata said:


> Sounds like a lot of people have experiences with terrible DM's.



Agreed.



shidaku said:


> if I can't motivate players with my plot hooks, killing their friends won't help any.



The whole idea is bizarre. I've never come across it, except by reading about it on these boards.

As far as family are concerned, a lot depends on the social context of the game, as well as the mechanics and other expectations for the system and campaign being played.

In Burning Wheel, for instance, paying for relationships is part of PC building. And it is cheaper to pay for an adversarial than friendly relationship. Either way, you can expect the GM to put pressure on your PC via the relationship - quite directly, if the relationship is adversarial. In effect, the point-buy cost of the relationship is paying for spotlight time.

D&D doesn't really have formal systems for this (the 5e Backgrounds maybe come closest), but similar ideas might be useable.



shidaku said:


> I don't mind putting friends and family in peril, directly, indrectly and so forth, but only if the adventurers are people worthy of note.



I don't agree with this, though. A PC might be no one particularly famous, but nevertheless find his/her loved one being threatened in some fashion, thus requiring the player of the PC to respond in some fashion.

Not all systems work well for more low-scale/intimate adventures, but they are possible.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 16, 2017)

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> I've played and run PLENTY of games with gamers who simply DO NOT HAVE THE ROLEPLAYING SKILLS to support more than limited attention to their PC.  Are they unworthy of attention?  Because other players are better roleplayers are they to be given all the attention and glory at the cost of always relegating other PC's to token importance and easily replaced by any other disposable character?



Maybe. It's not unusual for a game to reward those who have better skills.

When I play boardgames with my friends who are good boardgame players, I expect to lose - and generally do. It's not about me being "unworthy". It's about them being better.

It's not obvious that RPGing shouldn't be similar. Those who build and play richer characters, and give more to the shared fiction, might expect to have their PCs enjoy a greater focus and significance within that fiction.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Nov 16, 2017)

pemerton said:


> Maybe. It's not unusual for a game to reward those who have better skills.
> 
> When I play boardgames with my friends who are good boardgame players, I expect to lose - and generally do. It's not about me being "unworthy". It's about them being better.
> 
> It's not obvious that RPGing shouldn't be similar. Those who build and play richer characters, and give more to the shared fiction, might expect to have their PCs enjoy a greater focus and significance within that fiction.




Hmm, so, in corollary, someone that isn't as good at roleplaying but is working on it should be content to watch his/her/xir betters and be thankful for the scraps?  Improvement is a matter of practice, for most things.  Doesn't your concept actively reduce practice time for those most needing it while giving extra to those already proficient?

And, then there's the whole 'group activity' where roleplaying isn't a competition to be rewarded with spotlight time but someone you do as a group for a shared purpose.  However, it is good to remember that your preferred games do pit PCs against each other as a matter of play, and skilled play increases the chances that the story moves in the direction you push.


----------



## Schmoe (Nov 16, 2017)

Blue said:


> *Player goes through the trouble to write a backstory.  DM throws it away unread.*




Me (handing it back unread): "That's nice, it looks like you put a lot of work into it.  Maybe you can post it to ENWorld?  Ok folks, so here's what is happening right now in the tavern..."

Nothing wrong about that at all.


----------



## Caliban (Nov 16, 2017)

Schmoe said:


> Me (handing it back unread): "That's nice, it looks like you put a lot of work into it.  Maybe you can post it to ENWorld?  Ok folks, so here's what is happening right now in the tavern..."
> 
> Nothing wrong about that at all.




Since presumably I wouldn't be giving you a written background unless you asked for it,  at that point I'd probably find something more interesting to do than be subjected to your idea of DM'ing. 

Nothing wrong about that either, since you want to grandstand and be a jerk about it.


----------



## Schmoe (Nov 16, 2017)

Lanefan said:


> Actually, no he's not - for the most part I also prefer my character not be the protagonist in a story.  The party as a whole can be, sure, and probably should be; but my character is just one more or less temporary member of said party and both (s)he and the party are seen as actual people living in the game world.




Does this mean that you never want a character's family showing up in the game, and thence showing some sort of development?  And does that extend to everything in a character's background?  In which case, why have a background at all?

Just trying to understand here.  If you want a character's background to be relevant, then I think you have to presume some of the story is about that character specifically.


----------



## Schmoe (Nov 16, 2017)

Caliban said:


> Since presumably I wouldn't be giving you a written background unless you asked for it,  at that point I'd probably find something more interesting to do than be subjected to your idea of DM'ing.
> 
> Nothing wrong about that either, since you want to grandstand and be a jerk about it.




Two points.

1.  I don't think I'm a jerk.  If you saw anything condescending in what I wrote, I think it might be you projecting something that isn't there.
2.  I personally wouldn't do that, I just wrote it as an example, but I wouldn't hold it against someone if they don't want to/don't have time to read my magnum opus.


----------



## Caliban (Nov 16, 2017)

Schmoe said:


> Two points.
> 
> 1.  I don't think I'm a jerk.  If you saw anything condescending in what I wrote, I think it might be you projecting something that isn't there.




You flat out stated you wouldn't read it, so how would you know if they put a lot of work into it?  Then you suggest they "post it on EN world" and without waiting for a response you start talking to the group. 

That comes off as very dismissive and condescending.  Also a social power play - you blow them off and then end the conversation by addressing the group instead of the person.  

Not reading someone's background is one thing, but doing it the way you described is being a jerk.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 16, 2017)

Caliban said:


> It can be a stress reliever though.   "One shot my arch-lich during his monologue with your broken ass characters will you?  ...well little cousin Timmy's gonna pay the price...OP power gaming munchkins..."




Anyone with background NPCs named little cousin Timmy is just begging to have them repeatedly fall into the well.  Hopefully the character is a ranger with a trusty dog animal companion to come warn him.


----------



## Schmoe (Nov 16, 2017)

Caliban said:


> You flat out stated you wouldn't read it, so how would you know if they put a lot of work into it?  Then you suggest they "post it on EN world" and without waiting for a response you start talking to the group.
> 
> That comes off as very dismissive and condescending.  Also a social power play - you blow them off and then end the conversation by addressing the group instead of the person.
> 
> Not reading someone's background is one thing, but doing it the way you described is being a jerk.




If that's what you chose to take from it, then I guess I'm at a loss.  Not my intent, but obviously this is an emotionally charged topic for some people, so I think I'll leave you to it.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 16, 2017)

pemerton said:


> I don't agree with this, though. A PC might be no one particularly famous, but nevertheless find his/her loved one being threatened in some fashion, thus requiring the player of the PC to respond in some fashion.
> 
> Not all systems work well for more low-scale/intimate adventures, but they are possible.



I have no idea what system you use has to do with this discussion.  This isn't a system issue.  It's an issue of style and player expectations.


----------



## Caliban (Nov 16, 2017)

Schmoe said:


> If that's what you chose to take from it...




Sorry, I didn't bother to read the rest.  I'm sure you put a lot of work into though.  Maybe post it somewhere else so it can be properly appreciated?  

kthxbye!


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 16, 2017)

Saelorn said:


> Even that assumes you want the DM to contrive plot around your character, as though your character was some sort of protagonist in a story. For those of us who prefer to consider our character as an actual person living within that world, rather than a mere narrative construct, both types of intervention are equally bad. Whether my family is killed, or whether they win the lottery and gift me a +3 sword, anything that happens to them _because_ I'm a PC is equally unwanted.
> 
> Orphan PCs serve to ward off the well-meaning DMs who simply don't understand that point, as well as the malevolent DMs trying to make you suffer for the sake of art.




I'm always... what's the right word here... bemused, maybe? when I hear stories like this.  The degree to which people will bend over backwards to deal with social issues at the game table without actually dealing with them.  The best is when they write mechanics that insulate them from misbehavior on the GM or other players' part.

Gaming is a social activity, just like going to a dinner party or any other small group social event.  It's not so important in its own right that it's worth doing with people that you don't enjoy doing it with.

"Malevolent GMs" should be talked to—"hey, we don't really like that kind of thing happening in our games; it's not cool, and it's not fun."  If they still can't get the point, play with someone else.  Life's too short.


----------



## Lanefan (Nov 16, 2017)

Caliban said:


> So do you also use this as a reason to make all your characters orphans?






			
				Schmoe said:
			
		

> Does this mean that you never want a character's family showing up in the game, and thence showing some sort of development? And does that extend to everything in a character's background? In which case, why have a background at all?
> 
> Just trying to understand here. If you want a character's background to be relevant, then I think you have to presume some of the story is about that character specifically.



My characters aren't all orphans...by random chance they can't all be in our system as family background/status is yet another thing we (usually) randomly roll (e.g. is your mother still alive - yes; what does she do - merchant; is your father still alive - yes; what does he do - retired pirate; are they still together - yes; how many siblings do you have - 2 older sisters; ... etc.) as it's quite true that you can't choose your family.  All that stuff is just pure background; a foundation for why I'm out adventuring but not ever intended to be or become a part of that adventuring.  It's also part of the foundation for why I am who-what I am.

Different from that, in my view, are things my character has done on its own.  If either I or the dice have determined that my character spent some time in the Roman Legions then having some game story grow out of that at some point is just fine...even better if one or more other party members have also done Legion time.   But the DM still needs to find ways to include the whole party - if there's a Legion storyline, for example, ideally my main contribution would be inside information on how things work and maybe on a few key people; but the story itself wouldn't centre on me. (side note: I've learned long ago not to centre a story on any one character as inevitably that character will die at the next possible opportunity...)

And if, say, my (randomly-rolled) secondary profession is 'spy' there's an instant gold mine for the DM, should she choose to use it.

Lan-"I have one active character whose secondary profession is 'actor' who goes around playing the role of a spy whether there's a stage nearby or not, confusing everyone including, sometimes, herself"-efan


----------



## Caliban (Nov 16, 2017)

Lanefan said:


> My characters aren't all orphans..




Well, that's kind of what I referring to.   I can understand not necessarily wanting a story arc centered around your character, but Saelorn was advocating making your character an orphan so that their family can't be used in any story lines "just because they are related to your PC".     Instead, they all get to die "just because they are related to your PC"...

I think it could more easily be accomplished simply by telling the DM that you don't want your character to have any story lines created specifically for them.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Nov 16, 2017)

Hobo said:


> "Malevolent GMs" should be talked to—"hey, we don't really like that kind of thing happening in our games; it's not cool, and it's not fun."  If they still can't get the point, play with someone else.  Life's too short.



For a long time, that was just a part of the game, and it might even have been a big part of the appeal for some GMs. Some people _enjoy_ hiding behind their cardboard screen and laughing maniacally whenever they roll dice, even if they ignored what the dice actually told them. I was reading a book recently - Blood Dawn, a game from 1996 that may have influenced the Fallout series - which was entirely written with the _expectation_ that the GM would be messing with the players at every opportunity. It's just the way things were.

Since then, the hobby has gone back and forth, and different groups from different eras with different gameplay philosophies have merged (to mixed success). There are still some of the old-school adversarial GMs who like messing with players, but they're mixed with the newer-school GMs who treat the game like an exercise in collaborative storytelling, and the true role-playing GMs who try their best to arbitrate impartially.

So it's not as easy as just calling out an adversarial GM as being a jerk, or a storytelling GM as being manipulative, because they may be doing everything right by their understanding. Even if you actually have that discussion and explain that you don't want to play that kind of game, and assuming they agree to change, old habits die hard and they may not be entirely aware of when they are doing those things. An orphan PC removes that temptation for them to mess with you; it removes the opportunity for them to fail as the GM. Or, if you have a mixed group where some players may actually _want_ that sort of engagement, it tells the GM that you _specifically_ do not wish to be treated in such a fashion; it's an easy way of opting out from that.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Nov 16, 2017)

Caliban said:


> Well, that's kind of what I referring to.   I can understand not necessarily wanting a story arc centered around your character, but Saelorn was advocating making your character an orphan so that their family can't be used in any story lines "just because they are related to your PC".     Instead, they all get to die "just because they are related to your PC"...



It's more like they _become_ my PC _because_ they are an orphan. Batman wouldn't have become Batman if his parents hadn't died in such a fashion. 

Not every superhero is an orphan, of course, but choosing to role-play as Batman rather than Squirrel Girl does not actually affect their respective parents in any way.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 16, 2017)

Hobo said:


> I have no idea what system you use has to do with this discussion.  This isn't a system issue.  It's an issue of style and player expectations.



Upthread you talked about systems (eg Fate) that affect the way backstory is generated and incorproated into play.

There are also systems that affect the way family members are incorporated into play.



Ovinomancer said:


> Hmm, so, in corollary, someone that isn't as good at roleplaying but is working on it should be content to watch his/her/xir betters and be thankful for the scraps?  Improvement is a matter of practice, for most things.  Doesn't your concept actively reduce practice time for those most needing it while giving extra to those already proficient?



That would depend heavily on the group dynamics, I think.

I'm just responding to the post that its unfair that a player's skill should affect the direction and content of the game. That's not true in any other game I can think of, so I'm not sure why it should be different for RPGs.



Ovinomancer said:


> there's the whole 'group activity' where roleplaying isn't a competition to be rewarded with spotlight time but someone you do as a group for a shared purpose.  However, it is good to remember that your preferred games do pit PCs against each other as a matter of play, and skilled play increases the chances that the story moves in the direction you push.



I don't really follow this.

Backyard cricket is a group activity. The better athletes will still get more spotlight time, and exercise greater influence over the flow of events. That has nothing to do with competition - it's about the fact that the flow of events is itself affected by the skills deployed.


----------



## Xaelvaen (Nov 16, 2017)

It is purely dependent on the starting level for the campaign.  The higher the level, the more detail I want - there's no specifics other than that.  If I'm starting the players with one or two magic items, in example, I require them to create an interest story as to how they received the item.  Otherwise, I just want interesting hooks - that usually comes in the form of a single 1080p OneNote page.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Nov 17, 2017)

pemerton said:


> Upthread you talked about systems (eg Fate) that affect the way backstory is generated and incorproated into play.
> 
> There are also systems that affect the way family members are incorporated into play.
> 
> ...



That's not what was said.  No one is saying a player shouldn't affect the direction and content of the game.  Your statement was that a better player should, as in deserves, have greater control over the game.  That's the point I'm contesting, not that a good player should have some effect on the game.  That's trivially obvious.



> I don't really follow this.
> 
> Backyard cricket is a group activity. The better athletes will still get more spotlight time, and exercise greater influence over the flow of events. That has nothing to do with competition - it's about the fact that the flow of events is itself affected by the skills deployed.




Again, your choice of example is telling -- you picked a competitive game for your example, even if a usually friendly one.  In competitive games, skill is an important factor.  In cooperative games, it should take a lesser role.  You shouldn't be using your superior skill to dominate the playtime, in other words.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 17, 2017)

Saelorn said:


> For a long time, that was just a part of the game, and it might even have been a big part of the appeal for some GMs. Some people _enjoy_ hiding behind their cardboard screen and laughing maniacally whenever they roll dice, even if they ignored what the dice actually told them. I was reading a book recently - Blood Dawn, a game from 1996 that may have influenced the Fallout series - which was entirely written with the _expectation_ that the GM would be messing with the players at every opportunity. It's just the way things were.
> 
> Since then, the hobby has gone back and forth, and different groups from different eras with different gameplay philosophies have merged (to mixed success). There are still some of the old-school adversarial GMs who like messing with players, but they're mixed with the newer-school GMs who treat the game like an exercise in collaborative storytelling, and the true role-playing GMs who try their best to arbitrate impartially.
> 
> So it's not as easy as just calling out an adversarial GM as being a jerk, or a storytelling GM as being manipulative, because they may be doing everything right by their understanding. Even if you actually have that discussion and explain that you don't want to play that kind of game, and assuming they agree to change, old habits die hard and they may not be entirely aware of when they are doing those things. An orphan PC removes that temptation for them to mess with you; it removes the opportunity for them to fail as the GM. Or, if you have a mixed group where some players may actually _want_ that sort of engagement, it tells the GM that you _specifically_ do not wish to be treated in such a fashion; it's an easy way of opting out from that.




Yes, but I take it from your post that you specifically don't like that as part of the game, hence your backdoor approach to take it off the table.  It's really neither here nor there, I suppose, but my preferred way of dealing with it is playing with people that I already know won't try to make the game suck for me.  There often seems to be an unspoken assumption in RPG talk that you have to deal with players the way that they are and work around them.  While there's certainly some truth to that, especially of course, assuming that these players are your friends and you enjoy hanging out with them socially, there's also a great deal to be said for playing with people that have enough in common with you in terms of what assumptions they bring to the table about what the game will be like that instead of constantly fighting misaligned expectations, you're just on the same page to begin with.

There's nothing wrong with being discriminating and selective in who and how you spend your leisure time.  I'd wager most of us already feel like we don't have as much leisure and hobby time as we'd like to feel like it's a good use of it to spend it in a struggle session about the right way to play.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 17, 2017)

pemerton said:


> Upthread you talked about systems (eg Fate) that affect the way backstory is generated and incorproated into play.
> 
> There are also systems that affect the way family members are incorporated into play.



Which was a tangential aside, and you weren't responding to my post.

Whatever.  Your post came across as a non sequitur.  But pay me no mind; I'm not the stay-on-topic police.  I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from with that.


			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> I'm just responding to the post that its unfair that a player's skill should affect the direction and content of the game. That's not true in any other game I can think of, so I'm not sure why it should be different for RPGs.



I can think of plenty of games for which that's not true.  Pretty much any game that isn't competitive, including the ones that RPGs are most often compared to in those "what is an RPG" blurbs at the beginning of an RPG, like cops-n-robbers or cowboys-n-injuns.  There's no skill involved, because the whole point is for everyone to have fun cooperatively, not compete with each other.  How do you even have more skill at cops-n-robbers?  What skill?

RPGs are fundamentally unlike every game that YOU'VE tried to compare them to, which is why your comparisons fail to be convincing; they're false equivalencies.  Fundamentally, any GM who allows one player to get more "spotlight time" because of his "greater skill" is a bad GM.  The only skills involved tend to be 1) being a narcissist that hogs to the spotlight by nature, or 2) catering to the GM specifically so that he subconsciously (or even consciously if he's a REALLY bad GM) gives you more attention than the rest of the group.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Nov 17, 2017)

Hobo said:


> Which was a tangential aside, and you weren't responding to my post.
> 
> Whatever.  Your post came across as a non sequitur.  But pay me no mind; I'm not the stay-on-topic police.  I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from with that.
> 
> ...




For background, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] prefers Burning Wheel style games that involve a good bit of tension and competition for story direction.  From his point of view, skill at manipulating the game does earn you more spotlight time.  Really, for any story first style game, someone that it adept at pushing their agenda in play will more often than not succeed, thus earning more of a share of the spotlight.  But, as you note, doing this _intentionally _is more a sign of narcissism rather than how it should be.  Which is why I find the bald statement that superior skill should result in more spotlight time to be at least somewhat worrisome.  Acknowledging that social and interpersonal skills and interest in the game vary and this has an effect is one thing, but stating that those variances should be welcomed is against what I believe is the point of a cooperative game.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 17, 2017)

Ovinomancer said:


> Again, your choice of example is telling -- you picked a competitive game for your example



Backyard cricket isn't competitive. One person bats, with everyone else fielding, until that person goes out. Then the one who got them out (generally bowled or caught) goes in to bat until s/he goes out. Etc, until we all decide there's some other way we'd like to spend our time.

Everyone is participating, but those who are better at batting, bowling or catching will exercise a greater degree of control over the flow of things. That's not a normative proposition: it's an observation based on experience.

In RPGing, my experience is that players whose PCs are more vividly realised, whose interest in the fiction is greater, who declare actions whereby their PCs take charge of the situation, will exercise a greater influence over the flow and direction of play than those whose PCs are ciphers, whose interest in the fiction is only passing, and who dont' declare actions for their PCs.

That's not normative; it's an observation. 

   [MENTION=32740]Man in the Funny Hat[/MENTION] asked "Because other players are better roleplayers are they to be given all the attention and glory at the cost of always relegating other PC's to token importance and easily replaced by any other disposable character?" Putting the hyberbolic rhetoric to one side (there is little glory in RPGing; and the question is more interesting if we ignore the "always" and just consider it as "sometimes), that's a serious question. MitFH clearly thinks the answer is "no" - that the GM should modulate the fiction so that those players who lack skill as roleplayers get comparable spotlight on their PCs, and don't have less influence on how the game unfolds.

I don't agree with that proposition. I want the players in my games to bring their roleplaying skill, to engage with the fiction, to drive things via their PCs (including their PC backstories). One consequence of that is a proportionate degree of influence on the game.

If some players are happier having a less prominent role, that's fine. If they want their PCs to be just as central to the events in the fiction, though, then they have to engage the fiction and try and drive it. My own experience, for what it's worth, that most peopel who enjoy RPGing can do this if they try, because their enjoyment of RPGing is one manifestation of a broader enjoyment of stories and of characters.

EDIT: A further thought triggered by  [MENTION=2205]Hobo[/MENTION]'s post.

There is an approach to RPGing which downplays story and character, and amplifies the wargaming/tactical element. Gygax advocates for this in his PHB (towards the end of the book, under the "Successful Adventures" heading). In D&D, an important element of doing this is planning and logistics: choosing gear; choosing spell load out; mapping well; having a good familiarity with typical dungeon tropes; etc.

I've played a bit of D&D along these lines, and much more Rolemaster where this stuff is important.

Skill is a huge factor in this sort of play. In my experience, good wargamers often are good at this sort of stuff. And the skilled players - the ones who come up with the plans, who can map out effective spell load-outs, etc - exercise a greater influence over the shape and direction of play than those players who just go along for the ride until it's time to roll a save or an attack or whatever.

Whatever the vehicle whereby players get to shape the flow of the game - whether by the wargaming stuff that Gygax was into, or the character/story stuff that is important in "indie"-type RPGs - some players will be better at it, or do more of it, than some other players.

There are obviously standard social norms around this stuff - when I'm playing bridge or 500 with my hardcore friends I'll follow the play and count the cards more closely than if I'm playing with less serious players just to pass the time - but that's a general feature of all games, not just RPGs. I've played 500 with people who will hardly ever bid above six whatevers. Depending on the details, it might be rude to try to push every hand to some complex play at eight or more tricks bid; but it's generally not going to be rude to bid seven, even if that means the timid player doesn't win the bid. But in any event, as the example shows, issues around social norms in games - how hard to play with timid players - aren't particularly special to RPGing. Nor does the GM have any special role in relation to that when it comes to RPGing: if it's polite to open up space for a weaker player, well that falls onto the other players (to life their foot off the pedal) just as much as it might fall onto the GM (to provide that player with some opening).

But if the player doesn't bite (to mix some metaphors) - and I've seen this happen, especially in club-type groups with all sorts of people turning up - then there I don't think there is an onus on everyone else to play a tepid game so that the timid player isn't any less influential on the shape of things.

(And in my experience, some of those timid players are still learning the game, and will be looking for models of less-timid play that they can learn from; and some others aren't really that into RPGing, or take pleasure from RPGing that isn't connected to shaping the direction of play, and so won't mind that others have more influence. If there are timid players who aren't interesting in engaging and driving the fiction, and yet want the fiction to invovle their PCs to the same extent of the PCs of others - they seem, in effect, to be asking the GM to control the fiction and tell everyone, including them, a story about their PCs. I personally don't like that sort of RPGing, either as GM or player.)


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 17, 2017)

Ovinomancer said:


> For background, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] prefers Burning Wheel style games that involve a good bit of tension and competition for story direction.  From his point of view, skill at manipulating the game does earn you more spotlight time.  Really, for any story first style game, someone that it adept at pushing their agenda in play will more often than not succeed, thus earning more of a share of the spotlight.  But, as you note, doing this _intentionally _is more a sign of narcissism rather than how it should be.  Which is why I find the bald statement that superior skill should result in more spotlight time to be at least somewhat worrisome.  Acknowledging that social and interpersonal skills and interest in the game vary and this has an effect is one thing, but stating that those variances should be welcomed is against what I believe is the point of a cooperative game.




Ah.  Well, that's why we have different tables, so different people with different styles can all have the game that they want, I suppose.  It strikes me as a big mistake, or disingenuity to talk about a Burning Wheel paradigm as if it is going to be commonplace in D&D, or have anything to do with D&D at all, though.  Unless, of course, he's proposing adapting some element of Burning Wheel specifically into D&D, which I did not notice that he is.

But I'm with you there too; that has nothing with how I play D&D, or for that matter, how anyone I've ever heard of who plays D&D plays D&D.  So at best, it's an odd non sequitur that will confuse readers rather than help them.


----------



## Caliban (Nov 17, 2017)

You don't need to be a better roleplayer to hog the spotlight at a gaming table.   A player's personal charisma and force of personality can override anything on their character sheet.  

Someone can build a combat monster with zero social skills, but still end up being the "face" of the party because the player is more proactive about talking to the NPC's than the person playing the bard.   (This can be because the person playing the bard just really isn't good at social stuff, or because the person playing the brute is hogging the spotlight.)

Or build a brain dead diplomancer (Charming but dumb), but still end up controlling combats because they are a better at strategy and the other players expect them to give them a plan to execute, regardless of what character they are playing. 

Some players are very willing to go along with things like this - they are just there to roll dice and hang out, they don't mind taking a backseat.   Others will be competitive about it and get annoyed if they feel overshadowed. 

All you can do is try to adjust the game to suit the players preferences and playing styles (and your own) and try to do better next time if it doesn't work out.  

We aren't professional actors (most of us anyway) or writers.   This isn't Shakespeare and it isn't a military wargame for high stakes.  Just relax a bit and try to have some fun.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 17, 2017)

Caliban said:


> You don't need to be a better roleplayer to hog the spotlight at a gaming table.   A player's personal charisma and force of personality can override anything on their character sheet.
> 
> Someone can build a combat monster with zero social skills, but still end up being the "face" of the party because the player is more proactive about talking to the NPC's than the person playing the bard.
> 
> ...



I would consider those to be examples of skill at roleplaying: the former is an example of what I mean by trying to drive or shape the fiction; the second (if combat is a tactical minigame of the D&D sort) is wargaming/boardgaming skill brought to bear in a RPG context.

I'm not talking about annunciation or funny voices. I'm talking about proactively engaging the situation with which the PCs are confronted. Doing that is a skill, and I think players who have more of that skill will typically end up having a bigger infuence on how things unfold in the game.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 17, 2017)

pemerton said:


> But if the player doesn't bite (to mix some metaphors) - and I've seen this happen, especially in club-type groups with all sorts of people turning up - then there I don't think there is an onus on everyone else to play a tepid game so that the timid player isn't any less influential on the shape of things.
> 
> (And in my experience, some of those timid players are still learning the game, and will be looking for models of less-timid play that they can learn from; and some others aren't really that into RPGing, or take pleasure from RPGing that isn't connected to shaping the direction of play, and so won't mind that others have more influence. If there are timid players who aren't interesting in engaging and driving the fiction, and yet want the fiction to invovle their PCs to the same extent of the PCs of others - they seem, in effect, to be asking the GM to control the fiction and tell everyone, including them, a story about their PCs. I personally don't like that sort of RPGing, either as GM or player.)




And this is why I ask questions.  Much more is now clear, and what seemed bizarre to me now seems... well, it's not really all that different than how I play, I probably just would have described it differently, maybe.  Player skill to me has ALWAYS had that connotation of competitive tournament style play that was briefly popular during the advent of AD&D.  Talking about the social dynamic between outgoing vs more introverted players is something that I wouldn't have called skill, but I see what you mean there.

And it's true that for every group there are usually a few people that are more extroverted than not.    [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] will of course remember the game I ran for quite some time a number of years ago where he and   [MENTION=812]barsoomcore[/MENTION] and their characters Lash and Ricardo basically "took over" a six character ensemble cast, drove the direction the game went, etc.  I did occasionally worry that some of the other players weren't getting as much of the spotlight as they should, but that's part of reading the group dynamic, I think.  The rest of the group seem to be as amused by the chemistry between those two characters as I was, and were more than content to let them do their thing, contributing to the development of the game as they felt like it, rather than jockeying for time in the spotlight.  When I tried to give other characters more opportunities to step forward, as often as not they passed, or just didn't do much with them.

I don't know that it was any _skill_ at play though, as opposed to their desire in that particular campaign, driven by a combination of personality, mood, and group dynamic.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Nov 17, 2017)

pemerton said:


> Backyard cricket isn't competitive. One person bats, with everyone else fielding, until that person goes out. Then the one who got them out (generally bowled or caught) goes in to bat until s/he goes out. Etc, until we all decide there's some other way we'd like to spend our time.
> 
> Everyone is participating, but those who are better at batting, bowling or catching will exercise a greater degree of control over the flow of things. That's not a normative proposition: it's an observation based on experience.



You have a very, very strange definition of competitive to not see that your description is clearly competitive.  It's a friendly competition, sure, but you only bat (the reward) if you defeat the current batter by fielding against them successfully.



> In RPGing, my experience is that players whose PCs are more vividly realised, whose interest in the fiction is greater, who declare actions whereby their PCs take charge of the situation, will exercise a greater influence over the flow and direction of play than those whose PCs are ciphers, whose interest in the fiction is only passing, and who dont' declare actions for their PCs.
> 
> That's not normative; it's an observation.



Your next paragraphs clearly state that you think it normative as well.  I'm confused as to why you'd post this and then immediately contradict it?


> [MENTION=32740]Man in the Funny Hat[/MENTION] asked "Because other players are better roleplayers are they to be given all the attention and glory at the cost of always relegating other PC's to token importance and easily replaced by any other disposable character?" Putting the hyberbolic rhetoric to one side (there is little glory in RPGing; and the question is more interesting if we ignore the "always" and just consider it as "sometimes), that's a serious question. MitFH clearly thinks the answer is "no" - that the GM should modulate the fiction so that those players who lack skill as roleplayers get comparable spotlight on their PCs, and don't have less influence on how the game unfolds.
> 
> I don't agree with that proposition. I want the players in my games to bring their roleplaying skill, to engage with the fiction, to drive things via their PCs (including their PC backstories). One consequence of that is a proportionate degree of influence on the game.



Meaning you think it normative.


> If some players are happier having a less prominent role, that's fine. If they want their PCs to be just as central to the events in the fiction, though, then they have to engage the fiction and try and drive it. My own experience, for what it's worth, that most peopel who enjoy RPGing can do this if they try, because their enjoyment of RPGing is one manifestation of a broader enjoyment of stories and of characters.



You cannot substitute desire for engagement with skill at engagement, though -- they aren't fungible qualities.  If you're defending the proposition that skilled players should be rewarded by driving the narrative more often, you're accepting that less skilled, but equally engaged, players will get less opportunity to do so.

Again, this doesn't surprise me given your choice of playstyle and your previous descriptions of how you engage it.


> EDIT: A further thought triggered by [MENTION=2205]Hobo[/MENTION]'s post.
> 
> There is an approach to RPGing which downplays story and character, and amplifies the wargaming/tactical element. Gygax advocates for this in his PHB (towards the end of the book, under the "Successful Adventures" heading). In D&D, an important element of doing this is planning and logistics: choosing gear; choosing spell load out; mapping well; having a good familiarity with typical dungeon tropes; etc.
> 
> ...



Again, you falsely compare skill to desire to engage.  You do this with your line about skilled players vs those that are just along for the ride.  What about equally dedicated and engaged players that lack the social and play experience to be considered skilled -- that have the want but not the ability compared to the other players?  Those should just suffer until they learn, right?

Finishing by again comparing to a straight up competitive endeavor (bridge) and noting you don't need to use as much skill with less skilled players to win doesn't really help your case.


----------



## Caliban (Nov 17, 2017)

pemerton said:


> I would consider those to be examples of skill at roleplaying: the former is an example of what I mean by trying to drive or shape the fiction; the second (if combat is a tactical minigame of the D&D sort) is wargaming/boardgaming skill brought to bear in a RPG context.




It's not roleplaying if my dumb barbarian with no social skills ends up negotiating with the foreign envoy because the bard literally has no idea what to say.  It's bowing to necessity.

Now, if I choose to negotiate and play up my poor social skills at the same time even knowing that it will probably end badly for us - that's roleplaying.  



> I'm not talking about annunciation or funny voices. I'm talking about proactively engaging the situation with which the PCs are confronted. Doing that is a skill, and I think players who have more of that skill will typically end up having a bigger infuence on how things unfold in the game.




It is a skill (or perhaps a personality trait).  It's just not roleplaying - you can do that without roleplaying, but ideally you do it while roleplaying.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 17, 2017)

Ovinomancer said:


> What about equally dedicated and engaged players that lack the social and play experience to be considered skilled -- that have the want but not the ability compared to the other players?  Those should just suffer until they learn, right?
> 
> Finishing by again comparing to a straight up competitive endeavor (bridge) and noting you don't need to use as much skill with less skilled players to win doesn't really help your case.



Bridge and 500 aren't strictly competitive. The partners aren't in competition. Yet all the same issues arise - how does one play, in a social game, if one's partner won't ever bid above 6 tricks because s/he can't read a hand, and the other bidding, well enough to understand how many tricks s/he is capable of taking?

Whatever the answer to that question - and it's utterly contextual - it is fully translatable to the RPG context.

Consider even a strictly competitive game - say, backgammon. How closely should I compute the odds when playing with a child compared to playing with another friend who is as into it as me? Whaever the answer - and again it's utterly contextual - that answer is translatable to the RPG context.

The person who is not as skilled might learn. Others might hold back (for a bit; sometimes; until they get tired of doing so; until the campaign falls apart - how can there be general rules here?). The group might separate into its well-suited components.

My time for RPGing is limited, and it's a fairly time-intensive activity (multi-hour sessions reasonably frequently). I want more than tepid play. So I'm not going to encourage my players to hold back.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Nov 17, 2017)

Hobo said:


> And this is why I ask questions.  Much more is now clear, and what seemed bizarre to me now seems... well, it's not really all that different than how I play, I probably just would have described it differently, maybe.  Player skill to me has ALWAYS had that connotation of competitive tournament style play that was briefly popular during the advent of AD&D.  Talking about the social dynamic between outgoing vs more introverted players is something that I wouldn't have called skill, but I see what you mean there.
> 
> And it's true that for every group there are usually a few people that are more extroverted than not.  [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] will of course remember the game I ran for quite some time a number of years ago where he and [MENTION=812]barsoomcore[/MENTION] and their characters Lash and Ricardo basically "took over" a six character ensemble cast, drove the direction the game went, etc.  I did occasionally worry that some of the other players weren't getting as much of the spotlight as they should, but that's part of reading the group dynamic, I think.  The rest of the group seem to be as amused by the chemistry between those two characters as I was, and were more than content to let them do their thing, contributing to the development of the game as they felt like it, rather than jockeying for time in the spotlight.




You know, I was pondering on that a bit as well, and, yes, a lot of that game did revolve around the characters Lash and Rodrigo, but I don't think it was because of lack of participation from the rest of the cast (and it would be hard to say JC or Anti-Sean were wallflowers).  It was more because it became more fun to torture Lash and Rodrigo and see what horribly bad choices they made in response than Lash and Rodrigo dominating the game.  The focus of that game shifted a good bit from the wonderful start you gave us into the continued antics of the incompetent minions of an evil overlord game.  The other players gleefully participated in making things worse, as I recall.

But, yes, a lot of the focus revolved around Lash and Rodrigo.  I don't think it was skill that made it so rather than a unique confluence of attributes and some rather intriguing characters.  I know that, as the player of Lash, I pretty much never felt like I was in control, but just reacting to a hostile world that, for some reason, hated me and didn't want me to be rich.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 17, 2017)

[MENTION=284]Caliban[/MENTION] - I think we mean different things by "roleplaying". I mean "playing a roleplaying game".

If the dumb barbarian with no social skills can _successfully_ negotiate with the foreign envoy, then I don't conlcude that player is a bad roleplayer. I conclude there is something wrong with the resolution mechanics.

But if the player of the dumb barbarian opens negotiations with the foreign envoy, which therefore shapes the fiction - in whatever fashion (perhaps adverse to the PC's interests, if the resolution mechanics deliver the sort of outcome we would expect) then that is the player shaping the fiction by engaging the situation.

There are obviously table norms around what it is or isn't polite to have your PC do - the player whose dumb barbarian torpedoes every social situation by "negotiating" with an axe is probably just a **** - but that's orthogonal to the current discussion. The reason for holding back there isn't to give timid players "spotlight" time, but a courtesy to one's fellow players who also have an intrerest in engaging the fiction with their PCs.

(Personally I'd go further than that - I think if the game system allows one player to generate a PC whose default modus is an axe, and another PC whose default is to talk, then the system should be able to cope with the motivational tension between these two characters without breaking down. Relying on social norms to manage this is a weakness in the system. But I think every version of D&D - even 4e - suffers from that weakness.)


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 17, 2017)

Ovinomancer said:


> I know that, as the player of Lash, I pretty much never felt like I was in control, but just reacting to a hostile world that, for some reason, hated me and didn't want me to be rich.



Well, you certainly got your revenge on the world, when your party destroyed it rather than saving it, and then wandered off into the blazing nuclear sunset of a burning world whistling unconcerned, completely sure that releasing the demons who had been trapped below the surface and were now free to wander it at will would have no real effect on YOU. And if everyone else burned; well, so what?  They had it coming!


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 17, 2017)

pemerton said:


> There are obviously table norms around what it is or isn't polite to have your PC do - the player whose dumb barbarian torpedoes every social situation by "negotiating" with an axe is probably just a **** - but that's orthogonal to the current discussion. The reason for holding back there isn't to give timid players "spotlight" time, but a courtesy to one's fellow players who also have an intrerest in engaging the fiction with their PCs.
> 
> (Personally I'd go further than that - I think if the game system allows one player to generate a PC whose default modus is an axe, and another PC whose default is to talk, then the system should be able to cope with the motivational tension between these two characters without breaking down. Relying on social norms to manage this is a weakness in the system. But I think every version of D&D - even 4e - suffers from that weakness.)



And that's where we part ways again.  I don't think that's orthogonal to the discussion at all; it IS the discussion.  And I STRONGLY disagree with looking for a system solution to perceived social issues at the table.  Gaming is fundamentally a social pastime, even more than it is a "game", in my experience.  Attempting to patch over social issues with rules is a little ... spectrumish for my taste.  I would hate it.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Nov 17, 2017)

pemerton said:


> Bridge and 500 aren't strictly competitive. The partners aren't in competition. Yet all the same issues arise - how does one play, in a social game, if one's partner won't ever bid above 6 tricks because s/he can't read a hand, and the other bidding, well enough to understand how many tricks s/he is capable of taking?



Yes, the fact there aren't tournaments with cash prizes for the winners does go a long way to showing they aren't competitive games.

...

...

/sarcasm



> Whatever the answer to that question - and it's utterly contextual - it is fully translatable to the RPG context.



No, it isn't.



> Consider even a strictly competitive game - say, backgammon. How closely should I compute the odds when playing with a child compared to playing with another friend who is as into it as me? Whaever the answer - and again it's utterly contextual - that answer is translatable to the RPG context.



No, it isn't.



> The person who is not as skilled might learn. Others might hold back (for a bit; sometimes; until they get tired of doing so; until the campaign falls apart - how can there be general rules here?). The group might separate into its well-suited components.
> 
> My time for RPGing is limited, and it's a fairly time-intensive activity (multi-hour sessions reasonably frequently). I want more than tepid play. So I'm not going to encourage my players to hold back.



No one claimed you should.  However, as DM, you should take some effort to shine the spotlight on the less skilled players.  Or accept that you're actually playing a competitive game.  Which is fine, no one says you can't.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Nov 17, 2017)

Hobo said:


> Well, you certainly got your revenge on the world, when your party destroyed it rather than saving it, and then wandered off into the blazing nuclear sunset of a burning world whistling unconcerned, completely sure that releasing the demons who had been trapped below the surface and were now free to wander it at will would have no real effect on YOU. And if everyone else burned; well, so what?  They had it coming!




We weren't getting _paid _to save the world, just to deliver the weapons of mass destruction to the people planning on using them for genocide.  The fact we picked up that Demon Queen hitchhiker and tried and failed to leverage a big payday out of it is beside the point.  If you ask me, maybe the world deserved it.  Honestly, any world that picks that crew to be it's heroes deserves a lot worse than it got.  We did the world a service, actually, and we should be paid for it.  Handsomely.


EDIT:  I miss playing Lash.


----------



## Caliban (Nov 17, 2017)

pemerton said:


> [MENTION=284]Caliban[/MENTION] - I think we mean different things by "roleplaying". I mean "playing a roleplaying game".




Yeah, to me "roleplaying" is "playing the role of your character".  

What you are calling "roleplaying" I would call simply "Playing the game" - even if it means doing things that would be out of character for your PC in order for the group to succeed at their current quest/goal/mission.     

Ideally you do both at the same time, but sometimes you have to choose to focus on one over the other.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 17, 2017)

Ovinomancer said:


> Yes, the fact there aren't tournaments with cash prizes for the winners does go a long way to showing they aren't competitive games.



Huh? Do your play bridge or 500? The partners aren't in competition - they are cooperating in the bidding, and in 500 are cooperating in the play.

The fact that they're cooperating doesn't change the fact that questions of player skill, and how to handle it in a social context, come up. And it's not as simple as just allowing the more timid player some spotlight time. I've played with partners who _want_ me to steer the bidding for our partnership, because they (i) want the pleasure of winning, and (ii) want to learn how to play the game, and therefore are happy to have a model.

In the RPG context, the analogue is that of letting the skilled wargamer make suggestions about spell load-out; or about combat tactics. That happens from time-to-time in RPGing, and has nothing to do with whether or not the game is competitive.



Ovinomancer said:


> However, as DM, you should take some effort to shine the spotlight on the less skilled players.  Or accept that you're actually playing a competitive game.



Why is it up to the GM and not up to the other players? Or up to the less skilled player to make some sort of move?

The GM has a a certain role in the way the game unfolds, but isn't a chaperone. The GM can frame situations that speak to the concerns of the less-skilled player, but if that player doesn't follow up (because s/he doesn't know how to, or is to scared to) then the focus is fairly quickly going to swing back onto a player who is ready to engage the game. And that has nothing to do with competition.

(Of course you can avoid the above dynamic by avoiding player impact on the shape and direction of the game, and just having the GM tell the players stories about their PCs. But personally I don't like that style of RPGing.)


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 17, 2017)

pemerton said:


> Huh? Do your play bridge or 500? The partners aren't in competition - they are cooperating in the bidding, and in 500 are cooperating in the play.
> 
> The fact that they're cooperating doesn't change the fact that questions of player skill, and how to handle it in a social context, come up. And it's not as simple as just allowing the more timid player some spotlight time. I've played with partners who _want_ me to steer the bidding for our partnership, because they (i) want the pleasure of winning, and (ii) want to learn how to play the game, and therefore are happy to have a model.



LOL.  It's not a competition; we just want to win!

I mean, c'mon.  When people tell me "Not everything has to be a competition!" I usually respond with something like, "That's why you're losing, loser!" but that's a JOKE.  I don't literally believe that.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 17, 2017)

Hobo said:


> I STRONGLY disagree with looking for a system solution to perceived social issues at the table.  Gaming is fundamentally a social pastime, even more than it is a "game", in my experience.  Attempting to patch over social issues with rules is a little ... spectrumish for my taste.  I would hate it.



Social issue: who gets to decide whether their's an orc in the room? And if there is, who gets to decide if the adventurer's attack it? And if they do, who gets to decide what happens to the orc?

System answers those questions: the GM decides what's in the room; the players decide what their PCs do; the resolution mechanics decides what happens to orcs that get attacked.

Social issue: A's barbarian wants to attack; B's swordthane wants to negotiate. System can answer that question to, eg by allowing B to declare some sort of reaction to A's declaration of an attack. Or by establishing parameters in which the players can expect competition and/or cooperation between PCs, and which guide the referee in framing situations that work within those parameters (some Fate aspects might work to help with those parameters; D&D alignment probably can too, though not as robustly in my personal experience).


----------



## pemerton (Nov 17, 2017)

Hobo said:


> LOL.  It's not a competition; we just want to win!



The parnters aren't in competition with one another. Do you play bridge or five hundred? Do you know how bidding works? The players (with partners sitting opposite) take turns to bid, with the successful bid binding the partnership. So bidding is competitive against the other partnership, and cooperative with one's partner.

In bridge pay is cooperative for the partnership that loses the bid, but not for the winner (who plays their hand and the dummy). In 500 play is cooperative for both partnerships.

Yet the social issue of timid players, and how to handle them, can arise in the context of a partnership. (I know; I've experienced it.) The fact that the partners aren't in competition doesn't make it any less. Some timid partners like playing with a strong partner who will dominate the play of their partnership and win the hand; other timid partners get resentful if their parner dominates play in that way, as they feel embarrased/shown up/that their participation didn't really matter (and that perception can often be correct).

Those social issues are not obviated by the fact that the partners are not competing with one another. And the dynamic is no different from D&D - does the timid player who can't do maths, never remembers the spell lists and forgets about his/her PC's magic items want the skilled wargamer to take charge (so the PCs beat the monsters); or will s/he be resentful, and rather make his/her own choices even though they lead to failure in the adventure?

There's no general answer to that question - it's utterly contextual, and the contrast of competitive/cooperative doesn't shed any light on that context. There's no general truth to the claim that the GM should make sure the player choices don't matter, so that the PCs will succed in the adventure whatever choices the timid player makes, or even if s/he doesn't choose at all but just dithers.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Nov 17, 2017)

Whoa, whoa, whoa.   Backstory?  What is this you speak of?  

Usually half my players don't even have names for their PC when we start the first session.  Never encountered this mythical "backstory".  Heard some goths playing Vampire at the game store talking about it once but I thought they were just on drugs. 

I would hope a player with all this "backstory" woudn't get too upset if a pit trap and a stirge killed his PC in the first session.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 17, 2017)

pemerton said:


> Social issue: who gets to decide whether their's an orc in the room? And if there is, who gets to decide if the adventurer's attack it? And if they do, who gets to decide what happens to the orc?
> 
> System answers those questions: the GM decides what's in the room; the players decide what their PCs do; the resolution mechanics decides what happens to orcs that get attacked.




This isn't helping rebut my claim that this whole discussion is veering into spectrum territory.  Quite the opposite.  Do you have a system to decide where to go out to eat with your friends too?  And what everyone will order?  Is there a rulebook for that? Is this a RAW dinner, or do you have documented house rules?



pemerton said:


> The parnters aren't in competition with one another. Do you play bridge or five hundred? Do you know how bidding works?



Yes, yes, yes but the _GAME_ is a competitive one.  I think this is your disconnect with the conversation that the rest of us are apparently having; you can't divorce the concept of "game" from some endeavor where you try to "win."  That's why you keep making comparisons that are false equivalencies from our point of view and have little to do with what we're talking about. You keep saying things like "the dynamic is no different from D&D" and the rest of us keep saying... "uh, yeah, they actually have very little in common."  From your perspective, it's all about "what are the rules to play this game?"  From our perspective, it's a much more casual; "hang around with your friends rolling some dice and having fun."  Superficially they may be very similar, but the paradigm applied is light-years apart.  Social issues can only successfully be resolved socially.  Trying to make "rules" for them or force them into a "system" is how you reliably fail.



pemerton said:


> There's no general truth to the claim that the GM should make sure the player choices don't matter, so that the PCs will succed in the adventure whatever choices the timid player makes, or even if s/he doesn't choose at all but just dithers.



OK, that really _is_ a non sequitur.  Either that or a strawman.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Nov 17, 2017)

pemerton said:


> Huh? Do your play bridge or 500? The partners aren't in competition - they are cooperating in the bidding, and in 500 are cooperating in the play.
> 
> The fact that they're cooperating doesn't change the fact that questions of player skill, and how to handle it in a social context, come up. And it's not as simple as just allowing the more timid player some spotlight time. I've played with partners who _want_ me to steer the bidding for our partnership, because they (i) want the pleasure of *winning*, and (ii) want to learn how to play the game, and therefore are happy to have a model.
> 
> In the RPG context, the analogue is that of letting the skilled wargamer make suggestions about spell load-out; or about combat tactics. That happens from time-to-time in RPGing, and has nothing to do with whether or not the game is competitive.



There's this word, right in the middle there, that completely deflates your attempt to call bridge a non-competitive game.  I bolded it for you.



> Why is it up to the GM and not up to the other players? Or up to the less skilled player to make some sort of move?
> 
> The GM has a a certain role in the way the game unfolds, but isn't a chaperone. The GM can frame situations that speak to the concerns of the less-skilled player, but if that player doesn't follow up (because s/he doesn't know how to, or is to scared to) then the focus is fairly quickly going to swing back onto a player who is ready to engage the game. And that has nothing to do with competition.
> 
> (Of course you can avoid the above dynamic by avoiding player impact on the shape and direction of the game, and just having the GM tell the players stories about their PCs. But personally I don't like that style of RPGing.)




Again, you're putting forth your competitive mindset story-first gamestyle and then trying to state that the play at your table is the way it should be.  YOU play competitively, but the game doesn't require that.  To make the point, the GM can frame situations to highlight certain players -- to call and play on the flaws and traits they built into their characters, and spread out the spotlight.  Tell me that's not explicitly what the gamebook tells GMs to do -- frame situations that put players into crisis by using their stated traits and bonds (I don't recall the precise terminology).  At that point, it is up to the GM to spread the love around the table and allow all players to have equal chances to play.  You might get the spotlight this week, Bob the wallflower next.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Nov 17, 2017)

I have one player at my  table who takes charge, comes up with plans, tends to let the other players know when they forgot something they shouldn't have and its affecting the outcome of the game.  Aka the opposite player in the group who has the memory of the guy from Momento and always forget that class feature X is critical for this situation and if he forgets it the party will probably be hosed.  He's been playing D&D since the 70's and while he does make an effort to role-play he's got a good head for D&D'isms and often will take over the spotlight simply because he puts in the effort to maximize spell load outs, gear, etc.  He's good at it and  I'm fine with it, and actually reward it.  Other players can rise and and get some of the spotlight but they tend not to, or come up with idiotic plans.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Nov 17, 2017)

Flexor the Mighty! said:


> I have one player at my  table who takes charge, comes up with plans, tends to let the other players know when they forgot something they shouldn't have and its affecting the outcome of the game.  Aka the opposite player in the group who has the memory of the guy from Momento and always forget that class feature X is critical for this situation and if he forgets it the party will probably be hosed.  He's been playing D&D since the 70's and while he does make an effort to role-play he's got a good head for D&D'isms and often will take over the spotlight simply because he puts in the effort to maximize spell load outs, gear, etc.  He's good at it and  I'm fine with it, and actually reward it.  Other players can rise and and get some of the spotlight but they tend not to, or come up with idiotic plans.




One of the best games I ever played in was chock full of idiotic plans.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 17, 2017)

Ovinomancer said:


> One of the best games I ever played in was chock full of idiotic plans.




I'd go so far as to say that almost every good game I've ever played in was chock full of idiotic plans, and the more idiotic the plans were, the better the game was.  It was a very reliable correlation.

Flexor's playstyle is also competitive (in a very different way than that advocated by pemerton) but both are equally alien to me.  I'd venture to say I doubt I'd enjoy either very much.  And they'd probably not enjoy me being in their games either, because I wouldn't take them seriously enough; I'd be the one screwing up all their "muh playing since the 70s" experience with some weird gonzo play that turns the whole campaign into what they'd no doubt think is a dumpster fire.

One guy once told me that our group was kind of schizophrenic; half of us wanted to play The Lord of the Rings; the other half wanted to play Epic Movie.  But he was wrong.  He was actually the only one who wanted to play Lord of the Rings.  The rest of us were all Abrahams, Zucker and Zucker at the Renn Faire.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Nov 17, 2017)

Ovinomancer said:


> One of the best games I ever played in was chock full of idiotic plans.




Sure, I've had great games where everything went wrong, and I've had games were one or two placers making stupid mistakes pretty much killed the night for everyone.  "Hey I loved playing this PC but you forgetting you can use Kung-Fu grip here got us all killed, thanks Bill, thanks a lot."  Though that is less bad planning than bad gaming.  Players do stupid stuff all the time, one player is prone to doing things like using a stream of blood flowing over a cliff as a type of slip and slide.  But thankfully some of the players keep that in check.


----------



## Lanefan (Nov 17, 2017)

Hobo said:


> I'd go so far as to say that almost every good game I've ever played in was chock full of idiotic plans, and the more idiotic the plans were, the better the game was.  It was a very reliable correlation.



There's only one type of plan that's better than an idiotic plan, and that's no plan at all.



> Flexor's playstyle is also competitive (in a very different way than that advocated by pemerton) but both are equally alien to me.  I'd venture to say I doubt I'd enjoy either very much.  And they'd probably not enjoy me being in their games either, because I wouldn't take them seriously enough; I'd be the one screwing up all their "muh playing since the 70s" experience with some weird gonzo play that turns the whole campaign into what they'd no doubt think is a dumpster fire.



I somehow think you'd fit in quite well in these parts, bucko. 

Lanefan


----------



## Tony Vargas (Nov 17, 2017)

Hobo said:


> Yes, yes, yes but the _GAME_ is a competitive one.  I think this is your disconnect with the conversation that the rest of us are apparently having; you can't divorce the concept of "game" from some endeavor where you try to "win."



 But there are both competitive and cooperative (not merely team) games.  In team game you have some players cooperating to win in a competition against another team(s).  In a cooperative game, everyone playing is trying to win, in essence, playing against the game.  

RPGs are cooperative games as far as the players are concerned, though the DM's approach can make them more competitive or team-like, in that the DM can be more like a player, or more like a referee, or more like an opposing team.



Caliban said:


> What you are calling "roleplaying" I would call simply "Playing the game"



 Well, it is a Role-Playing Game.  RP in that context is playing the game, prettymuch tautologically.  That can be contrasted to roleplaying in other contexts, like therapy or fetish scenes.

But attempting to tease the RP out of RPG is like teasing out the Game - what you're left with isn't an RPG anymore.



> - even if it means doing things that would be out of character for your PC in order for the group to succeed at their current quest/goal/mission.
> Ideally you do both at the same time, but sometimes you have to choose to focus on one over the other.



One of the points pemerton made was that if the best way to help the group succeed was to do something wildly out of character for the PC - the dumb barbarian playing masterful politics - it's a problem with the game, not the emphasis of the player.


----------



## Caliban (Nov 17, 2017)

Tony Vargas said:


> Well, it is a Role-Playing Game.  RP in that context is playing the game, prettymuch tautologically.  That can be contrasted to roleplaying in other contexts, like therapy or fetish scenes.
> 
> But attempting to tease the RP out of RPG is like teasing out the Game - what you're left with isn't an RPG anymore.




I can pretty confidently say that some people play D&D, but don't really "roleplay" - they treat it more as a tactical combat game and are just passing time in between combats.   They just want roll dice, kill things, and increment a few numbers on their character sheet.   Or solve whatever puzzle or challenge is facing the party with the minimum of social interaction. 

Not necessarily a bad thing, but it can get annoying when they don't want anyone else to roleplay either and act annoyed and impatient at how the game is dragging with everyone talking instead getting on with it.

Most people are not like this, but I've played with a few of them.  They are a little more common in an Organized Play environment due to how regimented everything is.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Nov 17, 2017)

Caliban said:


> I can pretty confidently say that some people play D&D, but don't really "roleplay" - they treat it more as a tactical combat game and are just passing time in between combats.   They don't "roleplay" - they just want roll dice, kill things,



 That's playing a role.  The role of a remorseless killer, but a role, none the less.  ;P  







> and increment a few numbers on their character sheet.   Or solve whatever puzzle or challenge is facing the party with the minimum of social interaction.



 Seriously, though, RP isn't social interaction.  Social interaction is just one thing that the system may or may not resolve that well.  If you're using the abilities of your character and doing things 'in character' for it, you're certainly RPing, even if that in-character thing you're doing is hitting things with a big stick and that's something the resolution mechanics handle explicitly with dice & numbers. 

I think the line you're drawing isn't between RP and G, but between resolution systems that are comparatively simple, dice-mediated, and toted up with simple math, and resolutions that are punted to the skill of the player (not the character) and the judgement of the DM rather than the mechanics.  Calling the latter RP is misleading, it's more like breaking character since the player is no longer utilizing the abilities of the character.



> Not necessarily a bad thing, but it can get annoying when they don't want anyone else to roleplay either and act annoyed and impatient at how the game is dragging with everyone talking instead getting on with it.
> 
> Most people are not like this, but I've played with a few of them.  They are a little more common in an Organized Play environment due to how regimented everything is.



Sounds more like a pillar & style preference.  The player who likes fast-paced combat and simple, clear goals with a minimum of planning vs those who prefer detailed interaction in the social pillar, with more nuanced goals and exhaustive planning.  All are still roleplaying, just in potentially-infuriating-to-the-other ways.


----------



## Caliban (Nov 17, 2017)

Tony Vargas said:


> That's playing a role.  The role of a remorseless killer, but a role, none the less.  ;P   Seriously, though, RP isn't social interaction.  Social interaction is just one thing that the system may or may not resolve that well.  If you're using the abilities of your character and doing things 'in character' for it, you're certainly RPing, even if that in-character thing you're doing is hitting things with a big stick and that's something the resolution mechanics handle explicitly with dice & numbers.
> 
> I think the line you're drawing isn't between RP and G, but between resolution systems that are comparatively simple, dice-mediated, and toted up with simple math, and resolutions that are punted to the skill of the player (not the character) and the judgement of the DM rather than the mechanics.  Calling the latter RP is misleading, it's more like breaking character since the player is no longer utilizing the abilities of the character.
> 
> Sounds more like a pillar & style preference.  The player who likes fast-paced combat and simple, clear goals with a minimum of planning vs those who prefer detailed interaction in the social pillar, with more nuanced goals and exhaustive planning.  All are still roleplaying, just in potentially-infuriating-to-the-other ways.




Nope.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Nov 17, 2017)

Flexor the Mighty! said:


> Heard some goths playing Vampire at the game store talking about it once but I thought they were just on drugs.



 They were probably trip'n on "wheat-eye."


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 17, 2017)

Lanefan said:


> I somehow think you'd fit in quite well in these parts, bucko.
> 
> Lanefan




Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop huffing Mordenkainen's Krazy Injunction Potions.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 17, 2017)

Tony Vargas said:


> But there are both competitive and cooperative (not merely team) games.  In team game you have some players cooperating to win in a competition against another team(s).  In a cooperative game, everyone playing is trying to win, in essence, playing against the game.
> 
> RPGs are cooperative games as far as the players are concerned, though the DM's approach can make them more competitive or team-like, in that the DM can be more like a player, or more like a referee, or more like an opposing team.




Really?  There are cooperative games that are also competitive?  You mean like.... football or something?

Look, obviously I know that.  But what does it mean to cooperate?  It means that the PLAYERS cooperate to create an experience that they all enjoy.  That doesn't mean that the CHARACTERS cooperate.  How many times have you watched an ensemble cast movie, like Guardians of the Galaxy or something, where the protagonists are at each others' throats as often as they are working together?  In fact, I'd venture to say that that's one of the defining attributes of ensemble cast shows, in most cases.  There are very few exceptions.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 17, 2017)

Caliban said:


> I can pretty confidently say that some people play D&D, but don't really "roleplay" - they treat it more as a tactical combat game and are just passing time in between combats.   They just want roll dice, kill things, and increment a few numbers on their character sheet.   Or solve whatever puzzle or challenge is facing the party with the minimum of social interaction.
> 
> Not necessarily a bad thing, but it can get annoying when they don't want anyone else to roleplay either and act annoyed and impatient at how the game is dragging with everyone talking instead getting on with it.




Oh, yah!  I've played with a few over the years.  I have about as much patience for that as I do for the "D&D is SERIOUS BUSINESS and we're here to WIN D&D tonight, folks, so everybody bring your A-game" type of play that Flexor is describing.

But the beauty of all that is, as I said earlier, there are different tables.  They don't have to play with me and I don't have to play with them, and we're all happy because we get games that are better optimized towards the type of thing that we enjoy about the hobby rather than having to tolerate a whole bunch of what we DON'T.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Nov 17, 2017)

Hobo said:


> Really?  There are cooperative games that are also competitive?



 More to the point, there are also cooperative games that are not competitive.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 18, 2017)

Tony Vargas said:


> More to the point, there are also cooperative games that are not competitive.



Further to the point, social dynamics among partners in five hundred, among a team in football, etc, are very parallel to social dynamics in D&D.

If one person in the football team doesn't try, or can't run, or whatever, does everyone else stop playing as hard; or just work around the weaker player; or encourage that player to try harder; or . . . ? There's no universal answer to that question - it depens on context.

So likewise, if everyone gets together to RPG (as opposed to go to the pictures, or play boardgames, or do some gardening together, or . . .), and one person isn't trying, doesn't put forward a rich character, doesn't engage the fiction, etc, what do we do? I take it that [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] - and maybe [MENTION=2205]Hobo[/MENTION]?  - is saying it's the GM's job to make sure that that one person gets just as much spotlight/focus as everyone else. The only way I can see to do that is (i) to modulate (or even block) the engaged players' impact on the fiction, and (ii) to tell a story that involves that other player's PC (because inherent in the situation, that player isn't generating his/her own story).

As far as "winning is concerned": [MENTION=2205]Hobo[/MENTION], [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] - when you play D&D, don't the players cooperate to try and WIN the combats; to try and WIN the treasure; etc? At least as the rulebooks present it, and as I see it discussed on these boards, D&D seems to be oriented towards a form of success.

And if the group is not interested in PC success but wants to create an interesting or wacky story, is the meek player who doesn't contribute to that still going to get the same splotlight time? How.

And also - more to Ovinomancer than Hobo - you seem to be assuming that "spotlight" and the drive of story is zero sum, so that if player X has more player Y has less. That's not my experience at all - a game in which the players play rich characters that engage the fiction and drive things forward increases the intensity and drama for everyone.

In a similar vein - I prefer to play bridge or 500 with another player who knows how to bid, how to follow the play, etc. It makes the partnership better for both of us. Whereas playing with a timid partner makes for a tepid game. This is not zero sum either - it's certainly not about any sort of competition for spotlight time. It's about having RPG experience that are engaging rather than tepid or half-baked or primarily GM-driven.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Nov 18, 2017)

pemerton said:


> And also - more to Ovinomancer than Hobo - you seem to be assuming that "spotlight" and the drive of story is zero sum, so that if player X has more player Y has less.



 That seems like a system assumption in many cases, as well.  If a system employs 'niche protection' for instance, or has formal roles like 4e did, there's an implicit assumption that you'll be in the spotlight when your niche or role is needed, and languishing when it's not.  That everyone could be involved more or less all the time is harder to grasp - some players get it, the ones that are still engaged and feeling like they're shining even when they're the leader who's enabling the striker who's murdering the BBEG, some, sometimes, coincidentally, the one playing the Striker murdering the BBEG, don't, and feel like the spotlight's all theirs. 



> That's not my experience at all - a game in which the players play rich characters that engage the fiction and drive things forward increases the intensity and drama for everyone.



 You may have more experience with games that exceed the industry-standard.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 18, 2017)

Wait... So all of this and these attempts to compare D&D to every other game under the sun boils down to "I want to play with good players not bad ones?"  Well... Ok. Me too. 

I think somehow we've lost the plot on this discussion. Are you saying that you consider good players to be ones who have written a detailed backstory, or something?  Because my experience from both gaming and fiction both is that the most interesting and engaging characters DON'T need that at all.  I mean heck; for years Wolverine was Marvel's most popular character and they deliberately refused to come up with a backstory for him.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 18, 2017)

[MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] For old times sake, I rounded up some old blog post I made about Lash and Ricardo.

https://darkheritage.blogspot.com/2013/09/30-day-challenge-day-9-favorite.html?m=1


----------



## pemerton (Nov 18, 2017)

Tony Vargas said:


> That seems like a system assumption in many cases, as well.  If a system employs 'niche protection' for instance, or has formal roles like 4e did, there's an implicit assumption that you'll be in the spotlight when your niche or role is needed, and languishing when it's not.  That everyone could be involved more or less all the time is harder to grasp
> 
> <snip>
> 
> You may have more experience with games that exceed the industry-standard.



It's a cute line!, and I'll take flattery as cheerfully as the next poster; but I think there's some other disconnect going on here. (Also, maybe some of this should be in the conccurrent "living world" thread - many of the issues overlap.)

There seems to be a significant, but not fully articulated, premise underlying [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION]'s and [MENTION=32740]Man in the Funny Hat[/MENTION]'s posts. Here's a quote from the latter, which triggered my response:



			
				Man in the Funny Hat said:
			
		

> I've played and run PLENTY of games with gamers who simply DO NOT HAVE THE ROLEPLAYING SKILLS to support more than limited attention to their PC. Are they unworthy of attention? Because other players are better roleplayers are they to be given all the attention and glory at the cost of always relegating other PC's to token importance and easily replaced by any other disposable character?
> 
> I play AD&D. Ultimately ALL characters are disposable. I can't guarantee their importance or survival and don't want to. If I make one character overly important to events in my game then I can't be as neutral as a DM SHOULD be - the PC becomes critical to my ongoing plots and adventures and if they die those plot and adventures suffer or die along with the PC in question. Not at all fair or desirable.


This seems to assume that _the GM_ has "ongoing plots and adventures"; and that the GM is the one who "give all the attention and glory". And that the GM is therefore under an obligation to make each PC of roughly equal significance in the fiction. (I don't think Ovinomancer necessarily agrees with MitFH's further conclusion, that this equality of significance should be an AD&D-style equality of _insignificance_, but that difference is (I think) secondary.)

As soon as you think about the game from a player-driven rather than GM-driven perspective, that premise falls away. The player-driven game might be a Gygaxian-style one, where the skilled player/wargamer will tend to adopt a leadership role in determining logicistical and tactical choices; or an "indie"-style one, where the player who presents a rich character that engages the fictional situation will tend to shape the fiction, and drive it forward. Either way, it will be those players who tend to infuence and impact the game more heavily than the players who sit back and don't engage in the same way.

And as long as the game remains player-driven, the GM can't control this - in the Gygaxian game s/he can present challenges particularly suited to the timed player's character, but that won't guarantee that that player steps up; and in the "indie"-type game s/he can present situations that seem to speak to the timid player's character, but that won't guarantee that the player will bite.

Once we see the game as player-driven, we can also see how "spotlight"/contribution/attention is not zero-sum. If one reads the reports of the original Giants tournament, one gets the sense of a crack team of wargamers working together in a terrific fashion, with the whole of the play being much greater than the sum of the individual parts. Or when I think about favourite moments in some of my own games over the past several years, I think of moments when the players pushed their PCs, and the fiction along with them, in ways that created connections, and conflicts, and thematic moments, that made the stakes and the significance and the fallout for all of the characters greater than it would have been if just one player was doing just his/her thing with and for his/her PC.

By drawing, or at least trying to draw, the similarity (in respect of this issue) between Gygaxian play and "indie"-play, under the broader label of _player-driven_, I'm trying to engage with your quip about "industry standard" and suggest that it's not just about good vs sub-par games, but about approaches to how the game is played, and how the fiction is established and developed, which have roots in RPGing going back to those early D&D days.



Hobo said:


> Wait... So all of this and these attempts to compare D&D to every other game under the sun boils down to "I want to play with good players not bad ones?"  Well... Ok. Me too.
> 
> I think somehow we've lost the plot on this discussion. Are you saying that you consider good players to be ones who have written a detailed backstory, or something?



This post is long, but hopefully answers your question. I'm disagreeing with Man in the Funny Hat, and with Ovinomancer: I think there is nothing wrong with a player's investment in and commitment to play having an influence on the extent to which that player shapes the direction and unfolding of the game.

The alternative, which I think is strongly implicit in MitFH and (it seems to me at least) also implicit in Ovinomancer, is that _the GM_ drives the game, and establishes its direction and unfolding. I know that it is fairly popular style of RPGing (having its publication origins at or about the time of Dragonlance, and being the norm throughout the late 80s and 90s, and a basic assumption of adventure-path play). But I personally don't like it.

Whether players write long or short backstories isn't that important to me. What I care about is that (i) the player's PC has some clear drive or hook for me to respond to, and (ii) that when I do respond, the player engages in some fashion. This post, from the concurrent "living world" thread, gives some actual play examples from some of my first sessions over the past few years:

[sblock]







pemerton said:


> I thought I gave some examles upthread that answer the last question (maybe in some othe recent thread?). But anyway, here are four
> 
> First example, from my first BW session:
> 
> ...



[/sblock]


----------



## Lylandra (Nov 18, 2017)

Lanefan said:


> In context this sort of makes sense but my first thought on reading it was still "_Almost_ never?  Does that mean I should be calling the cops?".




To clarify: I am no GRRM of character backgrounds


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 18, 2017)

To throw out some personal examples here and I don't know if they support any particular poster's argument or not but...

I'm often the driving force in parties.  I admit to being something of a large personality, but like I discussed in a previous thread: I made adventurers.  Adventuring is a driving force in the PC's life.  So when there is choice lock or general indecision in the party, I will often have my character make dramatic decisions in order to push the game forward.  Sometimes by design, sometimes on accident, this gets the DM to put a spotlight on my character.  I get my PC into trouble sometimes doing this, but even when I do, _that_ gets the rest of the party to make a decision (often to come save my butt).  My goal as a player at a table is always to drive the game forward, my PCs desire mirror that in an in-game fashion.  But driving the game forward often means you end up in the drivers seat for the long-haul.  While this means you've accomplished what you want (the game moving forward) it also gives you control over if it keeps moving, if you take a detour, if you stop by a tourist trap or whatnot.  

When you're driving on a long road trip, you're often in charge of what food the group eats, what hotel the group stays at.  Sure, they get to eat, they get to sleep, but maybe not the food they _wanted_ or at the hotel they _like_.  At the same time, it is often easy for other players to be passengers.  The driver gets rewarded because they continue to drive, and the passengers well...get to come along for the ride.

It can suck sometimes, I try not to bogart the spotlight but I've played long enough that I _always_ know what I want to do, what my PC wants to do.  It's easy for me to sit in the drivers seat.


----------



## Lanefan (Nov 18, 2017)

shidaku said:


> To throw out some personal examples here and I don't know if they support any particular poster's argument or not but...
> 
> I'm often the driving force in parties.  I admit to being something of a large personality, but like I discussed in a previous thread: I made adventurers.  Adventuring is a driving force in the PC's life.  So when there is choice lock or general indecision in the party, I will often have my character make dramatic decisions in order to push the game forward.  Sometimes by design, sometimes on accident, this gets the DM to put a spotlight on my character.  I get my PC into trouble sometimes doing this, but even when I do, _that_ gets the rest of the party to make a decision (often to come save my butt).  My goal as a player at a table is always to drive the game forward, my PCs desire mirror that in an in-game fashion.  But driving the game forward often means you end up in the drivers seat for the long-haul.  While this means you've accomplished what you want (the game moving forward) it also gives you control over if it keeps moving, if you take a detour, if you stop by a tourist trap or whatnot.
> 
> ...



I know exactly what you mean.   My problem tends to be that I drive my own characters into their graves, at which point the 'passengers' get to loot me and move on...

What happens when someone else decides they want to drive, though?  When you've set a course for Calgary and someone else decides 'hell with that, we're going to Denver'.  Unless the party splits you've only got one 'car'...what then?

Lanefan


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 18, 2017)

Lanefan said:


> I know exactly what you mean.   My problem tends to be that I drive my own characters into their graves, at which point the 'passengers' get to loot me and move on...
> 
> What happens when someone else decides they want to drive, though?  When you've set a course for Calgary and someone else decides 'hell with that, we're going to Denver'.  Unless the party splits you've only got one 'car'...what then?
> 
> Lanefan




As as DM, I won't run a split party.  (If Bob is on the left side of the city and Joe is on the right, that's different).  But if Bob is in Never-Never Land while Joe wants to go to Metropolis, I'll straight up tell them "I ain't splitting the party, pick one way or the other, any characters who refuse to go in the party's chosen direction get retired until the rest of the party goes there."

If someone else wants to take charge, I'll usually let them, provided whatever they want to do isn't inane and time-wasting.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Nov 20, 2017)

pemerton said:


> Further to the point, social dynamics among partners in five hundred, among a team in football, etc, are very parallel to social dynamics in D&D.
> 
> If one person in the football team doesn't try, or can't run, or whatever, does everyone else stop playing as hard; or just work around the weaker player; or encourage that player to try harder; or . . . ? There's no universal answer to that question - it depens on context.
> 
> ...




Huh, you shifted goalposts and then made up a strawman for my argument that I already specifically addressed and refuted.  

Firstly, the discussion is on your claim that skilled roleplaying deserves to have more control over the game as a normative rule, not a player who's not showing interest in the game.  I addressed this earlier, when you tried to move the posts in your previous posts, and called it out.  If you'd like to have a discussion about players that aren't even trying to engage the game, we can do that, but it'll be boring as neither I nor Hobo are going to defend players that aren't trying to engage.  In the meantime, let's not try to pretend that all of the preceding conversation is about unengaged players instead of the matter it was about: you saying that skilled players deserve more spotlight.

Secondly, I'll thank you to not ascribe arguments to me that I've explicitly rejected making, as I have on the difference between player skill and player involvement.

Thirdly, on spotlight time: it is a zero-sum game, or close to one.  The attention of the DM adjudicating your plays is very much a limited resource, especially measured over the course of a session or three.  If one player is dominating the DM's attention to adjudicate his plays, the other players are not getting that time.  And that's what spotlight time is: a player's time where they are driving the story forward.  You can't just declare that it's not a zero-sum game without showing how everyone gains that resource regardless of who's currently driving the story.  You'll need to actually argue that position.  I've provided my argument above as to what spotlight time is and how it is a limited resource that must be apportioned.  Your turn.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Nov 20, 2017)

Tony Vargas said:


> That seems like a system assumption in many cases, as well.  If a system employs 'niche protection' for instance, or has formal roles like 4e did, there's an implicit assumption that you'll be in the spotlight when your niche or role is needed, and languishing when it's not.  That everyone could be involved more or less all the time is harder to grasp - some players get it, the ones that are still engaged and feeling like they're shining even when they're the leader who's enabling the striker who's murdering the BBEG, some, sometimes, coincidentally, the one playing the Striker murdering the BBEG, don't, and feel like the spotlight's all theirs.
> 
> You may have more experience with games that exceed the industry-standard.




Goodness, Tony, do you prefer the one or two knee approach?

And, no, it definitely doesn't assume niche protection.  Niche protection builds in a mechanical reason to share spotlight time, but it doesn't define it or mean that games without niche protection ignore the issue of spotlight time.  Rather, it's still on the GM to frame the story in ways that engage players through their characters, using the characters traits, flaws, desires, etc.  In games that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] likes, this is explicitly built into the game, as characters have mechanically important handles built into them that are designed to be leveraged by both the GM and player to move the story forward.  The GM's job is to frame situations that engage those handles, the player's job is to not avoid that engagement.  If one player is jumping in and forcing the story towards their handles, the GM can, and should, introduce elements that engage other players as well.  If the GM is allowing a player to dominate the game in Burning Wheel, for instance, it's because the GM is failing to use the tools made explicitly available to engage with the other players -- the GM is allowing this to happen.

This, of course, addresses issues with players that care and are engaged and want to play.  If a player doesn't want to engage, then they aren't going to engage.  But that's not a matter of skill, it's a matter of caring.  When discussing skill alone, the GM has a duty to engage those players as well.

Again, if @permeton wants to make the argument that disinterested and unengaged players should get as much spotlight time as engaged and interested players, there will be much less of a discussion -- more of a general agreement with an obvious statement.  Instead he staked the position that displayed skill should be rewarded with extra attention as a matter of course, to which I do take exception.  Assuming equal levels of interest, skill may result in more _success_, but it shouldn't result in more _spotlight_.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Nov 20, 2017)

pemerton said:


> It's a cute line!, and I'll take flattery as cheerfully as the next poster; but I think there's some other disconnect going on here. (Also, maybe some of this should be in the conccurrent "living world" thread - many of the issues overlap.)
> 
> There seems to be a significant, but not fully articulated, premise underlying [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION]'s and [MENTION=32740]Man in the Funny Hat[/MENTION]'s posts. Here's a quote from the latter, which triggered my response:
> 
> ...





And, again, you're supplying an argument of mine I didn't make, and that I took pains to actually couch in the terms of the story-first style games you play.  Nothing in my argument relying on system, or hidden GM information -- it's entirely as compatible with DM driven story 5e as it is with Burning Wheel.  That you'd, again, separate this into your favorite mantra of 'systems matter' and assign me a side so that you can dismiss my arguments is par for the course.

To, again, put it into your preferred playstyle, characters have mechanical hooks and the GM should engage them.  If a player is dominating play, there's every reason for the GM to frame the next crisis as focusing on another character's hooks to bring them into conflict with the gameworld.  Even if you drive a scene, that doesn't mean you should also get to drive the next scene, even if your scene sets some or even most of the framework for the next scene's crisis.

Again, skilled play may determine success, but it shouldn't determine spotlight.  I'll expound a moment: as a skilled player you may achieve your desired goal from a contest or challenge more often than an unskilled player, but the next scene may not engage your character at all but instead engage the unskilled player.  They, being unskilled, may not achieve success, but the spotlight was still on them for that scene.  Being skilled may mean you get outcomes you prefer more often, but it shouldn't mean that more scenes focus on your character.


----------



## Mort (Nov 20, 2017)

Ovinomancer said:


> Again, skilled play may determine success, but it shouldn't determine spotlight.  I'll expound a moment: as a skilled player you may achieve your desired goal from a contest or challenge more often than an unskilled player, but the next scene may not engage your character at all but instead engage the unskilled player.  They, being unskilled, may not achieve success, but the spotlight was still on them for that scene.  Being skilled may mean you get outcomes you prefer more often, but it shouldn't mean that more scenes focus on your character.




I'll agree with this.

Though that leads to the question - What are the best ways for the DM to ensure "non-skilled" players share in the spotlight? Because, lets be realistic, if a player is skilled at the game they are also going to know how to get the spotlight at any given moment much better than someone who is not skilled.

Is this one of those times an out of game solution is best? Namely talk to the players and make sure that they understand you, as the DM, want a cooperative lack of spotlight hogging?

I've had the same group for so long, and they're all in sync with each other, regardless of game that this would be an interesting problem if it actually appeared at the table.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Nov 20, 2017)

Mort said:


> I'll agree with this.
> 
> Though that leads to the question - What are the best ways for the DM to ensure "non-skilled" players share in the spotlight? Because, lets be realistic, if a player is skilled at the game they are also going to know how to get the spotlight at any given moment much better than someone who is not skilled.
> 
> ...




Ideals aren't always easy to achieve, I'll agree, but they shouldn't be less ideal because of that.  If you engage a character based on things that character cares about, they get spotlight time.  If another player is expanding their hooks to the point their so generic they engage everything or that they now cover other characters' hooks so they can steal time, that's a player bad behavior problem that, as you note, needs to be addressed directly and with conversation.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Nov 20, 2017)

Ovinomancer said:


> Thirdly, on spotlight time: it is a zero-sum game, or close to one.  The attention of the DM adjudicating your plays is very much a limited resource, especially measured over the course of a session or three.  If one player is dominating the DM's attention to adjudicate his plays, the other players are not getting that time.



 That would certainly seem to be the case in a DM-driven style of storytelling and/or a heavily class-based, niche-protected game.
Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but even in that case sufficiently engaged players could still share the spotlight, making spotlight-seeking potentially positive-sum.
But, sure, if spotlight time is the DMs undivided attention, it's zero-sum, being limited by the length of the session.  I suppose it could be negative-sum, if divided attention occurred and was counted as no one in the spotlight...



> And that's what spotlight time is: a player's time where they are driving the story forward.



 That doesn't have to be identical with the DMs attention, though - in a system where all resolution is DM-mediated, perhaps, but in those that are more collaborative, maybe not...


----------



## Ovinomancer (Nov 20, 2017)

Tony Vargas said:


> That would certainly seem to be the case in a DM-driven style of storytelling and/or a heavily class-based, niche-protected game.
> Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but even in that case sufficiently engaged players could still share the spotlight, making spotlight-seeking potentially positive-sum.
> But, sure, if spotlight time is the DMs undivided attention, it's zero-sum, being limited by the length of the session.  I suppose it could be negative-sum, if divided attention occurred and was counted as no one in the spotlight...
> 
> That doesn't have to be identical with the DMs attention, though - in a system where all resolution is DM-mediated, perhaps, but in those that are more collaborative, maybe not...



You're attempting to make a distinction that doesn't exist.  Firstly, if I'm getting most ou'd the attention in game, you are getting less.  You can't also get as much attention because it's a limited resource.  You're going to have to show how all boats are raised by one player dominating the play.

This isn't to say that a group might over this play, just that you cannot define spotlight as anything other than zero sum.  You don't create more attention or story control by you having it.

Secondly, it had very little to do with GM driven or niche projected games.  I've spelled this out multiple times, even in player driven ganes the GM is supposed to frame situations so that they relate to player declared hooks.  The GM isn't told under those rules to only frame around those players that push their agenda or are the most skilled, they're advised to spread it around all players.  You could say that the point of the GM role in  those rules is to moderate dominating players and allow everyone a crack at forming the story.

So, no, it has nothing to do with the difference between DM driven and player driven games.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 20, 2017)

Mort said:


> I'll agree with this.
> 
> Though that leads to the question - What are the best ways for the DM to ensure "non-skilled" players share in the spotlight? Because, lets be realistic, if a player is skilled at the game they are also going to know how to get the spotlight at any given moment much better than someone who is not skilled.




Check out the run of Chris Perkins column "The DM Experience."  It's not the only thing that he talks about, of course, over 100+ columns, but he mentions it many times and devotes some columns to it entirely.



Tony Vargas said:


> That would certainly seem to be the case in a DM-driven style of storytelling and/or a heavily class-based, niche-protected game.
> Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but even in that case sufficiently engaged players could still share the spotlight, making spotlight-seeking potentially positive-sum.
> But, sure, if spotlight time is the DMs undivided attention, it's zero-sum, being limited by the length of the session.  I suppose it could be negative-sum, if divided attention occurred and was counted as no one in the spotlight...



Yes, you're being overly positive.  It's as absurd as saying, "the more money we spend the more money we have!"  I think you and pemerton are trying to redefine "spotlight" into something that resembles... I dunno; something that's nothing like a spotlight.  I mean; I see the point of "if you've got more engaged players, then it's a better game for everyone!" but that goes back to my earlier comment; if you're using specific vocabulary, but all that you're really saying is that "having better players tends to produce a better game..."  Well, yeah.  No duh.  But let's talk about the specific vocabulary, not redefine it to merely mean "good."  The spotlight is a limited resource.  Otherwise, it's not a spotlight.  It's a bank of floodlights.  And no game works like a bank of floodlights.  There's ALWAYS at least some element of spotlight.  

And class-based niche protection is completely unrelated to that.  What it seems like you and pemerton are doing, the more I read this, is attempting to coopt one set of terminology (positive sum?!) to describe what really sounds more like "a game where there are good players who are good at sharing the spotlight."  That doesn't change the nature of spotlights.  It just means that it's not an issue for you if your group manages it well.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 20, 2017)

[MENTION=762]Mort[/MENTION]  https://www.scribd.com/document/294290659/The-Dungeon-Master-Experience-Chris-Perkins


----------



## Mort (Nov 20, 2017)

Hobo said:


> [MENTION=762]Mort[/MENTION]  https://www.scribd.com/document/294290659/The-Dungeon-Master-Experience-Chris-Perkins



Thanks,

I'll take a look at it. 

Sent from my SM-G930V using EN World mobile app


----------



## Grogg of the North (Nov 20, 2017)

A paragraph is fine.  No more than a page, really.  However, as the campaign goes on, I try to ask questions to my players about their characters to help me, and them, learn more about their personalities.  I also ask for some sort of personal goal.  What do you do when you're not in the dungeon?


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 20, 2017)

I grabbed the link from an old blog post I made; I actually summarized the episodes too, which might help in looking for the ones you want.  I think there's also a handful that post date that link, but you can still search for them by title at Wizards.  I had very minor commentary on them, but you can mostly ignore that other than that I bolded the ones that I recall specifically address this issue either directly or indirectly.

-Surprise! Epic Goblins! — Go above and below the PCs level; not only to build verisimilitude and tension, but to also give the PCs challenges that they can't easily overcome, as well as opportunities to kick butt.
-Previously in Iomandra... — The quick summary the players need before each session starts; how to maximize.
*-I Don't Know What It Means, But I Like It* — use ideas as they come to you.  They don't need to be fleshed out to introduce them. You don't have to know where they'll go.  Throw them all out, see which ones the players latch on to, and go with it.
*-My Campaign: The TV Series* — how to adopt what makes good TV shows entertaining to your D&D campaign.
-Instant Monster — some specifically 4e related advice on how to reskin monster stats and make them up on the fly.  
*-Point of Origin *— some great advice on how to make player characters immediately latch on to the world as part of chargen.  Highly recommended.
*-A Moment in the Sun* — how to involve all of your players in the game, and give them all a chance to have the spotlight here and there.
-The Dastardly Duo — villain NPC advice.
-She Eats Babies! — more villain NPC advice
-Best Villain Ever — reader submitted villain NPCs
*-Man Down!* — when a player leaves the group (i.e. moving away out of state, in this case.)
-Big Map Attack — how to on making digital campaign maps
-Constellation of Madness — advice on being unpredictable as GM and giving challenges that challenge the players at least as much as the characters.
-Post Mortem — player character death and how to make the most of it
-Special Guest Star — a concept on having a guest player, and how to use them effectively to make the thing more fun for everyone.
-Popcorn — advice on using minions
*-The Wyrmworn Experiment* — working through an involving character arc (secret: it involves much less planning than you think, and no railroading...)
-Magnificent Minions — player submitted minions
-Joy and Sorrow — on the player contract, on mature players, and how to pull things off that challenge them without pissing them off.
-All Talk — on the combat-free session (and when to go ahead and indulge it anyway)
-It's About Time — using time travel to challenge your players (ed. no thanks)
-What's In a Name? — on names and NPCs and what kinds of development activities are actually useful to an under-preparing, wing-it style GM.
-Voice Talent — on modeling NPCs to make them memorable
-Intervention — the player who isn't on the same page as the rest of the group
-Maptism — site maps
-DM's Lib — don't over-prepare.  Don't railroad. If the PCs do something really unexpected, roll with it.
-Epic Fail — on how to turn failure into entertainment for the players anyway. (Hunt: without DMus ex machina to undo their failure, of course.)
-The Villains Fault — more advice on running villains effectively
*-T'wit* — on pacing and contraction and helping the players stay on track without dragging them to the game.
-Lies My DM Told Me — more great advice on running NPCs
-C'est La Vie — PC death (note: the assumptions are for modern D&D where resurrection magic is relatively commonplace.)
-The Invisible Railroad — it's not as bad as it sounds...
*-The Covenant of the Arcs* — building campaigns around "story arcs" and NPC motivations rather than hex or site based exploration or module running and railroads
-Setups and Payoffs — general GMing advice.
-Love Letter to Ed Greenwood — not as cringey as it sounds (although Perkins is also Canadian...) More about NPCs, really.
-3DNPC — effective NPCs.  Echoes some Ray Winninger advice, actually—specifically his Second Rule of Dungeoncraft
-Boo Hoo — on challenging the PCs.  A lot.
*-Catapult* — on risk taking as players, and how to manage as GM
-Lloyd the Beholder — on humor
-Event Horizon — on session planning
-Behind Every Good DM, Part 1 — player feedback
-Behind Every Good DM, Part 2 — more player feedback
-Riot Acts — on the three act encounter.  Highly recommended.  Brilliant stuff.
-My Campaign Has Issues — on political and social issues that are "real life"
-Player vs. Player — a specific kind of challenge for players.  Recommended too.
*-Real Complicated* — on planning pre-arranged complications, as well as taking advantage of opportunities for unplanned complications, that make the campaign more interesting.
*-Slave to the Rules* — on rewarding PCs for making bold decisions, even if the rules "should" make such bold decisions tactically or strategically unsound.  This is less an issue with a rules lite game as I prefer.
*-Unfinished Business*  — on PCs leaving behind certain plot hooks unresolved to pursue something else, and what to do to make that work out.
-Shiny New Thing — when another idea crowds out your love for your current campaign and tempts you to divorce it, or have an RPG affair.
*-The Circus Is In Town* — on having a bizarre collection of characters that look nothing like the population of the setting in which they are adventuring.
-Stephen King's Third Eye — advice from a popular writer on descriptions
-The Storytelling King — lots of DMing advice borrowed from the literary advice of Stephen King (and I will note: although Perkins is obviously a big fan of King; I am not.  But the advice is still mostly sound.)
-I Am Devastatorz Megabomb, Destroyer of Worlds! — when the PCs have a powerful artifact that changes their interaction with the campaign in potentially unpredictable (or at least unpredicted) ways.
-A Lesson in Mediocrity — on those sessions when you're just not on your A-game for whatever reason as GM.
-Waxing Gygaxian — dungeons for a campaign and GM that doesn't normally use dungeons (interesting for me, at least, since I absolutely fit that description.)
-Never Surrender — when PCs fight to the death... and die.  A lot of advice around GM/player trust as well.
*-Cuts and Splinters* — when the party splits, and a technique to manage without losing the attention of the guys not in play at the moment.
-Acererak's Apprentice — some dungeon concept ideas submitted by readers
-Kitchen Sinks and Frying Pans — encounter balance, and how it's been bad for the game
*-Ice Capades* — on structuring a session for best entertainment value to the players
-Know-It-All — on the value of an NPC that the PCs can trust to give them good information that helps the game progress when needed.
-Triple Threat — on GM skills, but especially the importance of improvisation
-Demigenius — on borrowing and kitbashing ideas to create something that feels fresh and original—without necessarily being really cleverly innovative or truly new.
-Extra Ordinary — on the uses of truly ordinary NPCs as "extras" to flesh out the campaign setting as one populated by things other than antagonists, patrons, treasures and monsters.
*-Stan! Down *— guest post by a player who died after getting himself into an implausible pickle, but how it was an organic and predictable (and predicted) outcome from choices that his player made over the course of many, many sessions of play, and how it's not good for GM's to save PCs from themselves (or their players.)
-The Moral Compass — on dealing with a group of anti-heroes, or even outright villainous player characters.
*-Whedonism* — (I also consider Joss Whedon to be vastly over-rated as a "geek icon."  Plus, he's a sexual predator and psychopath, as has been recently revealed.  But the advice is good, regardless of how it comes to us.) On challenging the players' expectations and surprising them.
-A Suite Alternative — a detailed rules-related article that only applies if you're using highly complex and complicated game systems (like 4e, in this case) but your style isn't really suited to that type of game.  I don't know why he wouldn't just change systems instead, but it is what it is.
-Die, DM, Die! — more complicated rules specific advice—this is all completely irrelevant for a player of old skool, OD&D or B/X level complexity games.
*-What's My Motivation? *— on working with the players to flesh out their characters and their connection to the setting.
*-The Well* — on dealing with long-campaign fatigue, on dealing with interesting (and unexpected) PC choices, etc.  Maybe a bit all over, but this one is really interesting to me.
-The End Is Nigh — on wrapping up long-running, complicated campaigns.  Highly recommended column!
-From Jose Chung — using pacing and structural elements from TV shows to improve the development of the session; treating a session as something equivalent to an episode of a complicated show (in this case, The X-Files.)
-Old School — an interesting discussion on the exact same sentiment that I express about myself as "I'm not old school, but I am old-fashioned."  Plus, some cringey name-dropped of perennial geek culture Fake Celebrities and all-around shameless betas Wil Wheaton and Ed Greenwood.  Luckily, that's a minor part of the column.  Blech.
*-I Got Your Back* — using history to inspire NPCs and plot hooks.  Coupled with a spectacularly misinformed and "spun" narrative about Sir Richard Owen as a devious supervillain and Gideon Mantell as a poor, downtrodden tragedy.  Nobody who's ever read a dinosaur book or seen a dinosaur documentary in the last thirty years should say that they've never heard of Gideon Mantell, fer cryin' out loud!
-Trust Gnome One — on player vs. player conflict (or more accurately, on PC vs. PC conflict, and how to make sure that it isn't actually player vs. player conflict.) Recommended.
-Leap Year — an experiment in advancing time one year after an extended period (4-5 weeks) of being unable to meet.  Advantages and disadvantages of doing something like this.
-By The Nose — as you might guess from the title, this is on "when to nudge the players."  Even the most self-motivated players will occasionally stall, due to confusion, feeling that they've gone into a dead end, etc. in the type of game that I prefer to run.  While it's not to be encouraged, helping them out occasionally has to be a tool in the GM's toolbox.
*-Necessary Evil *— on using plot devices successfully.
-Death-Defying D&D — another post where Perkins has to wrassle with the system not doing what he wants it to do.  Normally, I'd say these can be more or less skipped, but as it happens, there's some advice that is good here, even if you're sharp enough to either fix or replace systems that don't do what you want them to.
-Goldfingers — on tinkering with the rules; kitbashing elements in from other editions (or other games) mostly.  Fer instance; I picked up Action Points from d20 Modern (and then modified them significantly), Healing Surges from 4e, although I borrowed the concept rather than the specific rules, and Minions (also from 4e) and then grafted it into m20, which was a brusque restructuring and condensation of d20.
-Acts I, II, and III — on using the famous three act structure at the session level.
-Spin the Cliché — on adding twists to well-worn and well-known elements of the game so that they feel fresh and interesting.
-The Third Rule — trust issues with NPCs.  I gave some similar advice long ago here as well.
-Gang Aft Agley — sometimes the PCs do something so clever that they basically circumvent your entire adventure.  It's OK.  Think of it like when Indiana Jones shot that swordsman rather than having a big, physical fight scene with him.  Let them enjoy their little victory... for a time....
-Sudden Death — I'm not sure I can summarize what this is "about" in terms of GMing advice, but it's a great campaign story that can ring helpful in indirect ways easily enough. I also really like the notion of an "epilogue" session after the game itself has ended; especially if it ended, as it did here, with a tragic yet noble sacrifice; a Pyrrhic victory over the god of Undeath himself. Recommended.
-All Around the Campfire — a bit of a rambly column comparing D&D to the grand oral storytelling tradition.
-Lego My Ego — on common GM failings and how to avoid them.
*-Humpty Dumpty Conundrum* — on using your notes to prompt interesting twists on past events when your current events wind down and you feel stuck.  Recommended.
-Yippy Ki-Yay In D Minor — On the ways in which villainous organizations can be superior to villainous individuals—or at least offer things that the latter does not.
-Dial M for Melora — on using divine intervention as a play aid, and not a cheat.
-Unflappable — on GMing style, and rolling with the punches.
-The Old DM and the Sea — on learning lessons from various systems, and retrospective on 1st through 4th editions (at the time of its writing, 5e was in development.)
-Let The Conversation Begin — dialogue is the lifeblood of any interesting NPC, but it can't really be planned ahead of time effectively.  This column gives four archetypes to facilitate helping you improvise interesting dialogue.
*-Best Supporting Character *— some players naturally gravitate to a "leadership" role in the social dynamic of the gaming table, and become the "stars" of the show, while others will tend to fall into a slightly more passive supporting character role.  This is perfectly fine, as that usually fits the personality of the player.  But be aware of it, and pay keen attention the dynamic, and make sure all of your players are having fun, if you want to be successful as GM.
-Ulterior Motives — on creating NPCs that drive intrigue.  It's more of showing rather than telling, and although there's some good advice there, you'll still be on your own without too much of a road-map when all is said and done.  
-Where's the Love? — a brief flirtation (no pun intended) on the topic of romance in-game between characters.  This could have been really cringey, but luckily, Chris Perkins sees the issue as one that only rarely can be successful, and he's never really tried it.
-A World Worth Saving — make NPCs likable and competent enough that the players don't get sick of them and the whole setting, not caring to even save it when it's facing threats.
-Master of Suspense — on using suspense effectively.  Also, an example of an interesting epilogue for a group that made a heroic sacrifice; TPK to save the world.  Fun read.
-Make It Big — on boldness as a GM—make stuff memorable.  Great read.  I'm reminded of my own DEMONS IN THE MIST game, which in many ways was my most memorable; mostly because I wasn't afraid to do anything that seemed fun, even if it was well-beyond what staid, serious, Tolkien-loving D&D players would have applauded. (ed. This is the game I've made a few references to that Ovinomancer was in.)
-Where To Begin — the final column; Perkins talks about starting over.  Echoes of Ray Winninger's "campaign hook" advice echo here.  It's a short post, but includes a "campaign bible" for the next campaign he was to run using (presumably) 5e.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 20, 2017)

[MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] - you are drawing  distinction between the "timid" player and the "engaged but unskilled player" that is not clear to me.

To relate it back to the comment I responded to, from [MENTION=32740]Man in the Funny Hat[/MENTION] - "I've played and run PLENTY of games with gamers who simply DO NOT HAVE THE ROLEPLAYING SKILLS to support more than limited attention to their PC." The only skill required to get attention to your PC is to step up and engage. If a player steps up (to the challenge; to the GM's framing of the fiction) then s/he is demonstrating the required skill. If a player does not demonstrate that skill, then s/he is timid.

 [MENTION=2205]Hobo[/MENTION] - all metaphors, including the metaphor of "spotlight", have their limits. Concrete example: if the scene involves NPC X, whom PC A is sworn to kill and PC B is sworn to save; and both those PCs are present in the scene; then who is in the spotlight? Both, it seems to me.

That's an example of what I mean when I talk about non-zero-sum play. But you can't achieve that if the player of A doesn't provide the GM with strong hooks, or won't engage when the GM frames A into those situations - hence the connection between quality of play, and non-zero-sum-ness.


----------



## Sadras (Nov 21, 2017)

Apologies, a bit of derailment.



shidaku said:


> It can suck sometimes, I try not to bogart the spotlight but I've played long enough that I _always_ know what I want to do, what my PC wants to do.  It's easy for me to sit in the drivers seat.




I recently had the opportunity to play and discovered how much it (having to drive the story) can suck...to the point where I quit the group afterwards due to my personal annoyance at the other players not being strong enough drivers in a 2-hour weekly online game. The lack of driving by the group encouraged the DM to start over-hinting and laying down tracks and that was the final straw. I couldn't see myself continuing in such a game without causing issues, so I pulled out after 5 sessions.

I generally DM, and this opportunity arose for me to play. I decided to play a sage like character who remains very much in the background. Problem was my character was not meant to be a driver but as a player I felt compelled to fill that role since no one else was stepping into it and this was especially frustrating in a 2 hour session, as it can easily lead to nothing ever being resolved or worse, having the DM railroad the game.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Nov 21, 2017)

pemerton said:


> all metaphors, including the metaphor of "spotlight", have their limits. Concrete example: if the scene involves NPC X, whom PC A is sworn to kill and PC B is sworn to save; and both those PCs are present in the scene; then who is in the spotlight? Both, it seems to me.
> 
> That's an example of what I mean when I talk about non-zero-sum play.



 That's a fair example.  If two or more players can get spotlight time simultaneously, then the available spotlight time can grow with greater engagement.  If shared spotlight time is judged proportionally inferior, it stays stubbornly 0-sum.   If, as in the 'floodlight' example, shared spotlight time isnt spotlight time at all, it can be a negative sum game, with available spotlight time contracting with greater engagement.
It depends on judgements about the nature & quality of that time.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Nov 21, 2017)

pemerton said:


> [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] - you are drawing  distinction between the "timid" player and the "engaged but unskilled player" that is not clear to me.




The first is timid, the second is not.  The first makes no comment on player skill, the second does.  What, exactly is your issue with the two?



> To relate it back to the comment I responded to, from [MENTION=32740]Man in the Funny Hat[/MENTION] - "I've played and run PLENTY of games with gamers who simply DO NOT HAVE THE ROLEPLAYING SKILLS to support more than limited attention to their PC." The only skill required to get attention to your PC is to step up and engage. If a player steps up (to the challenge; to the GM's framing of the fiction) then s/he is demonstrating the required skill. If a player does not demonstrate that skill, then s/he is timid.




I'm left not sure if you're advocating for this position or saying that I'm advocating for this position.  If the latter, your complete wrongness on the matter could have been easily determined by the fact I didn't say that, another poster did.  Attributing the argument from another poster to me, when I've neither quoted or addressed it in any way, is super weird.  You should try not to do that.

Further to that point is the fact that Funny Hat has chosen, for whatever erstwhile and likely good reason, to block me, so i cannot engage in any argument from Funny Hat to begin with.  A second, easily avoided, failure on your part to assume that i'm familiar with or using an argument I haven't advanced myself.

If, however, you are endorsing this ridiculous definition of skill, then I'm somewhat unsurprised.  You've developed a habit of adopting very odd definitions for otherwise easily understood concepts so that your initial statements remain correct, so long as you use the now advanced strange definition.  And conflating skill with engagement is very strange, as the two are not similar at all.  This is easily exposed with the example of a neophyte player who is very outgoing and engaged but has no knowledge of how the game works (engaged, but unskilled) vice a veteran player with excellent system knowledge who happens to be shy and is now playing with a new group  (timid, but skilled) vice the player that just doesn't care to engage and would rather look at their phone (unengaged, who cares about skill?).  Wrapping timidity into skill makes the terms useless for discussion outside of the narrow application you're using, and, since those terms are not narrow ones, that's a ridiculous thing to do.

Either way, the issue remains with you, and not with me.  There is no conflation between timidity and skill in any of my posts.  I reject outright that the two can be conflated.



> [MENTION=2205]Hobo[/MENTION] - all metaphors, including the metaphor of "spotlight", have their limits. Concrete example: if the scene involves NPC X, whom PC A is sworn to kill and PC B is sworn to save; and both those PCs are present in the scene; then who is in the spotlight? Both, it seems to me.



What a strange strawman.  Of course all metaphors have limits.  No one claimed otherwise.  And, of course you can have shared spotlight, but PC C isn't very much involved in this scene, having no hooks with NPC X or hooks that engage PCs A or B in this scenario, and so he's out of the spotlight.



> That's an example of what I mean when I talk about non-zero-sum play. But you can't achieve that if the player of A doesn't provide the GM with strong hooks, or won't engage when the GM frames A into those situations - hence the connection between quality of play, and non-zero-sum-ness.



It's still zero-sum.  As above, PC C isn't getting the benefit of spotlight time because A and B are getting it -- A and B are consuming all of the spotlight (or the vast majority of it), and there isn't more created to hand out by their consumption of it.  Spotlight time is a limited, nonfungible, resource, so it must be zero-sum.  

Maybe you need to brush up on what zero-sum actually means.  This is a case where it's absolutely applicable.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Nov 21, 2017)

Tony Vargas said:


> That's a fair example.  If two or more players can get spotlight time simultaneously, then the available spotlight time can grow with greater engagement.  If shared spotlight time is judged proportionally inferior, it stays stubbornly 0-sum.   If, as in the 'floodlight' example, shared spotlight time isnt spotlight time at all, it can be a negative sum game, with available spotlight time contracting with greater engagement.
> It depends on judgements about the nature & quality of that time.




Except both players are really alternating the spotlight in roughly equal measure and not actually sharing it.  The narration of the story is still one author at a time.


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 21, 2017)

Sadras said:


> Apologies, a bit of derailment.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I tend to play high INT characters because (not to pat myself on the back) I'm a fairly smart cookie.  And I don't like the role-play implications of being dumb.  And yes I have had your experience before, wanting to play a back-seat sage or scholar type but due to the inaction of other players, I get pushed into the front seat and then I'm stuck there.  I think I even wrote a couple threads about it here before.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 21, 2017)

Ovinomancer said:


> Except both players are really alternating the spotlight in roughly equal measure and not actually sharing it.  The narration of the story is still one author at a time.




Exactly.  In good groups, with many good players, and a good GM who manages the table well, nobody ever feels like they're getting short shrift, but it doesn't create more spotlight.  There's still the same amount of spotlight, and it's still zero-sum, of course.  It's just a group that shares it well.

Which is, of course, a highly desirable state of affairs for pretty much any gamer, but I'm often both amazed and amused at the sophistry required to turn what amounts to little more than "having good players" to "a supporting argument for the kind of games that I like."  I normally see that kind of thing with sandbox purists, but—obviously—it's not limited to them.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Nov 21, 2017)

Ovinomancer said:


> Except both players are really alternating the spotlight in roughly equal measure and not actually sharing it.  The narration of the story is still one author at a time.



 That's an example of a  judgement about the nature of spotlight time - that it can't be shared, only divided into smaller and smaller portions - which'd, conveniently, make aportioning it zero-sum.  That has implications for the designer of the game (player choices need to be niche-protected and/or limited availability to avoid stepping on each others toes), and for the GM running it (scenarios should cycle each player through a roughly equal ration of spotlight time).  

OTOH, if spotlight time is considered shareable, then it's more important to balance player options than to segregate or limit them, and less important to shape scenarios around enforcing such limitations or pressures.

I don't think either judgement is invalid.  
The former can be seen very clearly in the design of D&D and some of the ways better DMs tend to run it - the way it looks when it's not working so well should also be familiar to anyone who's played that game - or listened to players complain about their DMs.
The latter seems like what FATE and various indie games games shoot for in bringing players into 'scene framing' and the like.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Nov 21, 2017)

Tony Vargas said:


> That's an example of a  judgement about the nature of spotlight time - that it can't be shared, only divided into smaller and smaller portions - which'd, conveniently, make aportioning it zero-sum.  That has implications for the designer of the game (player choices need to be niche-protected and/or limited availability to avoid stepping on each others toes), and for the GM running it (scenarios should cycle each player through a roughly equal ration of spotlight time).



No, it doesn't have an implication for either.  The former isn't necessary, although it does offer mechanical leverage.  But no more so that the traits and hooks built into Burrning Wheel characters and rules or even those in PbtA (through the class moves packages).  And, yes, a good GM should keep spotlight time in mind as a skill they need to hone -- it's not like this isn't one of the common themes in GMing advice from pretty much every corner.



> OTOH, if spotlight time is considered shareable, then it's more important to balance player options than to segregate or limit them, and less important to shape scenarios around enforcing such limitations or pressures.



No, I disagree.  Some of the story first style gaming systems do a much more thorough job of hard coding in spotlight apportionment and avoid balance for the most part.  Some of the DM driven style games do a great job of balancing between character options and don't pay any attention to spotlight time.

4e is a great example of the latter, where niche protections are weak, there's little mechanical drive for spotlight time, and player options are keenly balanced against each other.  But 4e runs fine without regard to your theory of spotlight time.



> I don't think either judgement is invalid.
> The former can be seen very clearly in the design of D&D and some of the ways better DMs tend to run it - the way it looks when it's not working so well should also be familiar to anyone who's played that game - or listened to players complain about their DMs.
> The latter seems like what FATE and various indie games games shoot for in bringing players into 'scene framing' and the like.



Again, you're trying to force a false dilemma on playstyle by defining how spotlighting works.  They're orthogonal topics, though.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 21, 2017)

[MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] - this whole discussion begain with a post from  [MENTION=6794638]MA[/MENTION]n in a Funny Hat. I feel it helps explain the strange turn the discussion has taken that you did not read that initial post, and hence did not know what I was responding to.

To reiterate - MiaFH contended that a lack of roleplaying skills should not result in a reduced lack of attention in play. I responded that roleplaying skill - and, ih particular, a engaging the game with a reasonably rich character who provides hooks to the GM - is a reasonable basis on which to generate attention. As such engagement will naturally shape and drive the shared fiction.

If you don't think that that is a skill, or that it's inverse - what I have called the timid roleplayer - is a lack of skill, well, fair enough. My own experience in a few different contexts makes me regard the ability to put oneself out there, by creating a rich character and then using it to engage, as a skill that can be learned and improved by practice.

(Obviously the dictionary definitions of "timid" and "lacking skill" are different. My poiint is that, in this particular context, they are coextensive to a significant degree.)

As far as your PC C is concerned - if there is a third player, who is engaging the fiction with a rich character who shapes and drives the fiction, then s/he may also find some way to engage in the scene I describe. "Spotlight", or what MitFH called "attention", can be shared - one person enjoying it doesn't preclude another enjoying it at the same time.

  [MENTION=2205]Hobo[/MENTION] seems to assert the contrary - as do ou when you say that "both players are really alternating the spotlight in roughly equal measure". Again, I disagree. Turning from metaphor to literal cases, there is a difference between a spotlight flitting from dancer to dancer, and a spotlight on a couple dancing together. There is a difference between back-and-forth cuts from the face of one actor to the face of another, and the shooting of a scene where both actors are in frame and one gets to see the two together.

To turn from "spotlight" to MitFH's word "attention": it is possible to attend to more than one character at the same time, if they are engaging the fiction together.



			
				Hobo said:
			
		

> I'm often both amazed and amused at the sophistry required to turn what amounts to little more than "having good players" to "a supporting argument for the kind of games that I like.



I'm not supporting any particular playstyle. I am simply disagreeing with Man in a Funny Hat that there should be no correlation between attention and player roleplaying skill. I think such a correlation is fairly inevitable in player-driven RPGing, and I prefer player-driven RPGing.

That's not an argument for player-driven RPGing. It's an argument _from_ player-driven RPGing to the falsity of MitFH's contention.



			
				Ovinomancer said:
			
		

> Some of the DM driven style games do a great job of balancing between character options and don't pay any attention to spotlight time.
> 
> 4e is a great example of the latter, where niche protections are weak, there's little mechanical drive for spotlight time, and player options are keenly balanced against each other. But 4e runs fine without regard to your theory of spotlight time.



I don't really follow this. 4e, at least as I've experienced it, defaults to a rather player-driven game (some better-known illustrations: player-authored quests; player wish-lists for one category of "reward"); and I think it illustrates  [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION]'s idea that balanced player options which allow players to engage the ingame situation together, in mutually reinforcing ways, makes spotlight non-zreo-sum.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Nov 22, 2017)

pemerton said:


> [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] - this whole discussion begain with a post from  [MENTION=6794638]MA[/MENTION]n in a Funny Hat. I feel it helps explain the strange turn the discussion has taken that you did not read that initial post, and hence did not know what I was responding to.
> 
> To reiterate - MiaFH contended that a lack of roleplaying skills should not result in a reduced lack of attention in play. I responded that roleplaying skill - and, ih particular, a engaging the game with a reasonably rich character who provides hooks to the GM - is a reasonable basis on which to generate attention. As such engagement will naturally shape and drive the shared fiction.



Actually, no, I followed that very well.  The contention is that skill shouldn't normatively determine spotlight.  You disagreed.  Totally on the same page.  I disagree.  The strange turn is really on your odd definition of skill.



> If you don't think that that is a skill, or that it's inverse - what I have called the timid roleplayer - is a lack of skill, well, fair enough. My own experience in a few different contexts makes me regard the ability to put oneself out there, by creating a rich character and then using it to engage, as a skill that can be learned and improved by practice.



And, here we end up with the subtle twist in meaning.  You start talking about engagement but end up talking about doing a good job engaging the mechanical levers of the game to realize your intent -- you swapped the goals from a measure of engagement to a measure of knowledge and skill at realizing that engagement.  That's the bit that doesn't work; you cannot measure willingness to engage with system mastery.

Being able to use the system, or manipulate your peers (as I'm fairly certain you do), to seize and hold spotlight time is indeed a skill.  It doesn't measure enthusiasm or willingness to try, though, and that's what was being talked about before you tried to conflate the two.



> (Obviously the dictionary definitions of "timid" and "lacking skill" are different. My poiint is that, in this particular context, they are coextensive to a significant degree.)



No.  Logical fail.  They _may _be coexistent, but one doesn't directly imply the other.  You can be skillful and timid, or not timid and unskilled.  To read this in the best light possible for you, it's somewhat fair to say that timid players will often not be afforded the necessary experience to become skilled.  But, to that point, opinions like yours don't help that not be true.



> As far as your PC C is concerned - if there is a third player, who is engaging the fiction with a rich character who shapes and drives the fiction, then s/he may also find some way to engage in the scene I describe. "Spotlight", or what MitFH called "attention", can be shared - one person enjoying it doesn't preclude another enjoying it at the same time.



Yes, it does.  What they're enjoying isn't the spotlight, it's the scene unfolding in the spotlight. Watching is fun, too, and, when you take turns being the focus in a game, you have to also enjoy those moments of story unfolding that aren't the ones you're driving.

I've had a massive number of moments in games I've enjoyed, and often I'm in the spotlight for them.  The side discussion about Lash and Ricardo that [MENTION=2205]Hobo[/MENTION] and I have be having contained a number of them.  But, the single best moment in a game I've ever been a part of my character wasn't in the spotlight -- I had nothing to do with that moment, but it was amazing.

I have to feel that your arguments regarding shared spotlight are a bodge that you're using to mitigate the fact that you think it's appropriate for you to occupy the spotlight as much as possible through manipulation and "skill" by saying that the other players are sharing your spotlight, so it's okay, they get your leftovers.  I disagree with this, both as a DM and as a player.  In fact, even as a player I help point the spotlight in other directions by encouraging other players to use their abilities and stories to affect the story that encompasses us all.  I help by not trying to take over when they are trying to work through a scene and by enjoying the failures as much as the successes.  Clearly, from my discussions with Hobo, I'm well aware that failures can often be as much, if not more, fun than successes.

   [MENTION=2205]Hobo[/MENTION] seems to assert the contrary - as do ou when you say that "both players are really alternating the spotlight in roughly equal measure". Again, I disagree. Turning from metaphor to literal cases, there is a difference between a spotlight flitting from dancer to dancer, and a spotlight on a couple dancing together. There is a difference between back-and-forth cuts from the face of one actor to the face of another, and the shooting of a scene where both actors are in frame and one gets to see the two together.

To turn from "spotlight" to MitFH's word "attention": it is possible to attend to more than one character at the same time, if they are engaging the fiction together.[/quote]
But if you're 'attending' to more than one thing at a time, we already have a concept for that: divided attention.



> I'm not supporting any particular playstyle. I am simply disagreeing with Man in a Funny Hat that there should be no correlation between attention and player roleplaying skill. I think such a correlation is fairly inevitable in player-driven RPGing, and I prefer player-driven RPGing.



I violently disagree with that.  This is an excuse for dominating the game and they laying blame on the other players for being not skilled enough to wrest control from you.



> That's not an argument for player-driven RPGing. It's an argument _from_ player-driven RPGing to the falsity of MitFH's contention.



No, it isn't.  Just because that's how you play player-driven games doesn't mean that's how those games are meant to be played.  In fact, most GM advice for those games on the topic explicitly mentions engaging player hooks through framing and doesn't mention letting that one player that is attempting to drive the whole game to do so if they have the requisite skill and the other players lack it.



> I don't really follow this. 4e, at least as I've experienced it, defaults to a rather player-driven game (some better-known illustrations: player-authored quests; player wish-lists for one category of "reward"); and I think it illustrates  [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION]'s idea that balanced player options which allow players to engage the ingame situation together, in mutually reinforcing ways, makes spotlight non-zreo-sum.



It does not default to a player-driven game, but it can be played that way.  It defaults to a DM driven game, as that's what all the adventure material published for it presents.  Ignoring that and that saying your interpretation is the default is a strong version of ignoring evidence to support your conclusion.  Again, 4e can easily work the way you play it -- there's nothing wrong with that approach at all and I'm glad you enjoy it that way -- but the overwhelming evidence is that its presented as a DM driven game.

As far the last sentiment, the idea that spotlight time is zero-sum does not preclude collaborative storytelling in mutually reinforcing ways.  Having never experienced a game run by either myself or Hobo, I find it odd that you feel expert enough to dismiss our games as not having these elements in quantities at least as great as your own games.  Having read some of your play examples, and having been in two of Hobo's games in the past, I can tell you that the level of collaboration in Hobo's games is at least as great as they are presented in yours.  Yet, he agrees with me that spotlight time is zero-sum.  Weird, yeah?


----------



## Lanefan (Nov 22, 2017)

Ovinomancer said:


> What a strange strawman.  Of course all metaphors have limits.  No one claimed otherwise.  And, of course you can have shared spotlight, but PC C isn't very much involved in this scene, having no hooks with NPC X or hooks that engage PCs A or B in this scenario, and so he's out of the spotlight.



There's a bunch of assumptions and implications weaving through here (and in other posts by other people, I'm not trying to pick on [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] but this post just happens to be the easiest to use as a jumping-off point) that are making this discussion into something it otherwise wouldn't be.

First: that being in the spotlight is the main - or only - route to enjoyment of the game.  Not at all true.  Player C in this case could be getting great enjoyment and entertainment simply out of watching the show being put on by Players A and B, and the DM.  And not just in this particular case, but most of the time during the game...that's mostly what keeps him coming back every week - the entertainment value of these guys.  (I've been Player C on a few occasions, where week in and week out the best part of the game was the entertainment provided by other players and all I did some nights was laugh)

Second: that there's this "spotlight" resource that the players (not characters) are actively and intentionally always competing for in a greedy sort of way.  While it's true that a DM only has so much attention to go around, it's not necessarily true that there's always (or ever, in some cases) active competition for said attention; and it's also not necessarily true that players are unwilling to allow the DM to focus on one player (character) for a while.  If a party sends their Thief ahead scouting, for example, that's the players in effect telling the DM to focus on that character and its player for a while and to ignore the rest of them as they have willingly conceded the spotlight to the Thief for however long it takes to resolve the scouting mission.

Second, part 2: that a DM can't divide her attention and-or focus on two or more things at once.  Some can, which implies there can be more than one spotlight turned on at a time and that, by extension, zero is a floating number. 

Second, part 3: that the only "spotlight" that matters is that of having the DM's attention.  It's entirely possible, for example, that two PCs (and thus players) are engaged in their own private discussion while the DM sorts out PCs three and four.  Here there's two independent spotlights - players one and two have one (their own discussion) while players three and four have the other; everybody's happy, and neither group sees or knows what the other is doing unless later narration makes it obvious.

Third: that system mastery is the measure of how "good" someone is as a player.  Absolute garbage.  One can be an excellent and engaged player, full of good ideas and creative solutions put forth by memorable and entertaining characters, and yet still not know what dice to roll when, or why; or how to roll up a character.

Lanefan


----------



## pemerton (Nov 22, 2017)

Ovinomancer said:


> the idea that spotlight time is zero-sum does not preclude collaborative storytelling in mutually reinforcing ways.  Having never experienced a game run by either myself or Hobo, I find it odd that you feel expert enough to dismiss our games as not having these elements in quantities at least as great as your own games.  Having read some of your play examples, and having been in two of Hobo's games in the past, I can tell you that the level of collaboration in Hobo's games is at least as great as they are presented in yours.  Yet, he agrees with me that spotlight time is zero-sum.  Weird, yeah?



Not that weird. You're responsible for your understandings resulting from your experiences. I'm just telling you mine.



Ovinomancer said:


> You can be skillful and timid, or not timid and unskilled.



Is there such a thing as a skilled but timid actor? A skilled but timid circus performer? A skilled but timid firefighter?

Some activities, to be done well, require a degree of non-timidity. Roleplaying - as in, engaging the fiction with one's character in a vibrant and fiction-shaping way - is one of those things.



Ovinomancer said:


> Just because that's how you play player-driven games doesn't mean that's how those games are meant to be played.  In fact, most GM advice for those games on the topic explicitly mentions engaging player hooks through framing and doesn't mention letting that one player that is attempting to drive the whole game to do so if they have the requisite skill and the other players lack it.



I don't know what GMing advice you have in mind. Here's some stuff from Burning Wheel revised (pp 268-69):

In Burning Wheel, it is the GM's job to interpret all of the various intents of the players' actions and mesh them into a cohesive whole that fits within the context of the game. . . .

Most important, the GM is responsible for introducing complications to the story and consequences to the players' choices. . . .

In Burning Wheel, players have a number of duties: . . .

Players in Burning Wheel must use their characters to drive the story forward - to resolve conflicts and create new ones. Players are _supposed_ to push and risk their characters . . .

Participate. Help enhance your friends' scnes and step forward and make the most of your own.​
Players have a duty to participate and drive the story. To step up. To enhance one anothers' scenes (that's non-zero sum spotlight). The driving of the story happens because the GM (i) meshes all those player intents into a coherent whole (greater than the sum of the parts), and (ii) generates consequences.

If a player won't step up, won't drive the story, won't risk his/her PC by engaging the fiction, then that player is not going to have the same degree of impact on play, and is not going to get the same attention.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 23, 2017)

So... Ovinomancer has said repeatedly that you are on a Burning Wheel paradigm that has very limited applicability to D&D.  And after spinning around in circles for several pages to essentially deny that and claim actual relevant experiences for your claims you finally come out and literally post some GMing advice from Burning Wheel?

Is this the point where we can wow just wow yet?

  [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION], you've had more patience than you should. Yes, you've completely devastated the arguments, such as they were, but it turns out you weren't in an argument. You were merely the target for some kind of public aggravating performance art.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 28, 2017)

@Hobo,   [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] is the one who referred to "most GM advice for player-driven games".

And this isn't the D&D subforum. It's the general RP subforum.

But here's some advice from a D&D book about player-driven RPGing which says nothing about GM-driven spotlight sharing and emphasises the correlation between player skill and contribution to the shape and direction of play; and which also denies a zero-sum conception of the results of player skill:

First get in touch with all those who will be included in the adventure, or if all are not available, at least talk to the better players so that you will be able to set an objective for the adventure. Whether the purpose is so simple as to discover a flight of stairs to the next lowest unexplored level or so difficult as to find and destroy on altar to an alien god, some firm obiective should be established and then adhered to as strongly as possible. . . .

Superior play makes the game more enjoyable for all participants, DM and players alike. It allows more actual playing time. It makes play more interesting. The DM will have to respond to superior ploy by extending himself or herself to pose bigger and better problems for the party to solve. This in turn means more enjoyment for the players.​
AD&D PHB, pp 107-9.

(Notice also that Gygax doesn't think you can be skilled and timid. Part of the skill of play is choosing an objective and then being prepared to stick to it. That's not a logical claim. It's a claim about what constitutes skill in the activity in question.)


----------



## Tony Vargas (Nov 28, 2017)

Lanefan said:


> First: that being in the spotlight is the main - or only - route to enjoyment of the game.  Not at all true.



 I don't exactly disagree, but it does seem a key assumption of 'spotlight balance...'

...absent that assumption, it could be fine for one player to play the James Bond or Gandalf or whatever, and the rest of the players side-kicks and supporting cast who are just there to ooh an ah over his feats.  



> Second: that there's this "spotlight" resource that the players (not characters) are actively and intentionally always competing for in a greedy sort of way.  While it's true that a DM only has so much attention to go around, it's not necessarily true that there's always (or ever, in some cases) active competition for said attention



 That may or may not be true depending on the proclivities of the group.  But, a system can have 'netrunner syndrome' (there can be aspects of the game that can only be resolved 1:1 and outright exclude other players), or not, regardless of how a give group feels about being spectators for a while.



> Second, part 2: that a DM can't divide her attention and-or focus on two or more things at once.



 All talk of 'multitasking' aside, yeah, that's a limitation of human DMs.  



> Second, part 3: that the only "spotlight" that matters is that of having the DM's attention.  It's entirely possible, for example, that two PCs (and thus players) are engaged in their own private discussion while the DM sorts out PCs three and four.  Here there's two independent spotlights - players one and two have one (their own discussion) while players three and four have the other; everybody's happy, and neither group sees or knows what the other is doing unless later narration makes it obvious.



Nod.  DM attention is a fair approximation of splotlight time, but the attention/interest of the rest of the table can be a part of it, too - and the attention being basically positive for your character, being exciting or interesting or at least successful.  Even if the DM spends a lot of time paying attention to your character as it fails miserably time & again and you get annoyed and frustrated, is it still 'spotlight?' 



> Third: that system mastery is the measure of how "good" someone is as a player.  Absolute garbage.



 Incomplete, anyway.  System mastery is one skill, and in some games, like 3.x D&D, a very potent or heavily over-rewarded one.  But there are others, skill at manipulating the DM is even more powerful & broadly applicable, for instance.  Gygaxian 'skilled play' is distinct from system mastery, too.


----------



## pemerton (Nov 28, 2017)

Lanefan said:


> Third: that system mastery is the measure of how "good" someone is as a player.  Absolute garbage.  One can be an excellent and engaged player, full of good ideas and creative solutions put forth by memorable and entertaining characters, and yet still not know what dice to roll when, or why; or how to roll up a character.





Tony Vargas said:


> Incomplete, anyway.  System mastery is one skill, and in some games, like 3.x D&D, a very potent or heavily over-rewarded one.  But there are others, skill at manipulating the DM is even more powerful & broadly applicable, for instance.  Gygaxian 'skilled play' is distinct from system mastery, too.



I haven't seen anyone in this thread assert that "system mastery" is the measure of how good someone is as a player.

But there are some RPGs in which a player who has a good mastery of intricate mechanics will exert a greater influence on the play of the game. I think 4e is likely to be such a game at many tables; by all accounts, so is 3E. My view would be that, if you don't want a game where mastery of the mechanics is an important component of player skill and ability, then you shouldn't play a game that has that result. Moldvay Basic would be an example of that among the D&D editions.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Nov 28, 2017)

Lanefan said:


> Third: that system mastery is the measure of how "good" someone is as a player.  Absolute garbage.  One can be an excellent and engaged player, full of good ideas and creative solutions put forth by memorable and entertaining characters, and yet still not know what dice to roll when, or why; or how to roll up a character.
> 
> Lanefan




I disagree.  I have that situation at my table and its infuriating when the game grinds to a halt as that player has to be told by the rest of the table why he should be doing X or using ability Y, or that yes you can attack twice per round.  though an excellent and engaged player would be stretching it in this case...


----------



## Campbell (Nov 29, 2017)

I know when I speak about skilled play I am not usually referencing skilled play of the mechanics nearly as much as skilled play of the fiction (or game world if you prefer). The fundamental skill of playing a roleplaying game is utilizing your knowledge of the game's underlying fiction to enact meaningful changes through your characters' capabilities. You can't spotlight balance around fictional positioning because outcomes can't be dictated ahead of time while respecting it.


----------



## ccs (Nov 29, 2017)

_Originally Posted by Lanefan View Post 

Third: that system mastery is the measure of how "good" someone is as a player. Absolute garbage. One can be an excellent and engaged player, full of good ideas and creative solutions put forth by memorable and entertaining characters, and yet still not know what dice to roll when, or why; or how to roll up a character.

 Lanefan_



Flexor the Mighty! said:


> I disagree.  I have that situation at my table and its infuriating when the game grinds to a halt as that player has to be told by the rest of the table why he should be doing X or using ability Y, or that yes you can attack twice per round.  though an excellent and engaged player would be stretching it in this case...




And I'll disagree with you.  
I've got a brand new player (a friends daughter) in the ToA game I'm running.  What she actually knows about the rules atm wouldn't fill a dice bag.
But she is 101% eager to play, fully engaged (more so than some of the more veteran players), full of ideas (not always _good_ ones from a technical PoV, but....) & creative solutions.  Her character is quite entertaining & will definitely be remembered (probably because of whatever absurd & self-inflicted way she finally gets killed).
She lacks almost any degree of system mastery.  But she's a good player.


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 29, 2017)

Flexor the Mighty! said:


> I disagree.  I have that situation at my table and its infuriating when the game grinds to a halt as that player has to be told by the rest of the table why he should be doing X or using ability Y, or that yes you can attack twice per round.  though an excellent and engaged player would be stretching it in this case...




I find it hard to say that any player of a hard-mechanics system (like D&D) can be considered "excellent" if they do not have a strong grasp of at least the fundamental rules, and by that I set a minimum of: the rules required to play their character, which of course varies from character to character, but puts the burden on the player to understand what they bring to the table.  IME, it is hard not only for the individual player, but also for the group and the DM, to remain engaged when we are constantly having to stop and inform them that they must do X before Y, or that's the wrong die to use, or any other number of rules corrections.  The inverse only makes things worse: if we are to consider a person an "excellent player" but exclude any level of system mastery from the equation, the rest of the table is forced to play on their terms, which frankly is unacceptable.  No game should be forced to alter the way _everyone_ plays because one person is unwilling, unable or uninterested in learning the rules.

For games with soft-mechanics (role-play heavy systems) I certainly agree that an engaged player is much more valuable than a rules-knowledgeable one, since the game is designed to be more flexible about what the player wants to do, rather than what the system _allows_ the player to do.

Good ideas, creative solutions, engagement in the game frankly don't cut it when that same person is holding up the show over which die to roll for their longsword or which stat bonus they add to melee damage.  That might make for a person you're willing to teach and help them improve, but I'd never consider them an excellent player in a hard-mechanics system until they've raised their degree of game knowledge.

Again IME: it's much easier to be a good role-player when you're also a good roll-player.  When those roll-motions become learned they become fluid and they slide into the background allowing for much more focus on the role-play.


----------



## Jody Nixon (Nov 29, 2017)

i ask the players for input and then flesh out the backstory a bit further inserting plot hooks and NPC's that i think they might actually meet.
I now have 5 players in my group and i plan to have an adventure based around each players background. They are all from various regions in the game world so it will be a chance to visit new locations but with a purpose that relates to each pcs background. i have an epic story arc in mind and look fwd to how things evolve once the party move about on some new adventures.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Nov 29, 2017)

shidaku said:


> I find it hard to say that any player of a hard-mechanics system (like D&D) can be considered "excellent" if they do not have a strong grasp of at least the fundamental rules, and by that I set a minimum of: the rules required to play their character, which of course varies from character to character, but puts the burden on the player to understand what they bring to the table.  IME, it is hard not only for the individual player, but also for the group and the DM, to remain engaged when we are constantly having to stop and inform them that they must do X before Y, or that's the wrong die to use, or any other number of rules corrections.  The inverse only makes things worse: if we are to consider a person an "excellent player" but exclude any level of system mastery from the equation, the rest of the table is forced to play on their terms, which frankly is unacceptable.  No game should be forced to alter the way _everyone_ plays because one person is unwilling, unable or uninterested in learning the rules.
> 
> For games with soft-mechanics (role-play heavy systems) I certainly agree that an engaged player is much more valuable than a rules-knowledgeable one, since the game is designed to be more flexible about what the player wants to do, rather than what the system _allows_ the player to do.
> 
> ...




Or, you end up with the problem I'm trying to fix in my group -- asking to make checks instead of stating a course of action.  I'm guilty as charged on this as well, for quite some time, but I found it increasingly frustrating to have my players think in terms of the checks rather than what they want their characters to _do_.  It's a hard thing to unlearn, apparently.  

So, to sum up, I disagree, in part.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Nov 29, 2017)

Ovinomancer said:


> Or, you end up with the problem I'm trying to fix in my group -- asking to make checks instead of stating a course of action.  I'm guilty as charged on this as well, for quite some time, but I found it increasingly frustrating to have my players think in terms of the checks rather than what they want their characters to _do_.  It's a hard thing to unlearn, apparently.
> 
> So, to sum up, I disagree, in part.




I know another poster here is always beating this drum but I'm always telling my players to try to avoid rolling the dice if they can, tell me what you want to do and maybe you won't have to roll the dice and take the chance.  The dice resolve uncertainty.   But like you say they  lead off with "I want to make a skill check" before even telling me what they are trying to do.   Its almost like they figure if they make a skill check I will tell them something they have not thought of or something.  

"As soon as we get to town I want to make a Gather Information check!"
"what for?"
"to gather information"
"about what?"
"you know, information!"

To me skilled play is mostly be able to avoid using the dice as much as possible by engaging with the DM and the information he is giving you.  Why leave it up to a dice roll when a clever question or action will remove the uncertainty. 

I have grown to see why some gamers dislike skill systems since it reinforced this kind of thinking IMO.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Nov 29, 2017)

ccs said:


> _Originally Posted by Lanefan View Post
> 
> Third: that system mastery is the measure of how "good" someone is as a player. Absolute garbage. One can be an excellent and engaged player, full of good ideas and creative solutions put forth by memorable and entertaining characters, and yet still not know what dice to roll when, or why; or how to roll up a character.
> 
> ...




I'm not saying its impossible, but personally I find that knowing how to play the game you are playing helps a lot, and avoids one player having to take a lot longer each round as the table tries to fit their great ideas into the game mechanics.


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 29, 2017)

Ovinomancer said:


> Or, you end up with the problem I'm trying to fix in my group -- asking to make checks instead of stating a course of action.  I'm guilty as charged on this as well, for quite some time, but I found it increasingly frustrating to have my players think in terms of the checks rather than what they want their characters to _do_.  It's a hard thing to unlearn, apparently.
> 
> So, to sum up, I disagree, in part.




I think this depends largely on what edition you "grew up" with.  Most of my play came in 4E, which was very big on _tell_ the DM what you are going to do to do instead of _ask_ the DM what you want to do, and it remains my approach to this day.  I tell what I'm going to do and the DM tells me what I need to roll to achieve that.  Even if its as gamist a statement of "I want to use my Diplomacy skill to try and avoid a fight."  I don't expect my players to have the skilled tongue of a diplomat, that's what skill checks and dice are for.  If a player could just talk their way out of a fight with real words, we wouldn't need rules!


----------



## Ovinomancer (Nov 29, 2017)

shidaku said:


> I think this depends largely on what edition you "grew up" with.  Most of my play came in 4E, which was very big on _tell_ the DM what you are going to do to do instead of _ask_ the DM what you want to do, and it remains my approach to this day.  I tell what I'm going to do and the DM tells me what I need to roll to achieve that.  Even if its as gamist a statement of "I want to use my Diplomacy skill to try and avoid a fight."  I don't expect my players to have the skilled tongue of a diplomat, that's what skill checks and dice are for.  If a player could just talk their way out of a fight with real words, we wouldn't need rules!




You're missing the point.  In your example, your player says "I want to use my Diplomacy skill to try and avoid a fight."  That's exactly the issue I'm trying to erase from my players.  I want them to instead say "I try to talk my way out of this fight," or, "I want the convince the other side that fighting us will go badly for them."  Then I'll say, "They seem pretty intent on fighting, so let's go with a DC 15 Charisma check.  You can add (Persuasion or Intimidate depending on approach)."  

I want my players to focus more on what they're trying to accomplish and the general path on how, and not look at their character sheets and pick a skill to try out.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Nov 29, 2017)

Do you guys give anything for a player wanting to role play social encounters? Or is the result of the Persuasion check the only thing that matters?


----------



## Caliban (Nov 29, 2017)

Flexor the Mighty! said:


> Do you guys give anything for a player wanting to role play social encounters? Or is the result of the Persuasion check the only thing that matters?




I can't speak for anyone else, but personally if the PC's make a good enough case there may not be a need to role any dice. 

But much more often I will have their roleplay and logic/bribes/etc they present affect the target DC, or give advantage/disadvantage.   
(I try to have "logic/bribes/ect" change the DC, while roleplay gives adv/disadv" but I'm not as consistent about it as I should be.  I'm usually just winging it.)

And if it's a plot important social interaction, failing their social checks doesn't mean they don't get what they want, it just means it will cost them more to get it, or have other consequences.   (Recently had a social challenge of "bargain with the thieves guild to be guided to a secret entrance to the palace" - they failed the social check, but they still got the guide.  They just now owe the thieves guild a major favor, instead of the guild agreeing to do it because the PC's mission would also help them.)


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 30, 2017)

Ovinomancer said:


> You're missing the point.  In your example, your player says "I want to use my Diplomacy skill to try and avoid a fight."  That's exactly the issue I'm trying to erase from my players.  I want them to instead say "I try to talk my way out of this fight," or, "I want the convince the other side that fighting us will go badly for them."  Then I'll say, "They seem pretty intent on fighting, so let's go with a DC 15 Charisma check.  You can add (Persuasion or Intimidate depending on approach)."
> 
> I want my players to focus more on what they're trying to accomplish and the general path on how, and not look at their character sheets and pick a skill to try out.




The problem I have with your variation is that it's not explicit on how the player wants to resolve the situation.  Sure, they want to talk...but there are several skills which cover "talking".  Without specifying, I've been at tables where saying "I want to try to talk things out." gives the DM room to say "Oh well, that one skill that nobody in the party has?  Yeah that's the talking skill you need."  

By specifying which skill they want to use, they're specifying _how_ they want to resolve the situation, how they want to frame the talking.  Are we big tough scary adventurers intimidating our foes?  Are we suave smooth-talking criminals with a silver tongue?  The player is deciding how they want to frame their attempt by naming the skill they want to use, instead of simply reacting to DM scene-framing by rolling whatever check the DM says is necessary.

And really, you're not going to reduce "skill-naming" by giving out DCs like that.  It's just going to make the players reactionary.  Oh there's a DC?  I can roll for that.

When a player tells me they want to talk things out, my first response is "How?" then they'll usually indicate if they're going to use honey or vinegar and if they want to actually role-play what they're saying that's great and then I'll roll behind the scenes for how well their attempt was received.

There's no point in actually having skills, in doing the work to math out skills, in writing down all your skills if your DM is just going to tell you to turn your sheet upside down.  You need to know what skills you have and you need to know when you want to use them.


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 30, 2017)

Flexor the Mighty! said:


> Do you guys give anything for a player wanting to role play social encounters? Or is the result of the Persuasion check the only thing that matters?




I don't adjust the challenge no.  Role-playing through a social encounter is just as sound an approach as roll-playing.  It's really up to the party the sort of depth they want to go into.  Role-playing through an encounter will reward the party with a deeper, richer experience, while roll-playing will result in a shallower one.  Some players aren't looking for an in-depth political discussion with the NPCs, some players are.  I try to balance players wants when designing an encounter, and I also don't want to spend a long time on one player who likes to get chatty. (had those players, so annoying)

I think I talked about this before, but I try to give all my meaningful NPCs three "motivations".  They can be vague such as money, women and power or specific like "that ancient coin", "the princess" or "lichdom".  Playing to an NPCs motivations (or against them) reduces or increases the DCs respectively.  If the players have taken the time to learn about this NPC, they should know at least one of that NPCs motivations.  

But just pure role play?  No.  I don't reward that any more than anything else.  I would prefer players enjoy the game than enjoy the game _in a specific way_.


----------



## Mort (Nov 30, 2017)

Flexor the Mighty! said:


> Do you guys give anything for a player wanting to role play social encounters? Or is the result of the Persuasion check the only thing that matters?



A true role player can role play the results of the persuasion check. 

Sent from my SM-G930V using EN World mobile app


----------



## Mort (Nov 30, 2017)

Caliban said:


> I can't speak for anyone else, but personally if the PC's make a good enough case there may not be a need to role any dice.




Do you take into account who's making the case? 

For example, the CHA 8 character's player makes a great argument to get past the guards, does the fact that he's not that charismatic factor in? 

What if the player does this consistently, essentially ignoring the fact that the character isn't all that pursuasive? 



Sent from my SM-G930V using EN World mobile app


----------



## Sunseeker (Nov 30, 2017)

Mort said:


> Do you take into account who's making the case?
> 
> For example, the CHA 8 character's player makes a great argument to get past the guards, does the fact that he's not that charismatic factor in?
> 
> ...




This is exactly why I don't reduce challenge difficulty based on the words players use.  I've played with some _highly_ intelligent and well-spoken people who could literally charm your pants off without rolling a d20.  IMO: your score is the lens through whatever you say IRL is translated.  People with high mental stats sound good "in character" regardless of if they sound good in person.  If you let a person's _player_ skill override their _character_ skill, you're essentially ignoring having character stats at all.


----------



## Caliban (Nov 30, 2017)

Mort said:


> Do you take into account who's making the case?
> 
> For example, the CHA 8 character's player makes a great argument to get past the guards, does the fact that he's not that charismatic factor in?




It factors into their Persuasion skill.  I don't see why I should penalize them (or reward them) twice for it.   





> What if the player does this consistently, essentially ignoring the fact that the character isn't all that pursuasive?




Once again, how persuasive they are is determined by by their Persuasion modifier. 

If I feel the player is using good role playing while making their case, they might get Advantage on the roll (or Disadvantage if they are doing a poor job or being deliberately insulting or something). 

If they make good logical arguments (or  good emotional arguments), or offering appropriate incentives, I'll usually have that modify the DC of the check. 

In theory - like I said, I'm usually winging it myself and I'm not always consistent.   It's a game, not a job.

And sometimes good enough roleplay or reasoning means there really isn't a need to roll the dice.   Just like bad enough roleplaying or being really insulting to the NPC can mean you fail without needing to roll the dice.  But that's fairly rare.


----------



## Lanefan (Nov 30, 2017)

Mort said:


> A true role player can role play the results of the persuasion check.



Isn't that kind of putting the cart before the horse?  You know the end result up front and then you back-play from there, rather than playing it out first and allowing that to determine or influence the end result.

Somehow that seems...really odd.

And when someone says something like "I want to use my Diplomacy skill to talk us out of this false arrest" my response would be something like "Good.  What do you say to the constable?", in an attempt to force the play back into character and out of meta.  There's no meta-rolls without first role-playing it through in character.


----------



## Mort (Nov 30, 2017)

Lanefan said:


> Isn't that kind of putting the cart before the horse?  You know the end result up front and then you back-play from there, rather than playing it out first and allowing that to determine or influence the end result.
> 
> Somehow that seems...really odd.
> 
> And when someone says something like "I want to use my Diplomacy skill to talk us out of this false arrest" my response would be something like "Good.  What do you say to the constable?", in an attempt to force the play back into character and out of meta.  There's no meta-rolls without first role-playing it through in character.



Conducted a poll a while back and about 10% of respondents actually do it this way.

I generally don't, but the post was more to make a point - roleplayers can adjust to the circumstances they're given.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Nov 30, 2017)

shidaku said:


> The problem I have with your variation is that it's not explicit on how the player wants to resolve the situation.  Sure, they want to talk...but there are several skills which cover "talking".  Without specifying, I've been at tables where saying "I want to try to talk things out." gives the DM room to say "Oh well, that one skill that nobody in the party has?  Yeah that's the talking skill you need."




Well, we're adult people in a social game -- if there are questions on approach, we resolve them.  It's not anything like a "You said it, and now nothing else can be said."  But, yeah, I guess if you have a gotcha jerk as DM, your last bit there might be a problem, but I'd rather just not play with that DM.


> By specifying which skill they want to use, they're specifying _how_ they want to resolve the situation, how they want to frame the talking.  Are we big tough scary adventurers intimidating our foes?  Are we suave smooth-talking criminals with a silver tongue?  The player is deciding how they want to frame their attempt by naming the skill they want to use, instead of simply reacting to DM scene-framing by rolling whatever check the DM says is necessary.



Again, you miss the point.  The player is still deciding how they engage the framing, but instead of going straight to mechanics they just naturally say what they want to.do.  If the DM thinks that works without a roll, then it works, no mechanics needed.  Only at the point a declared approach is uncertain are mechanics engaged, and they're engaged unsung the player stated approach, not a predetermined DM skill check.



> And really, you're not going to reduce "skill-naming" by giving out DCs like that.  It's just going to make the players reactionary.  Oh there's a DC?  I can roll for that.



The DC isn't given until the roll and stakes ate set based on the layers declared action and approach, so, again, you've missed the point.



> When a player tells me they want to talk things out, my first response is "How?" then they'll usually indicate if they're going to use honey or vinegar and if they want to actually role-play what they're saying that's great and then I'll roll behind the scenes for how well their attempt was received.



Right up until your roll begins the screen is what hastens at my table.  I don't roll dice for my players, though.  If it's uncertain, they roll, and success and failure are clearly set.


> There's no point in actually having skills, in doing the work to math out skills, in writing down all your skills if your DM is just going to tell you to turn your sheet upside down.  You need to know what skills you have and you need to know when you want to use them.




Is it really so hard for a player to know that they have a good persuasion score to declare actions that frame advantage of that score without says "I roll persuasion!"?  How the player forms action declarations is up to them.  If you imagine your players turn stupid ou'd the can't just name skills on their character sheet, that's on you.


----------



## pemerton (Dec 2, 2017)

Campbell said:


> I know when I speak about skilled play I am not usually referencing skilled play of the mechanics nearly as much as skilled play of the fiction (or game world if you prefer). The fundamental skill of playing a roleplaying game is utilizing your knowledge of the game's underlying fiction to enact meaningful changes through your characters' capabilities. You can't spotlight balance around fictional positioning because outcomes can't be dictated ahead of time while respecting it.



I think this is a similar point to my response to [MENTION=32740]Man in the Funny Hat[/MENTION].

It seems to me that the only way to ensure that players who don't engage the fiction get as much "attention"/"spotlight", or have as much effect on play, as those who do engage the fiction, is for the GM to manage the fiction so that engagement doesn't matter that much.

And that's not an approach to RPGing that I enjoy.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Dec 2, 2017)

Lanefan said:


> Isn't that kind of putting the cart before the horse?  You know the end result up front and then you back-play from there, rather than playing it out first and allowing that to determine or influence the end result.
> 
> Somehow that seems...really odd.



From what I recall, this is similar to how Gygax might have done it. The example that's stuck in my head, because it runs counter to so much of what I understand about how an RPG is supposed to work, was a description of saving against a dragon's breath weapon. In the example, the fighter is chained up to a rock as a dragon bears down on him to breathe fire; but the saving throw is successful, which is narrated as the chain having a loose link, so the fighter must have broken free at the last second to hide behind the rock.

The way I would run it, being chained up to a rock would cause the fighter to automatically fail the save, and hiding behind the rock _before_ the dragon breathes would give an advantage on the saving throw.


----------



## Mort (Dec 2, 2017)

Saelorn said:


> The way I would run it, being chained up to a rock would cause the fighter to automatically fail the save, and hiding behind the rock _before_ the dragon breathes would give an advantage on the saving throw.




While I see your point, I hate auto fail on saves. Sometimes massive luck is a thing. 

Also, rolling first and then describing the result seems a much easier for saving throws /attack rolls etc. Then for a social check - even though, strictly in game terms, it is the exact same concept. 

I'd be willing to bet that many of not most actually do roll the saving throw or attack roll before describing the result as opposed to a social check - where very few tables roll first. 





Sent from my SM-G930V using EN World mobile app


----------



## DireHammer (Dec 3, 2017)

I give 100 experience points per character level for a paragraph of background, and this can be cashed in once per level.  If you give me a paragraph at the beginning of a campaign and then another every time you level you can keep racking up those bonus xp.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Dec 4, 2017)

Mort said:


> While I see your point, I hate auto fail on saves. Sometimes massive luck is a thing.



Sure, but massive luck doesn't come up even five percent of the time, and the die is incapable of finer granularity than that. That's why you can't dodge while paralyzed or restrained, and an attack against you is automatically a crit if you're unconscious.



Mort said:


> I'd be willing to bet that many of not most actually do roll the saving throw or attack roll before describing the result as opposed to a social check - where very few tables roll first.



I agree, but I doubt the narration at most tables would alter the circumstances to quite the degree of the example. In most games, the initial integrity of the chain is not something which can _causally_ be affected by your ability to evade dragon fire; likewise with where you were standing at the time the dragon breathed. Most tables (in my experience) would narrate that you somehow managed to turn your back to the blast, which is why you took half damage instead of full.

That is somewhat of an inconsistency in play, now that you mention it. I guess that making the social process conform to the standard process might cause problems, because players expect to have a high degree of control over what they say, and telling someone to verbalize the exact words of a failed check would seem like an artificial constraint on their ability to role-play; so instead, the character says exactly what the player intends for them to say, and the roll determines how that approach is received.


----------



## RobertBrus (Dec 4, 2017)

I don't require anything above what the rules require to create the character. However, I strongly urge/cajole/promote the importance of building a multi-dimensional character. If we play RPG's, yet only play the stats, are we really playing an RPG? And if so, what constitutes the "Role?"
   The character should be more than a tool wielded by the player, in which it is simply used as an extension of the player without any regard for the inner life of the character. I am not suggesting we become trained actors, though that would make things more interesting, but to bring some of the personality of the character into the game the game. Otherwise I would suggest we are not playing an RPG, but a glorified form of Yatze or Farkle.  
  The character needs a personality different from the player, with its own wants and needs. The player then has the additional joy of playing with these things. To pretend to be a fantasy character in a story told round a table is part and parcel of the joy of an RPG. 
   In short, why not encourage bringing in storytelling elements that include personalities that have a life of their own. Not what would I do, what would my character do? And to answer that question, I need first establish what makes my character tick. And that is far more than numbers and die rolls, that is backstory.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 4, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> Well, we're adult people in a social game -- if there are questions on approach, we resolve them.  It's not anything like a "You said it, and now nothing else can be said."  But, yeah, I guess if you have a gotcha jerk as DM, your last bit there might be a problem, but I'd rather just not play with that DM.




I've decided that my lack of patience with rulesy, RAW approaches have to do with the incredibly high correlation between players with that attribute and players who are poor at socializiation.  The rules _substitute_ to a great degree for having the social skills to manage interactions with other players without devolving into either a purity spiral spergatron or an antisocial misanthrope who doesn't have healthy friend relationships with their fellow players.

As a side effect, I'm also comfortable telling people who I'm also friends with that we shouldn't game together if what we want from the experience is so different that we're merely likely to frustrate each other.

It's amazing to me as I engage in these types of discussions to see how many D&D "rules problems" are really social problems that can (and almost certainly should) be solved socially.  When I see rules used as a patch to cover bad social behavior, that's a MAJOR red flag that I shouldn't be gaming with these people.  The real rule zero, which shouldn't have to be stated, but I'm more and more convinced that maybe sometimes it does, is that "This is just a game and nothing that happens in game should jeopardize actual friendships or social interactions.  If it does, you're definitely doing it wrong."


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jan 4, 2018)

Desdichado said:


> I've decided that my lack of patience with rulesy, RAW approaches have to do with the incredibly high correlation between players with that attribute and players who are poor at socializiation.  The rules _substitute_ to a great degree for having the social skills to manage interactions with other players without devolving into either a purity spiral spergatron or an antisocial misanthrope who doesn't have healthy friend relationships with their fellow players.
> 
> As a side effect, I'm also comfortable telling people who I'm also friends with that we shouldn't game together if what we want from the experience is so different that we're merely likely to frustrate each other.
> 
> It's amazing to me as I engage in these types of discussions to see how many D&D "rules problems" are really social problems that can (and almost certainly should) be solved socially.  When I see rules used as a patch to cover bad social behavior, that's a MAJOR red flag that I shouldn't be gaming with these people.  The real rule zero, which shouldn't have to be stated, but I'm more and more convinced that maybe sometimes it does, is that "This is just a game and nothing that happens in game should jeopardize actual friendships or social interactions.  If it does, you're definitely doing it wrong."




Well, all that being good and all, but I'm still going to call you Hobo even if you've indicated you'd prefer a different moniker.  I lack the social graces necessary to honor your preference in this matter.


----------



## Henry (Jan 5, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> Well, all that being good and all, but I'm still going to call you Hobo even if you've indicated you'd prefer a different moniker.  I lack the social graces necessary to honor your preference in this matter.




It’s like an artist - it’s his “post-Hobo” period.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jan 5, 2018)

Henry said:


> It’s like an artist - it’s his “post-Hobo” period.




So, maybe, the "Poster Formerly Known as Hobo?"


----------



## Jhaelen (Jan 8, 2018)

TPFKAH? It's a bit hard to pronounce, though.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jan 8, 2018)

Jhaelen said:


> TPFKAH? It's a bit hard to pronounce, though.



I think if we shorten it to FKAH, that'll suit him just fine.  Honestly, it's close to how I usually pronounced his old screen name.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 9, 2018)

Jhaelen said:


> TPFKAH? It's a bit hard to pronounce, though.




If you can put a schwa in between t and p and pronounce the fk without a break, it's not so bad.  Still easier than Cthulhu.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jan 9, 2018)

Desdichado said:


> If you can put a schwa in between t and p and pronounce the fk without a break, it's not so bad.  Still easier than Cthulhu.



Hobo:  easier than Cthulhu.  :djr:


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 10, 2018)

Ovinomancer said:


> Hobo:  easier than Cthulhu.  :djr:




That's not saying much.  Have _*you*_ ever tried to hit on a Great Old One?  Timing is everything.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jan 10, 2018)

Desdichado said:


> That's not saying much.  Have _*you*_ ever tried to hit on a Great Old One?  Timing is everything.




Not me personally, but I knew this one guy, Rodrigo... perhaps you've heard of him?


----------

